Most general case of the Twin Paradox

[Edgar L. Owen]

Disregarding gravitation:

Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in proper times in the most general case above?

Thanks,
Edgar

[JanPB]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:39:53 PM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Disregarding gravitation:
>
> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.
>
> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.
>
> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

Yes. (Assuming I understand your question correctly.)

--
Jan

[rotchm]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:39:53 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Disregarding gravitation:

Ok

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe,

Simpler said: B leaves A.
Or, A & B initially coincide.

> each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

They travel & return to each other.
Or, they coincide again.

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different
> elapsed proper times.

Yes. Or simpler: Their values generally differ.

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper
> time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its
> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point?

No, because a velocity wrt a "point" makes no sense. A velocity is wrt a reference frame, a coordinate system, and preferably, an inertial one (since poisint & time 7 thus velocity has a well given definition).

You meant that their elapsed proper time will be equal to the

sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

velocity RELATIVE to any chosen inertial frame.

>Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE
> to a clock at the eventual meeting point

Their end values will be their end values, just as the clock at their meeting point. All three clocks will have *values* as they all coincide.

> (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock

That doesn't quite make any sense. "the value of their clock" is what you meant?

usually we talk of 'coordinate time' wrt an inertial frame, not a of a clock.

> as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?
>
> If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in
> proper times in the most general case above?

Given any inertial frame F, one can describe the trajectory x(t) of any "traveling clock". You can find the value of this/these clocks(or any where else in the F frame) by using the "summation of the TD"; by
evaluating ∫√( 1 + b²)dt where b = d(x(t))/dt where x(t) is the trajectory
of the clock as described by F.

[Edgar L. Owen]

OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

But problem 2. is how could motion wrt a meeting point which may not yet even have been determined possibly determine the actual proper time rates of the twin's clocks during their separation before their meeting? That just doesn't make sense to me.

It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

Intuitively the only explanation that makes sense to me to explain the clearly actual proper time disparity would be that it's due to motion wrt some absolute frame (aggregate mass of universe) rather than motion wrt some arbitrary meeting point somehow controlling how their proper times varied during their separation.

Thoughts?
Edgar

[rotchm]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:02:43 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> ...the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something

> actual since both twins agree on it.

Yes.

> That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming
> 'clocks always run at the same rate'.

This is where I see that you are a dishonest hypocrite.
I asked you a simple question relating to this concept and you have refused to answer. Why?


Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.
You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,
the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.
Which one ticked faster? Slower?

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:53:58 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote:
> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.
> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,
> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.
> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

Simple. Check them both w.r.t GPS atomic clocks.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.
>

> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.
>

For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.

+1 Amen!

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 05:23:58 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.
> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,
> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.
> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

For a sane guy it's obvious, the one of 2:31 has
ticked faster (assuming none of them was reset).
But you're a fanatic idiot following some mystical
bullshit; heavens only know what answer you'll
announce as the correct one.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 10:08:46 UTC+2, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.
> >
> > It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.
> >
>
> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

Man, get conscious. Take a look around you.
I'm sure you'll find some clocks with
different elepsed times without any
separation.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:49:48 PM UTC+5:30, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Man, get conscious. Take a look around you.
> I'm sure you'll find some clocks with
> different elepsed times without any
> separation.

@maluw

A skeptic should be open to the possibility that the theory he is skeptical about, could after all be correct.

IF the experiment described in this post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

gives a NON-NULL result, in particular IF it turns out that:

[(B_end - A_0) - (M_end - M_0)] is NOT normally distributed with zero mean,

BUT instead,

(B_end - A_0) ≈ γ(M_end - M_0),

even after a thorough verification, clocks are not defective, battery packs are reliable, no confounding effects, etc., THEN, it is very likely that STR is actually correct.

However, as Tom himself has admitted, the experiment described has never been conducted, since it has been estimated that for attainable velocities, the "systemic errors would great outweigh the predicted effect".

Tom instead lists FIVE other experiments which we are supposed to take as equivalent to the described experiment:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Twin_paradox

Of these,
- Hafele & Keating is useless as it has too much variance and unfavorable results were omitted.
- gravity probe A is yet another frequency-shift experiment or a test of "time-dilation".
- the two experiments with muon's are unsatisfactory, since we do not know for sure if the muon disintegration mechanism is equivalent to a countdown timer.

So we are down to just ONE. If this is also carefully checked, it is highly likely there will be flaws.

=====================
C. Alley, “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,” in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363–427.

They flew atomic clocks in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.
=====================

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different
> elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is
> clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time
> rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate
> times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming
> 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show
> different elapsed times they can only have been running at different
> proper time rates during their separation.

No, that’s where you are forcing a false dichotomy. There’s a third option.

> That's problem 1.
>
> But problem 2. is how could motion wrt a meeting point which may not yet
> even have been determined possibly determine the actual proper time rates
> of the twin's clocks during their separation before their meeting? That
> just doesn't make sense to me.

Because it’s not the meeting POINT that matters but the frame of reference
in which the meeting point is at rest that matters.

>
> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates
> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon
> meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.
>
> Intuitively the only explanation that makes sense to me to explain the
> clearly actual proper time disparity would be that it's due to motion wrt
> some absolute frame (aggregate mass of universe) rather than motion wrt
> some arbitrary meeting point somehow controlling how their proper times
> varied during their separation.
>
> Thoughts?
> Edgar
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

At rest in which frame?

[Odd Bodkin]

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the
>> different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon
>> meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both
>> proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to
>> coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm
>> claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to
>> show different elapsed times they can only have been running at
>> different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.
>>
>> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates
>> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon
>> meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.
>>
>
> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have
> been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

False dichotomy. There’s a third option.

> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates
> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.
>
> +1 Amen!
>

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 4:20:11 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have
> > been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

> > It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates
> > during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.

> False dichotomy. There’s a third option.

3rd option, which is ???

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Being in denial.

[Python]

Something you are very familiar with, aren't you Mr FRAUD Wozniak?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Yes, poor halfbrain, I am very familiar with
your being in denial.

[Python]

Like biologists in denial of creationism, M.D. in denial of homeopathy,
climatologists in denial of oil company propaganda. Sure, Mr FRAUD
Wozniak.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

No. Like insane fanatic cultists denying
common sense.

[Python]

What does common sense say about the likelihood of two people (or more)
sharing the same birthday date in a class of twenty people?

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:36:25 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:

> What does common sense say about the likelihood of two people (or more)
> sharing the same birthday date in a class of twenty people?

My gut feeling tells me a little less that 50%.
So my gut feeling is somewhere between 40% & 49%.

[Odd Bodkin]

There are many ways to explain it, for which ample reading in textbooks
helps. Geroch’s book on General Relativity from A to B is good as a start.

One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,
ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is
governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and
engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be
passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not
active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not
sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have
physical properties, which is also not true.

There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices
loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all
processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those
various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details
of how those devices or processes work.

Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks
synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively
moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.
The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to
those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The
answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,
they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and
length contraction than it first appears.

The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical
physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is
the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again
heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels
universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.
That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not
cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that
momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close
to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re
never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.
Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to
some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that
(thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular
symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical
laws are not material things.

So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false
dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in
fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead
to the barriers you are encountering.

Read. Read. Read.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:02:43 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their >separation. That’s problem 1.

The problem is that Einstein rejected the notion of absolute time. In doing so he embraced the notion that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time).....it is not. Tom and Rotchm accept Einstein’s false notion of time that a clock second is a universal interval of time and that’s why they said that ‘clocks always run at the same rate’. This creates your confusion.

In real life:
1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. This means that your twin will passed the same amount of absolute time between meetings.
2. But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. A clock second will represent a different amount of absolute time in different frames or in different gravitational potential.
3. This means that each twin will experience the same amount of absolute time between meetings. However, in terms of clock time: the clock that has a higher state of absolute motion or in lower gravitational potential will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.

4. I invite you to read the above concept time in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
Also read my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Pálek Slovù]

JanPB wrote:

>> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time
>> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its
>> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time
>> dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the
>> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as
>> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?
>
> Yes. (Assuming I understand your question correctly.)

We never know. You could also be just guessing, with a fifty-fifty chance.

[Odd Bodkin]

It never ceases to amaze me that people like Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Ned Latham,
and Richard Hertz can readily admit that they have read almost nothing on
the subject matter of this group — aside from some news items on the
internet, Usenet posts, and maybe a high school book — and still think that
their opinions, thoughts, and ideas should be treated on the same level
playing field as those by others who have more seriously studied the
subject. It’s arrogance of the highest order.

I will say it again. If any if the following is true:

— You don’t know the meaning of terms used in physics, and are content to
either substitute colloquial meanings as found in the dictionary or just
GUESS what you think they mean,

— You don’t have the prerequisite math skills to follow physics
presentations or to generate numerical consequences of other people’s idea
of your own ideas,

— You are unaware of the corpus of experimental data that has been gathered
to test various physics ideas, and you have no idea how to find them to
read about them,

— You have not bothered to read textbook presentations of the material,
because you find it frustrating or it takes too long or it costs money or
you can’t make head nor tail of it,

If any of the above are true, then you simply don’t know enough about the
subject to discuss it intelligently. And any attempt on your part to
discuss it ANYWAY (because you crave the attention) is a waste of your
time, and the only outcome is that you will cement a reputation for idiocy.

[Engr. Ravi]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>

Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.

> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,
> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is
> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and
> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be
> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not
> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not
> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have
> physical properties, which is also not true.

spacetime is a concept that is being scheduled for retirement, for totally different reasons, by many physicists at the vanguard of physics.

> There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices
> loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all
> processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those
> various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details
> of how those devices or processes work.

This is required by the principle of relativity. If time dilation is real, then it must affect all mechanisms in the same proportion regardless of their individual intricate processes. However, the far more simpler argument, again from the principle of relativity, is there is no real time dilation [this is consistent with experiment], so no mechanism is affected in any way by mere uniform motion, when viewed from the frame it is in rest. Of course when the mechanism has to be viewed from a frame in which it is moving, this requires using signals, which can and will be affected by the motion.

Our understanding of physics becomes deeper if we can figure out the mechanism behind real time dilation [if it exists]. When it was first proposed, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald attempted to give a mechanism of action using the aether theory.

> Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks
> synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively
> moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.
> The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to
> those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The
> answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,
> they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and
> length contraction than it first appears.

Ok, this is the relativity of simultaneity, a corner stone for STR, and Einstein's aha moment.

> The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical
> physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is
> the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again
> heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels
> universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.
> That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not
> cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that
> momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close
> to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re
> never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.
> Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to
> some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that
> (thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular
> symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical
> laws are not material things.

Physics aims at both, what the rules are, and also why they are the way they are. Sometimes we can only achieve the former, and that leaves us dissatisfied.

The conservation of momentum is traced back to Newton's third law that all forces between particles are equal and opposite, i.e., they are symmetrical. For each individual force, people have tried to understand why this is so. For example, Le Sage's theory of gravitation explains this for gravity and any emission/ballistic theory of electromagnetism explains this for electrical and magnetic forces via mechanisms.

The wholesale acceptance of Einstein's STR was indeed the death of deeper understanding in physics. Just read Maxwell's papers and the attention he gave to mechanisms. THAT was real physics. Now, even someone like Feynman says visualizing something like the EM field is simply impossible.

> So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false
> dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in
> fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead
> to the barriers you are encountering.

Tom's proposed experiment for verifying real time dilation is possibly the simplest possible. In that experiment if a NON-NULL result is obtained it is unavoidable to interpret the result as showing that the moving clocks actually ran differently. There is not much scope for a dicotomy here. A NULL result would however be the death of spacetime.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

[Edgar L. Owen]

> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.
> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,
> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.
> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

Rotchm,

This question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with proper time always running at the same rate. It's just inaccurate mechanisms. I see no point to it.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

I agree its the frame of reference of the meeting point but don't see how that changes the conclusion.

Edgar

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 24.09.2019 00.39, skrev Edgar L. Owen:
> Disregarding gravitation:
>
> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.
>
> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

>
> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?
>

> If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in proper times in the most general case above?
>
> Thanks,
> Edgar
>

See:
https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

Physicists have studied all that had been written for the last 110 years and they failed to come up with a unified theory. This mean that current physics is wrong or incomplete. It’s time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid unified theory and a new theory of gravity.

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:56:23 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.
> > You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> > the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31 pm.

> > Which one ticked faster? Slower?
>
> Rotchm,
>
> This question is irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant. Its that you just dont see it. Try to think about it. Try to answer it.

> It has nothing to do with proper time always running at the same rate.

Yes it does.

> It's just inaccurate mechanisms.

Really? Think a little harder.

> I see no point to it.

As you dont see the 'simplicity' of SR, the simplicity of what confuses you, hence all your naive questions.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

It says that if you want to know you shold calculate it.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/23/19 5:39 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Disregarding gravitation:
>
> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each
> take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.
>
> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed
> proper times.
>
> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time
> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its
> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz
> time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the
> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as
> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

This is true IF AND ONLY IF there exists an inertial frame in which the
clock at the eventual meeting point is always at rest, and that frame is
used to calculate all of the "time dilations".

Speed "relative to a point" is meaningless. Speed can only be measured
relative to some coordinate system, and is only simple if that
coordinate system is an inertial frame. So it makes no sense for a point
to be at rest in an inertial frame. But it does make sense for a clock.
So the "time dilations" are relative to that inertial frame of the
clock, not the eventual meeting point.

Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>
> Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.
>
>> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,
>> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is
>> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and
>> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be
>> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not
>> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not
>> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have
>> physical properties, which is also not true.
>
> spacetime is a concept that is being scheduled for retirement, for
> totally different reasons, by many physicists at the vanguard of physics.

Only in the same sense that Newtonian gravity has been “retired” by general
relativity or that Maxwell’s equations have been “retired” by quantum
electrodynamics. Much mistaken ado has been made of the comments by those
physicists. They are not saying that spacetime was a mistake or a blind
alley. They are saying that an even deeper and almost certainly stranger
model will come to the fore, with spacetime being the effective limit when
some parameter in the new system is small.

>
>> There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices
>> loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all
>> processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those
>> various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details
>> of how those devices or processes work.
>
> This is required by the principle of relativity. If time dilation is
> real, then it must affect all mechanisms in the same proportion
> regardless of their individual intricate processes.

I’m not sure what you mean “required by relativity”. Relativity is not a
physics concept like Lorentz symmetry or spacetime with measurable
properties. In other words, I don’t think there’s more value in saying
“required by relativity” as opposed to “due to the structure of spacetime”.
At least with the latter, you can quantify and point to mathematically
expressed foundations for why.

> However, the far more simpler argument, again from the principle of
> relativity, is there is no real time dilation [this is consistent with
> experiment], so no mechanism is affected in any way by mere uniform
> motion, when viewed from the frame it is in rest. Of course when the
> mechanism has to be viewed from a frame in which it is moving, this
> requires using signals, which can and will be affected by the motion.

And again, I would dispute that “real” time dilation means changes or
affects physical mechanisms.

Let me put it to you this way. If I view a tree while standing on the
ground, the tree’s kinetic energy is zero. If I view the same tree from out
in space and watch the tree get dragged along with the earth’s surface
moving at 600 mph as the earth rotates, that tree now has a lot of kinetic
energy. Now ask yourself whether this difference is “real”. If the
conclusion is that it’s not real, is it the claim that only one of those
values is real? Or that kinetic energy itself is not real?

>
> Our understanding of physics becomes deeper if we can figure out the
> mechanism behind real time dilation [if it exists]. When it was first
> proposed, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald attempted to give a mechanism of
> action using the aether theory.

That’s correct. Note that they took the stance that electromagnetic
interactions accounted for ALL physical mechanisms, that there was one and
only one interaction responsible for all processes. We of course now know
that was a bad gamble. And since there is not one single interaction that
is responsible for all physical processes, then the “reality” of time
dilation must be attributable to something other than a common physical
interaction.

>
>> Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks
>> synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively
>> moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.
>> The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to
>> those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The
>> answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,
>> they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and
>> length contraction than it first appears.
>
> Ok, this is the relativity of simultaneity, a corner stone for STR, and
> Einstein's aha moment.

And the thing to understand is how relativity of simultaneity is at the
root of other stuff like length contraction. To see this, length has an
OPERATIONAL meaning. Can you figure out what that is? Let me ask how you
would measure the length of a car moving relative to you?

>
>> The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical
>> physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is
>> the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again
>> heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels
>> universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.
>> That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not
>> cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that
>> momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close
>> to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re
>> never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.
>> Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to
>> some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that
>> (thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular
>> symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical
>> laws are not material things.
>
> Physics aims at both, what the rules are, and also why they are the way
> they are. Sometimes we can only achieve the former, and that leaves us dissatisfied.

The answer to the why is usually another rule, not a mechanism. It usually
has a broader scope and so is more fundamental than the prior rule. A good
example of this is that conservation of momentum is a rule that explains
both Newton’s first and third law. It is not a mechanism; it’s just a
deeper rule.

>
> The conservation of momentum is traced back to Newton's third law that
> all forces between particles are equal and opposite, i.e., they are
> symmetrical. For each individual force, people have tried to understand
> why this is so. For example, Le Sage's theory of gravitation explains
> this for gravity and any emission/ballistic theory of electromagnetism
> explains this for electrical and magnetic forces via mechanisms.

And it turns out that conservation of momentum comes from a symmetry:
spatial translational invariance of the laws of physics (Noether). This of
course does not answer why nature has this particular symmetry.

>
> The wholesale acceptance of Einstein's STR was indeed the death of deeper
> understanding in physics. Just read Maxwell's papers and the attention he
> gave to mechanisms. THAT was real physics. Now, even someone like Feynman
> says visualizing something like the EM field is simply impossible.
>

Again, physics has come a LONG way since 1875, the days when it was all
about material mechanisms. Particularly, in the last 70 years, there have
been several key, profound changes. A couple are:

1. That all material things and interactions have quantum fields as their
underlying reality.

2. That the nature of the interactions (quantum fields exchanging quantum
fields) is completely governed by local symmetries found in nature.

What I’ve described is what has been thought of as real physics for a half
dozen decades, even though it is much different than what you describe as
real physics.

>> So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false
>> dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in
>> fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead
>> to the barriers you are encountering.
>
> Tom's proposed experiment for verifying real time dilation is possibly
> the simplest possible. In that experiment if a NON-NULL result is
> obtained it is unavoidable to interpret the result as showing that the
> moving clocks actually ran differently. There is not much scope for a
> dicotomy here. A NULL result would however be the death of spacetime.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Science never is finished. You view that as some kind of failure. That’s
perhaps because you don’t know what science is.

> This mean that current physics is wrong or incomplete.

No, not wrong.

Why do you think that unless science has come up with an answer for
everything then it is wrong?

> It’s time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid
> unified theory and a new theory of gravity.

Well I agree that it’s time for some new physics. Science never ends.

Unfortunately, you are incapable of generating the new physics because: you
don’t have the requisite skills to do physics, you don’t know the meaning
of the terms used in physics, and you’ve read nothing about physics.

You say that those things are not needed to do new physics, and that’s the
thought of a nut job.

[Odd Bodkin]

Or to put a finer point on it, the principle of relativity says that the
laws of physics are invariant with respect to choice of inertial reference
frame. This does NOT say that if there is a measurable change in a property
as a result of choosing a different reference frame, then the same change
will be true for all properties. It also does NOT say that all processes
behave the same way under change of reference frame.

This should be obvious even classically. Under a change in reference frame
involving a relative speed v, the moments of the bodies in the system will
change in a way linear in v, the kinetic energies will change in a way with
the square of v, and the acceleration of the bodies won’t change at all.

[Edgar L. Owen]

> See:
> https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your two links answering my question. What I'm not sure I understand in your example is what is the velocity relative to in the most general case? In your example the separation and meeting was at the same place and thus the velocity is clearly wrt to that location. In the general case the separation and meeting point could be in relative motion to each other. So are the proper times at the meeting point a function of the velocities relative to the meeting point from the start point including the initial velocity of the start point relative to the meeting point?

Edgar

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> and thus the velocity is clearly wrt to that location.

No it wasn't. Cant you read??? I (&Tom, and undoubtedly others) told you
that speeds are not wrt a point; that makes no sense. Speds are wrt to a coordinate system, to an (inertial) frame.

> In the general case the separation and meeting point could be in
> relative motion to each other.

You Are very confused about the basic of concepts. The points you are referring to do not move! Does the number 3 move relative to the number 7?
The points are coordinates, a label! Do you understand this?

> So are the proper times at the meeting point a function
> of the velocities relative to the meeting point

No. But they are relative to a chosen (inertial) frame.

> from the start point including the initial velocity of the start
> point relative to the meeting point?

Points dont have speeds. Points are a coordinate, like a number, like a name.

[RichD]

On September 23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems
> that the different elapsed proper times when the twins
> compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual
> since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are
> now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate
> times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm
> claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'.

Imagine two spaceships, in motion relative to each
other, with identical clocks, sterno cans, and pots of
water. They burn the cans at the same rate.

How many clock ticks does it take to start the water
boiling, in each ship? Same, same. Ergo, each clock runs
at its correct rate, within its frame.

It's a consequence of Einstein's first postulate:
THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. Everything obeys
those laws, including clocks. That's what physicists
mean when talking about clocks and time. The fact
that they display different times when they meet, is
a separate issue.

Sir, you're clearly an amateur. Try learning from the
pros, rather than arguing based on your own personal
theories and opinions. Or get labeled a kook. Your choice -

--
Rich

[Edgar L. Owen]

Rotchm,

Point taken, but the obvious intended meaning was the initial velocity of the twins AT their separation point relative to the meeting point. But I see that identical pre-separation velocities relative to the meeting point will identically affect the clock disparity of both twin's clocks relative to the meeting frame clock, just not the disparities between the twin's clock which are due to their differences in velocities relative to the meeting point post separation.

Thanks,
Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

Rich,

As you admit you aren't even addressing the issue under discussion.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Paul, et. al.

Another thing I don't understand. The disparity in proper time rates seems to be something actual accumulating during the separation as a result of velocity relative to some eventual meeting frame. But that meeting frame may not yet be known or could even change at any time during the separation. So there is no way the Twin's clocks could possibly 'know' what frame to slow their proper times relative to during the separation. So how could velocity relative to some arbitrary unknown eventual frame possibly be determining the slowing of proper times which had no knowledge of what that frame even was?

There are an unlimited number of possible meeting points each with their own velocity relative to others. So how could any of them be possibly determining the actual clock rates of clocks with velocities relative to them? That can't be the case.

And two observers with relative velocity each see the other's clock slow by the same amount. But when they meet both agree that one clock actually slowed more than the other.

At this point I think the only possible solution is that the actual disparity must be due to different velocities wrt some absolute universal frame. Mach's aggregate mass of the universe. That's the only thing that makes sense to me right now.

Comments?
Edgar

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:36:10 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


> ... intended meaning was the initial velocity of the twins AT

> their separation point relative to the meeting point.

You *still* fail to understand the concept of 'speed'.
We cant really discuss with you if you dont grasp the concept of speed.
We have been explaining it to you and you have yet to understand 'speed'. Its
really simple & even 7 yr olds understand it. Yet, you don't! Do you realize this?

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:03:34 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Another thing I don't understand.

...

> The disparity in proper time rates

There are no disparity in proper time rates. There is a *difference*
in end ***values***. Agai,, this has to do with the question you keep avoiding: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,
the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31pm

Which one ticked faster? Slower?

If you ponder & discuss that simple scenario, you will discover the answers to your questions. Try it!

> seems to be something actual accumulating during the separation
> as a result of velocity relative to some eventual meeting frame.
> But that meeting frame may not yet be known or could even change
> at any time during the separation. So there is no way the
> Twin's clocks could possibly 'know' what frame to slow their proper
> times relative to during the separation.

Exactly: the traveling clocks do not know, hence they do not tick slower nor faster. They just tick at their rate, what ever it may be; they tick once per tick -always!

It is an outside (inertial) observer that will describe the trajectories of the clocks. Using these trajectories, he will plug them into SR and SR will "pop out" the answers, the **values** that the clocks will display when they meet. Any (inertial) observer can do this; the trajectories will depend on the given observer. But nonetheless, when this observer will describe the trajectories & plug into SR, in all cases, it will give the same set of values as any other observer would calculate (or actually observer).

> So how could velocity relative to some arbitrary unknown
> eventual frame possibly be determining the slowing of
> proper times which had no knowledge of what that frame even was?

"how could" as in "causes" are NOT PART OF PHYSICS. Get that into your head.
And there is NO SLOWING OF PROPER TIMES. Than expression is *meaningless*, makes no sense. Its simple english to know that it makes no sense. Its like saying "the red car potatoes on the floor bird." Its gibberish. Dont you realise that?

> There are an unlimited number of possible meeting points

Their "meeting point" makes no sense; its gibberish. They meet, they coincide. This coincidence can be labeled by any observer. Usually the label is a personal coordinate of that observer's frame. each observer will have their own coordinate for that meeting (called *event*). There is only one *event* for each of their meetings (start & end). But there are infinitely many inertial frames (hence coordinates) for that event. Each observer can describe the trajectory in his own frame ( coordinates), with his own starting & end points. Nonetheless, when plugged into SR he will get the same results as any other inertial observer.

> each with their own velocity relative to others. So how
> could any of them be possibly determining the actual clock
> rates of clocks with velocities relative to them?

Yet, they do! Its a simple empirical fact. No need to think of possible metaphysical and irrelevant 'causes'. SR-plug-answer. It works! And thats it.

> And two observers with relative velocity each see the other's clock
> slow by the same amount. But when they meet both agree that

> one clock actually slowed more than the other.]

Yes. SR-plug-answer. And thats it!

> At this point I think the only possible solution is that the actual
> disparity must be due to different velocities wrt some absolute
> universal frame.

Yet, SR-plug-answer. And it works! So why invoke "absolute
universal frame." ?

[Edgar L. Owen]

All,

I think velocity relative to the MEETING POINT has to be wrong.

Ignore gravity.

Consider two clocks (twins) one on earth, and one rapidly orbiting earth for many orbits. Each clock sees the other with equal velocity wrt it. Thus both observe the other clock slowing by the same amount due to their identical relative velocity.

Now the orbiting clock returns to earth. Both agree that the clock that was orbiting shows less elapsed time due to its velocity relative to earth.

Now instead the earth clock joins the one in orbit. Now unless I'm wrong I think they both still agree that the orbiting clock shows less elapsed time than the one from earth. Correct me if I'm wrong....

If I'm correct this means that it's NOT velocity relative to the MEETING POINT that determines which clock shows less elapsed time. Instead it must be velocity relative to some (at least locally) ABSOLUTE FRAME that the earth has less velocity wrt than the orbiting clock. Thus it's the orbiting clock that has more actual velocity wrt this absolute frame and this is why it reads less elapsed time when the clocks meet EITHER in the orbit or back on earth.

This is certainly testable. Does anyone know if the experiment has been performed on the ISS or with GPS clocks?

Thanks,
Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

> It is an outside (inertial) observer that will describe the trajectories of the clocks. Using these trajectories, he will plug them into SR and SR will "pop out" the answers, the **values** that the clocks will display when they meet. Any (inertial) observer can do this; the trajectories will depend on the given observer. But nonetheless, when this observer will describe the trajectories & plug into SR, in all cases, it will give the same set of values as any other observer would calculate (or actually observer).
>

Rotchm,

Different inertial observers can have wildly different velocities relative to each other and to the twins. So if it's velocity relative to an inertial observer that determines the difference in the elapsed times how can all inertial observers get the same results for the different elapsed times?

Are you saying that the different velocities necessary to meet at any inertial observer with any different velocity will always result in any inertial observer observing the same elapsed time difference?

Can you clearly explain why?

Thanks,
Edgar

[Michael Moroney]

"Edgar L. Owen" <elot...@gmail.com> writes:

>Point taken, but the obvious intended meaning was the initial velocity of the
>twins AT their separation point relative to the meeting point. But I see
>that identical pre-separation velocities relative to the meeting point will
>identically affect the clock disparity of both twin's clocks relative to
>the meeting frame clock, just not the disparities between the twin's clock
>which are due to their differences in velocities relative to the meeting
>point post separation.

Right after you were told by Tom and others that "velocity relative to a point"
is meaningless, you use it three times in this relatively short reply. Why?

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:

Still stuck on the idea of something happening to the clocks to slow them.

Think of it this way. A frame extends forever through all space. As each
ship moves, it is moving through all possible reference frames. Therefore
the rate that its clock is running is a non-unity factor different than the
rate time is running in each of those other frames. But each factor is
different for each frame. So for example, the clock is moving relative to
different frames A, B, C, D, .... and the factor relative to those rates
might be 1.0060, 3.2396, 1.7855, 4.3210,.... For the other moving ship,
those factors might be 1.0085, 4.2117, 1.3499, 4.0108.

The end comparison between the clocks on the two ships will depend on which
frame gets eventually selected: A, B, C, D,....

>
> There are an unlimited number of possible meeting points each with their
> own velocity relative to others. So how could any of them be possibly
> determining the actual clock rates of clocks with velocities relative to
> them? That can't be the case.
>
> And two observers with relative velocity each see the other's clock slow
> by the same amount. But when they meet both agree that one clock actually
> slowed more than the other.
>
> At this point I think the only possible solution is that the actual
> disparity must be due to different velocities wrt some absolute universal
> frame. Mach's aggregate mass of the universe. That's the only thing that
> makes sense to me right now.
>
> Comments?
> Edgar
>

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:46:36 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


> Different inertial observers can have wildly different velocities
> relative to each other and to the twins. So if it's velocity
> relative to an inertial observer that determines the difference
> in the elapsed times how can all inertial observers get
> the same results for the different elapsed times?

Easy... and I already answered that to you. Do you have limitation in reading? In understanding basic english?

> Are you saying that the different velocities necessary to meet at
> any inertial observer with any different velocity will always
> result in any inertial observer observing the same elapsed
> time difference?

Yes.

> Can you clearly explain why?

Yes, and I have already explained it to you. Its all there in the previous posts. Have you memory problems? Or perhaps limited reading skills?

I can repeat the answers to you, but you need to do your part first, by addressing/answering the questions I posed to you previously.

Perhaps you are a coward or just cant read. Nonetheless, you are acting as a kook, as a dishonest jerk. Do you realize that? [thats a question you need to answer too]. So "shape up" and do your part...

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:27:46 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


> I think velocity relative to the MEETING POINT has to be wrong.

Of course! Thats we all have bee telling you the past few weeks.
It finally sunk in!


> Ignore gravity.

Ok.

> Consider two clocks (twins) one on earth, and one rapidly
> orbiting earth for many orbits.

Orbiting earth or orbiting the eartTwin?

>Each clock sees the other with equal velocity wrt it.

No, not usually. This is why I asked you above
"rbiting earth or orbiting the eartTwin?"

Answer these and we may proceed.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

We all have to think of it the
way of the idiot woodworker!!!
The only correct way!!!

[rotchm]

Answer the question Ed.

[kenseto]

Defending science by assertions is a behavior of a nut job.

>
> > This mean that current physics is wrong or incomplete.
>
> No, not wrong.

It is wrong when you can’t come up with a unified theory after 110 years of trying.

>
> Why do you think that unless science has come up with an answer for
> everything then it is wrong?

It is wrong because scientists (physicists) are drowning in a sea of dead end of mathematical abstractions. They don’t accept new physical model that can lead them out of this dead end easily.

>
> > It’s time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid
> > unified theory and a new theory of gravity.
>
> Well I agree that it’s time for some new physics. Science never ends.

Model Mechanics is the new physics.

>
> Unfortunately, you are incapable of generating the new physics because: you
> don’t have the requisite skills to do physics, you don’t know the meaning
> of the terms used in physics, and you’ve read nothing about physics.

Idiot Model Mechanics is the new physics.

>
> You say that those things are not needed to do new physics, and that’s the
> thought of a nut job.

You are the but job by insisting that I have to go through all the trainings before I can invent a new theory. I already invented a new theory of Model mechanics.

[Odd Bodkin]

Who says? Who puts a clock on finding a theory of everything? Who says
physics should be complete and done by now?

>
>>
>> Why do you think that unless science has come up with an answer for
>> everything then it is wrong?
>
> It is wrong because scientists (physicists) are drowning in a sea of dead
> end of mathematical abstractions. They don’t accept new physical model
> that can lead them out of this dead end easily.

They certainly don’t accept the ideas of someone who has read nothing on
the subject, does not have any of the requisite skills, and doesn’t know
what the terms mean? Why do you think they should treat an idea from
someone like that seriously?

>
>>
>>> It’s time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid
>>> unified theory and a new theory of gravity.
>>
>> Well I agree that it’s time for some new physics. Science never ends.
>
> Model Mechanics is the new physics.

No, it’s really not. It doesn’t contain any of the critical features that a
physics theory must have.

>
>>
>> Unfortunately, you are incapable of generating the new physics because: you
>> don’t have the requisite skills to do physics, you don’t know the meaning
>> of the terms used in physics, and you’ve read nothing about physics.
>
> Idiot Model Mechanics is the new physics.

No it’s not. You are INCAPABLE of producing new physics because: you don’t

have the requisite skills to do physics, you don’t know the meaning of the
terms used in physics, and you’ve read nothing about physics.

So what you’ve produced is not new physics. You calling it new physics is
fraudulent.

>
>>
>> You say that those things are not needed to do new physics, and that’s the
>> thought of a nut job.
>
> You are the but job by insisting that I have to go through all the
> trainings before I can invent a new theory. I already invented a new
> theory of Model mechanics.

You invented something but it isn’t a physics theory because it’s missing
all the critical features a physical theory must have. And yes, to create a
new theory of physics you DO have to do a lot of reading about physics, you
DO have to know the meaning of the terms used in physics, and you DO have
to have the requisite skills. Every single human being who has created a
new physical theory has done all those things and you are no exception.

What you have produced is a fraud posing as a theory. It is obviously not a
theory, which is why it is ignored.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:08:47 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:32:01 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> >> It never ceases to amaze me that people like Ed Lake, Ken Seto, Ned Latham,
>> >> and Richard Hertz can readily admit that they have read almost nothing on

>> >> the subject matter of this group -- aside from some news items on the
>> >> internet, Usenet posts, and maybe a high school book -- and still think that

>> >> their opinions, thoughts, and ideas should be treated on the same level
>> >> playing field as those by others who have more seriously studied the
>> >> subject. It's arrogance of the highest order.

>> > Physicists have studied all that had been written for the last 110 years
>> > and they failed to come up with a unified theory.

In the last 110 years they discovered, and unified, the strong and weak nuclear
forces.

There is no such thing as a timeline where 110 years or any other value is
"too long". That's not how science works. 'It would be nice' if we knew
everything, but that's asking too much.

>> Science never is finished. You view that as some kind of failure. That's
>> perhaps because you don't know what science is.

>Defending science by assertions is a behavior of a nut job.

Which is what you are doing with Muddle Mechanics. Assertion after assertion,
no mathematical examples, no falsifiable predictions, nothing but assertions.
In physics you have to be able to use your theory (and math) to make a
prediction for a certain case and do the same thing with competing theories
which predict a different outcome and then perform the experiment to see which
can be refuted/validated.

Since your Muddle Mechanics does none of this, it doesn't even qualify as a
theory of physics, which is why it is ignored, as you can tell from your book
sales.

>> > This mean that current physics is wrong or incomplete.

>> No, not wrong.

>It is wrong when you can't come up with a unified theory after 110
>years of trying.

No, that doesn't make it wrong. Wrong is when it makes a prediction and an
actual experiment refutes that prediction. So far, that hasn't happened with
SR/GR.

It is 'incomplete' in the method that science is ALWAYS incomplete. We will
never know everything, so our knowledge is incomplete. And that is not a
problem. Scientists just try to learn more all the time.

>> Why do you think that unless science has come up with an answer for
>> everything then it is wrong?

>It is wrong because scientists (physicists) are drowning in a sea of dead end
>of mathematical abstractions.

That is only your assertion, and it is wrong. Science continues to make great
progress, it is not in a dead end.

> They don't accept new physical model that can lead them out of this
>dead end easily.

One that is a true theory which makes predictions which differ from the
predictions of existing theories, and the new predictions are validated by
experiment/evidence WILL be accepted. And they have been.

>> > It's time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid
>> > unified theory and a new theory of gravity.

>> Well I agree that it's time for some new physics. Science never ends.

>Model Mechanics is the new physics.

No, it is not. It makes no falsifiable predictions, it has no evidence, it
has only assertions. It does not qualify as a theory so it is ignored.
Remember, assertions aren't proof of anything.

>> Unfortunately, you are incapable of generating the new physics because: you
>> don't have the requisite skills to do physics, you don't know the meaning
>> of the terms used in physics, and you've read nothing about physics.

>Idiot Model Mechanics is the new physics.

No, it is not. It doesn't qualify as a theory of physics as I stated.
It won't ever do so either, as long as you refuse to read about physics, you
don't know the meaning of physics terms and you don't have the physics and
(especially!) the math skills needed to do any physics.

>> You say that those things are not needed to do new physics, and that's the
>> thought of a nut job.

>You are the but job by insisting that I have to go through all the trainings
>before I can invent a new theory.

So that you actually know WTF you are talking about! Which you don't.

> I already invented a new theory of Model mechanics.

No you haven't. As I stated, it doesn't even qualify as a theory of physics
without meeting minimum standards, which Muddle Mechanics hasn't met.

You did invent something, but it's not a theory of physics.

[Edgar L. Owen]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:19:59 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

Michael,

'Velocity relative to a point' is most certainly meaningful. Velocities are typically measured between points, and from points. Perhaps you're just trying to remind yourself that the coordinates of points will be different in different frames which is already quite obvious to everyone.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

> Still stuck on the idea of something happening to the clocks to slow them.
>
> Think of it this way. A frame extends forever through all space. As each
> ship moves, it is moving through all possible reference frames. Therefore
> the rate that its clock is running is a non-unity factor different than the
> rate time is running in each of those other frames. But each factor is
> different for each frame. So for example, the clock is moving relative to
> different frames A, B, C, D, .... and the factor relative to those rates
> might be 1.0060, 3.2396, 1.7855, 4.3210,.... For the other moving ship,
> those factors might be 1.0085, 4.2117, 1.3499, 4.0108.
>
> The end comparison between the clocks on the two ships will depend on which
> frame gets eventually selected: A, B, C, D,....
>

Odd,

I agree this is an excellent way to visualize it in terms of moving through all possible reference frames one of which gets selected to describe the situation.

But that doesn't address my question of how that frame GETS selected. I.e. on the basis of velocity relative to what.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:46:36 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>
> > Different inertial observers can have wildly different velocities
> > relative to each other and to the twins. So if it's velocity
> > relative to an inertial observer that determines the difference
> > in the elapsed times how can all inertial observers get
> > the same results for the different elapsed times?
>
> Easy... and I already answered that to you. Do you have limitation in reading? In understanding basic english?
>
> > Are you saying that the different velocities necessary to meet at
> > any inertial observer with any different velocity will always
> > result in any inertial observer observing the same elapsed
> > time difference?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Can you clearly explain why?
>

Rotchm,

An intriguing answer that might have something to it, but unless you are willing to clearly and concisely explain I have to assume you don't really know. I don't see how the extra velocities could possibly cancel each other out to produce the same time difference being observed by each different observer in relative motion to each other. Unless you can explain this I have to assume it wouldn't, or you don't understand my question.

Edgar

[Michael Moroney]

"Edgar L. Owen" <elot...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:19:59 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Right after you were told by Tom and others that "velocity relative to a point"
>> is meaningless, you use it three times in this relatively short reply. Why?

>Michael,

>'Velocity relative to a point' is most certainly meaningful.

No, it is not. A point really is a set of (x,y,z) coordinates. What is the
velocity of the point? Not really meaningful, just an (x,y,z) coordinate set
can't specify a velocity. You could attach the point to an object (including
the ground) and ask what is the velocity of the object? In which frame? There
are infinitely many frames to choose from, but perhaps the best is the frame in
which the object is stationary. And stretching things, the frame in which the
point is stationary. So now you are talking about a velocity relative to the
frame in which your point/point-containing object is stationary. Which is
exactly what Tom and others tried to tell you, velocity relative to a frame.

> Velocities are
> typically measured between points, and from points.

Sorry, in physics, velocities are relative to a frame. A point/its object
can have its own velocity.

> Perhaps you're just trying to remind yourself that the coordinates of points
>will be different in different frames which is already quite obvious to everyone.

And different velocities as well.

So you have to specify a frame of some sort. Usually the frame in which you
consider the object the point is part of (like my house) to be stationary.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:58:52 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:46:36 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen

> > Do you have limitation in reading? In understanding basic english?

Why didnt you answer this?

>> Have you memory problems? Or perhaps limited reading skills?

No answer?

>> Yet, SR-plug-answer. And it works! So why invoke
>> "absolute universal frame." ?

No answer?

> but unless you are willing to clearly and concisely explain...

Its useless to explain to you anything because you refuse to learn the language you are using. You dont know the meaning of the words you read & use. We try to explain these to you, but you just coward away and continue to speak your gibberish. YOU came here for help, so at minimum, respect us, and use OUR language, LEARN our language and answer the questions posed to you. Like, do you realize that you are acting like a kook?

> I don't see how the extra velocities could possibly cancel each
> other out to produce the same time difference being observed
> by each different observer in relative motion to each other.

Its very simple. But before I explain it to you, I want to make sure you understand the language (english) we are using. So answer the previous questions I (&others) have posed, then we will take it from there.

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Edgar L. Owen" <elot...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:19:59 AM UTC-4, Michael

>>> Right after you were told by Tom and others that "velocity
>>> relative to a point"
>>> is meaningless, you use it three times in this relatively
>>> short reply. Why?

We see that he omitted to answer your question. He is just like the other ed, in that he's a coward & a hypocrite. Just trolling & acting like a crank. And he is too dumb to notice it. He is not even trying to understand what he reads & writes. He just wants to hear something specific that his mind can jerk off too.

[Edgar L. Owen]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

Sure, we always have to specify a frame which is normally implied when we specify the point and what's velocity is being measured relative to it. This is all obvious and goes without saying. But we often specify velocity relative to a point with the frame understood, and of course the choice of the frame is arbitrary.

The fact of velocity (motion) relative to the point is primary and holds in all frames. We then must specify a particular frame to give that velocity a numeric value. All obvious and a digression from the point of my post.

Edgar

[kenseto]

You don’t know the meaning of the words “theory” “physics” “physical”
“abstraction” etc. Therefore, you have no credibility and you are not qualified to judge the validity of my theory.

[RichD]

On September 24, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Right after you were told by Tom and others that "velocity relative
> to a point" is meaningless, you use it three times in this relatively
> short reply. Why?

Ed Lake's long lost twin?

--
Rich

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

They are all available.
If B is chosen, then the factor for the first ship is 3.2396 and the factor
for the second ship is 4.2117. If C ends up being chosen, then the factors
for the two ships are 1.7855 and 1.3499.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 25.09.2019 02.13, skrev Edgar L. Owen:
>
>> See:
>> https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf

This is now updated with a second example.

>>
>> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Thanks for your two links answering my question. What I'm not sure I understand in your example is what is the velocity relative to in the most general case?

This question doesn't make sense.
A velocity is _always_ referred to a frame of reference.
If you read my article, equation (4) can be used in
any arbitrary inertial frame. The speed v(t) will
depend on the choice of inertial frame, but the proper
time τ between two events will always be the same,
it is invariant.

> In your example the separation and meeting was at the same place and thus the velocity is clearly wrt to that location.

Note that "the separation" and "meeting again" are _events_.
That is 'points in spacetime'. They happen at a point in time
and space. An event doesn't move, and it is independent of
frames of reference, it is 'absolute'.

Snap your fingers. How would you measure a speed relative
to that snap? Where did it happen? Where your fingers
are now, or where they were at the time you snapped?
Does the snap move along with the rotating Earth?

But an event will have a set of coordinates (t,x,y,z)
in each frame of reference.

In my example K₁ I have chosen an inertial frame
which is such that the spatial coordinates for
the events "the separation" and "meeting again"
are equal.
The coordinates (in K₁) of the event E₁ (the separation),
E₂ (meet again), E_A (A turns around) and A_B (B turns around)
can be seen in equations 6,7,8 and 9.

See the speeds of A in K₁ in equations 10 and 11.
See the speeds of B in K₁ in equations 14 and 15.




> In the general case the separation and meeting point could be in relative motion to each other.

Doesn't make sense.
But since the choice of inertial frame of reference is
completely arbitrary, the spatial coordinates may be
very different.

See the coordinates for the events in the inertial frame K₂
in equations 19,20,21 and 22.

See the speeds of A in K₂ in equations 23 and 24.
See the speeds of B in K₂ in equations 26 and 27.


The coordinates of the events and the speeds of A and B
are very different in K₁ and K₂.
But the proper times τ₁ and τ₂ are invariant.

The choice of inertial frame is arbitrary!

> So are the proper times at the meeting point a function of the velocities relative to the meeting point from the start point including the initial velocity of the start point relative to the meeting point?

Doesn't make sense.

>
> Edgar
>


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Edgar L. Owen]

Paul,

Here's a simpler example of what I'm trying to understand.

Standard twin example. One moves from point A to point B and returns to point A, the other stays at A. By your example we should simply calculate the velocity each uses to move from A back to A, zero in the stationary twin case. But my question is how do we know which twin was actually moving? Both move equally and oppositely relative to each other, but only one twin loses time relative to the other when they meet. I could have stated the exact same example by saying that it was the other twin that moved.

It's true that one twin actually moved in the sense that it had to use acceleration to reverse its direction but we can completely eliminate acceleration from the example with 3 twins, 2 of which exchange clock readings as they pass (I suppose you are familiar with this if not I'll explain).

Now most physicists I've read just ignore the view of the moving twin because it's not inertial and there is frame switching. But this just ignores the problem of why a simple possibly very short reversal of direction could exactly cancel any TD effect at all from the 'moving' twin's perspective during possibly years of inertial motion of both twins from both perspectives. And one presumes during these periods of mutual inertial motion both still see the other's clock run slow by the same amount, so Lorentz is clearly operational in both directions during almost all of the entire separation.

The only solution I see is some sense of actual motion through ST as opposed to just relative motion, and actual TD (in the sense of being agreed by both observers) must only be wrt this actual motion.

Is this your understanding, that in some sense there is an (at least locally) absolute ST frame wrt which actual velocity and actual TD occur?

Thanks,
Edgar

[rotchm]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:01:10 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Standard twin example. One moves from point A to point B and
> returns to point A, the other stays at A.

Meaning that Al has set up his coordinate system (S) and stays at the opringin, say. Bob goes away to a coordinate of S (this is your point B, a coordinate/position in S frame) and comes back to coordinate 0 of S.

I mention all that so as to make you realize that "moving" or "points" are not relative to points; they are relative to coordinate systems (CS).
Saying that Bob moves to point X or relative to point X is meaningless & sloppy.

> But my question is how do we know which twin was actually moving?

"moving" as "positions" are relative to a CS, a frame. So if a twin is changing position in the frame you choose, then he is moving in that frame.

> Both move equally and oppositely relative to each other,

No, not in the usual TP scenario. Their 'movements' are NOT symmetrical.

> but only one twin loses time relative to the other when they meet.

Yes. Since their movements are not symmetrical, we cant expect them to have the same time values as they reunite.

> I could have stated the exact same example by saying that it
> was the other twin that moved.

Yes, and that twin then would have "lost time". Same experiment, same result!

> It's true that one twin actually moved

"actually" ? Whats the difference between 'actually moved' and just 'moved' ?

> in the sense that it had to use acceleration

That has nothing to do with 'actually moving'. Again, moving is relative to a given CS.

> we can completely eliminate acceleration from the example with 3

> twins, ...which exchange clock readings as they pass

Yes, a well known variant of the TP.

> Now most physicists I've read just ignore the view of the
> moving twin because it's not inertial and there is frame switching.

Indeed. But the analysis can be done were the "moving twins" too and we obtain consistent results: The value of "B twin" (or the B') will gave a lesser value than Al.

> But this just ignores the problem of why a simple possibly very
> short reversal of direction could exactly cancel any TD effect

"why" is irrelevant. SR-calculate-answer_pops_out.

> periods of mutual inertial motion both still see the other's
> clock run slow by the same amount,

That is a very misleading and ambiguous way of stating it, hence confusing you moreso.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/25/19 11:33 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 'Velocity relative to a point' is most certainly meaningful.

You OBVIOUSLY do not understand that those words mean.

Velocity can only be measured relative to a coordinate system, and a
single point does not define one. Even an object is not sufficient -- it
is much more than a point (a worldline, trajectory, or path through
spacetime), but also does not define a coordinate system.

Tom Roberts

[Pálek Slovù]

Not entirely true. Fixed points objects, inherits c.s., the velocity
would be wrt to that.

[Mitch Raemsch]

The twin moving fast in space has its bigger time dilation.
The other moving slower has least time dilation.
These are their clocks at different movement speeds.
God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/23/19 10:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the
> different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon
> meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it.

Yes. "actual" = "real".

> Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not
> due to coordinate times.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

> That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks
> always run at the same rate'.

It is not -- it's quite clear that YOU do not understand this.

The clocks traveled DIFFERENT paths through spacetime. Different paths
can have different path lengths. For timelike paths, such as those of
clocks, the path length is elapsed proper time.

So the reunited clocks show different elapsed proper times BECAUSE THEY
TRAVELED DIFFERENT PATHS THROUGH SPACETIME. Not because they "tick at
different rates".

If clocks did tick at different rates, that would mean
that the laws of physics governing their ticking were
different -- that would violate the first postulate. No
such violation has ever been observed.

In terms of some specific inertial frame, the moving clock does indeed
tick slower than an identical clock at rest in the frame. But the phrase
"a clock's tick rate" IS NOT THAT -- the phrase makes no mention of any
frame, and is discussing only the clock ITSELF; for that, the first
postulate applies and the clock MUST tick at its usual rate.

To measure a clock's tick rate you MUST use its (local)
rest frame. Using any other frame cannot possibly get
the tick rate of the clock, it gets "the tick rate of
that clock measured in this frame", which is NOT THE
SAME AT ALL.

> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only
> have been running at different proper time rates during their
> separation.

Not true. They might have traveled different paths through spacetime
that have different path lengths (= elapsed proper time).

> [... more nonsense displaying colossal ignorance of physics]

You seem to be implicitly using one particular frame to discuss
everything. That's OK, but you MUST recognize that such a procedure does
NOT give "the moving clock's tick rate", it gives THE MOVING CLOCK'S
TICK RATE MEASURED IN THAT FRAME.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/24/19 3:08 AM, Engr. Ravi wrote:
> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have
> been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

You keep claiming this, even after many discussions about what you are
missing in the assumptions you implicitly make AND NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE.
That implies your imagination is FAR too narrow to understand very basic
physics.

Find another hobby more suited to your abilities.

Tom Roberts

[Edgar L. Owen]

> The clocks traveled DIFFERENT paths through spacetime. Different paths
> can have different path lengths. For timelike paths, such as those of
> clocks, the path length is elapsed proper time.
>
> So the reunited clocks show different elapsed proper times BECAUSE THEY
> TRAVELED DIFFERENT PATHS THROUGH SPACETIME. Not because they "tick at
> different rates".

Tom,

Again you miss the point of the problem. When you say the two clocks travel different paths through ST of course, but one could just as well claim the earth clock was the one that traveled the longer path. By saying it was the spaceship clock that traveled a longer path you are implicitly assuming an ST stationary wrt earth not the spacetwin. This is in fact another way of saying what I state in my 'Solved' post above, but I provide the actual reason for this rather than just unthinkingly stating it as gospel as you do.

I hope now you understand the issue - and the solution?

Edgar

[RichD]

On September 27, tjrob137 wrote:
>> To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when
>> the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual
>> since both twins agree on it.

>> That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks
>> always run at the same rate'.
>

> So the reunited clocks show different elapsed proper times BECAUSE
> THEY TRAVELED DIFFERENT PATHS THROUGH SPACETIME. Not because they
> "tick at different rates".
> If clocks did tick at different rates, that would mean
> that the laws of physics governing their ticking were
> different -- that would violate the first postulate. No
> such violation has ever been observed.

I suggest you add that paragraph every time you say "clocks
tick at their own rate". Lacking this addendum, the assertion
is arcane and murky to the student.

i.e. "tick at their own rate" only makes sense in conjunction
with Einstein's first postulate.

--
Rich

[Dono,]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 2:03:09 PM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> Again you miss the point of the problem. When you say the two clocks travel different paths through ST of course, but one could just as well claim the earth clock was the one that traveled the longer path.

No, you can't, stubborn imbecile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Difference_in_elapsed_time_as_a_result_of_differences_in_twins'_spacetime_paths

Stick to coin peddling.

[RichD]

On September 27, tjrob137 wrote:

> In terms of some specific inertial frame, the moving clock does indeed
> tick slower than an identical clock at rest in the frame. But the phrase
> "a clock's tick rate" IS NOT THAT -- the phrase makes no mention of any
> frame, and is discussing only the clock ITSELF; for that, the first
> postulate applies and the clock MUST tick at its usual rate.
>
> To measure a clock's tick rate you MUST use its (local)
> rest frame. Using any other frame cannot possibly get
> the tick rate of the clock, it gets "the tick rate of
> that clock measured in this frame", which is NOT THE
> SAME AT ALL.

Illogical, as it's non-falsifiable. One cannot measure a
clock's tick rate within its local frame, since it is
THE REFERENCE, by definition; there is nothing to measure it against.

Once one (arbitrarily) designates a device as "the clock",
it is by definition always correct, as it DEFINES a unit
of time. The time intervals of other physical processes
are then determined via that device, but it's insensible
to measure the rate of the clock against itself.

--
Rich

[Edgar L. Owen]

Rich,

Exactly correct as I've repeatedly pointed out.

Edgar

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 26.09.2019 19.01, skrev Edgar L. Owen:
> Paul,
>
> Here's a simpler example of what I'm trying to understand.
>
> Standard twin example. One moves from point A to point B and returns to point A, the other stays at A. By your example we should simply calculate the velocity each uses to move from A back to A, zero in the stationary twin case. But my question is how do we know which twin was actually moving? Both move equally and oppositely relative to each other, but only one twin loses time relative to the other when they meet. I could have stated the exact same example by saying that it was the other twin that moved.

You have obviously not read my article.
https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf
Please read it!

The central point which should be impossible to miss is that
you can do the calculation in _any_ inertial frame, but you have
to use _one_ and only one frame!
--------------------------------

The example you are referring to above is shown here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

See 2.2. B travels with constant speed and instant acceleration

The one and only inertial frame used here is the rest frame of twin A.

So we have in fame K:

At t = 0
B-> v
|---------------------------------->x
A

At t = T/2
<-B
|-------------------------|-------->x
A

At t = T
v <-B
|---------------------------------->x
A

Note that A is inertial, while B is changing
her velocity, she is accelerating at turnaround.

The proper time of A is shown in equation (9)
The proper time of B is shown in equation (10)

-------------

But we could equally well have done the calculation
in the inertial frame in which B is stationary on
the way out.

This is THE SAME SCENARIO:

Then we have in frame K':

At t' = 0:
B
|----------|----------|-->x'
v <-A
x₀'

At t' = t₁':
v'<-B
|----------|----------|-->x'
v <-A x₁'

At t' = t₂':
v'<-B
|----------|----------|-->x'
v <-A
x₂'

Note that A is still inertial because she is moving
at constant speed v, she is NOT accelerating, while B
is changing her velocity, she is stationary for the first
half of the journey, and accelerating at turnaround
to move at the speed v' back to A.

The starting point in the calculation is always to
find the coordinates of the events of interest.

And since we will compare the two calculations,
the constant T and v defined in K must have the same
values in K' as in K. So we will find the coordinates of
the events in K' by using the LT on the coordinates in frame K.

Start E₀: t₀' = 0, x₀' = 0 (trivial)

B turns around E₁:
t₁' = (T/2 - (vT/2)⋅v/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²)= (T/2)√(1 - v²/c²)
x₁' = (vT/2 - v(T/2)/√(1 - v²/c²) = 0

B is back E₂:
t₂' = (T - 0⋅v/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²) = T/√(1 - v²/c²)
x₂' = (0 - v⋅T)/√(1 - v²/c²) = - vT/√(1 - v²/c²)

From this we can see that the speeds are:
v_A = (x₂'-x₀')/(t₂'-t₀') = -v for t₀' < t' <= t₂'
v_B = (x₁'-x₀')/(t₂'-t₁') = 0 for t₀' < t' <= t₁'
v_B = (x₂'-x₁')/(t₂'-t₁') = -2v/(1+v²/c²) for t₁'< t <= t₂'

using equation (8) yields:

τ_A = √(1-(v_A/c)²)⋅(t₂'-t₀') = √(1-v²/c²)⋅T/√(1-v²/c²)= T

τ_B = (t₁'-t₂')+√(1-(v_A/c)²)⋅(t₂'-t₁')=(T/2)⋅√(1-v²/c²)+(T/2)⋅√(1-v²/c²)
τ_B = T⋅√(1-v²/c²)

>
> It's true that one twin actually moved in the sense that it had to use acceleration to reverse its direction but we can completely eliminate acceleration from the example with 3 twins, 2 of which exchange clock readings as they pass (I suppose you are familiar with this if not I'll explain).
>
> Now most physicists I've read just ignore the view of the moving twin because it's not inertial and there is frame switching. But this just ignores the problem of why a simple possibly very short reversal of direction could exactly cancel any TD effect at all from the 'moving' twin's perspective during possibly years of inertial motion of both twins from both perspectives. And one presumes during these periods of mutual inertial motion both still see the other's clock run slow by the same amount, so Lorentz is clearly operational in both directions during almost all of the entire separation.

See my simulation:
https://paulba.no/twins.html

It illustrates what is measured by both twins.

>
> The only solution I see is some sense of actual motion through ST as opposed to just relative motion, and actual TD (in the sense of being agreed by both observers) must only be wrt this actual motion.
>
> Is this your understanding, that in some sense there is an (at least locally) absolute ST frame wrt which actual velocity and actual TD occur?
>
> Thanks,
> Edgar
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[rotchm]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Again you miss the point of the problem.

It is you that miss the point.

> When you say the two clocks travel different paths through ST
> of course, but one could just as well claim the earth clock
> was the one that traveled the longer path.

No. In the TP, only *one* has travelend a longer path. All observers agree to this.

> By saying it was the spaceship clock that traveled a longer
> path you are implicitly assuming an ST stationary wrt earth

No such implicit assumptions. In fact, what you say above makes no sense; it is gibberish. You are just stitching words together, words you have no knowledge of what they mean. Spacetime (manifold) has nothing to do with it being "stationary". Stationary does not apply.

[Edgar L. Owen]

But Paul,

What about the 3 'twin' case in empty space?
No gravity, no earth, no inertial motion.

A is inertial in space.
B moves past A setting his clock to A's and travels on inertially.
Later C passes B in the opposite direction and sets his clock to B's as they pass.
Finally C passes A and they compare clocks.

Whose clock is slower, and why? There seems to be no criterion for whose motion was 'actual' because there is no earth, only empty space in this example.

Thanks,
Edgar

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Edgar the whole point of the twin puzzle is to point out that the two twins
are not symmetric.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 28.09.2019 14.48, skrev Edgar L. Owen:
> But Paul,
>
> What about the 3 'twin' case in empty space?
> No gravity, no earth, no inertial motion.
>
> A is inertial in space.
> B moves past A setting his clock to A's and travels on inertially.
> Later C passes B in the opposite direction and sets his clock to B's as they pass.
> Finally C passes A and they compare clocks.

This is no "triple scenario".
In stead of that C is setting his clock
equal to B's as they pass, B might as well have
handed over his clock to C.

This is identical to the twin scenario
I explained in detail in the posting you now
are responding to, but obviously haven't read.

>
> Whose clock is slower, and why? There seems to be no criterion for whose motion was 'actual' because there is no earth, only empty space in this example.

Why do you ask the same question over and over?

I think your problem is that you lack basic
knowledge of elementary physics, and understand
nothing of what we are explaining to you.

Read a book, you have demonstrated that you
you are unable to learn anything from what
people tell you in this forum.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[rotchm]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 8:48:41 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> But Paul,
>
> What about the 3 'twin' case in empty space?
> No gravity, no earth, no inertial motion.
>
> A is inertial in space.
> B moves past A setting his clock to A's and travels on inertially.
> Later C passes B in the opposite direction and sets his clock to B's as they pass.
> Finally C passes A and they compare clocks.
>
> Whose clock is slower,

A



> and why?

Plug into SR your given conditions. Calculate. Answer that pops out:A

> There seems to be no criterion for whose motion was 'actual'

Because no motion is 'actual'. Motion depends on the chosen observer (frame, CS).

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/27/19 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> When you say the two clocks
> travel different paths through ST of course, but one could just as
> well claim the earth clock was the one that traveled the longer path.

No, you cannot do that, because it is simply not true. One can MEASURE
the path length of a path (calculate it in a gedanken). This calculation
is an invariant -- it depends on the path but is independent of
coordinates (observer).

For a timelike path, the path length is the elapsed
proper time of a clock that followed the path. In an
experiment this is observed directly; in a gedanken,
or to compare theory with experiment, it is calculated
via an integral of the metric over the path.

> you are implicitly assuming an ST stationary wrt earth

NONSENSE:
A) that makes no sense -- spacetime and "stationary" are
incommensurate concepts.
B) the calculation is an INVARIANT.

This is not "gospel", but it _IS_ the way SR and GR are formulated.

> I hope now you understand the issue

I do. But YOU don't.

Tom Roberts

[Edgar L. Owen]

Paul, et al,

Fundamental method for calculating TD for any clock in a gravity free universe:

For any inertial frame:

1.Take the integral of the velocity of the clock over its worldline from any point A to any point B. Apply the LT to calculate its TD relative to the reference frame.

The points and velocity are frame dependent so there is no notion of 'actual' velocity.

2. To compare TD's of multiple clocks (as in twins or any other case) simply repeat for each clock to be compared. First synchronize all clocks. Doesn't matter if start or end points are the same or not, but the start and end times must all be at the same times as measured by the reference frame's own clock.

3. Comparing TDs of all clocks gives actual difference in times from the perspective of the reference frame. True no matter where clocks are located relative to each other this is valid for all locations in the reference frame.

Again there is no notion of 'actual' velocity as measured velocity is always relative to the reference frame.

OK, this is all fine and I agree it works for all inertial frames assuming I stated it correctly. If not please correct.


However in the actual universe I still maintain there has to be some sense of an actual/absolute frame in which actual Lorentz TD occurs wrt the single actual ST metric. Just is there is a single actual metric there has to be some embedding of actual velocity of objects within that metric in the real universe. The continual evolution of the universe has to result in a single actual structure. It will obviously be an observer independent structure to which any frame can be validly applied, but there must be some single actual structure that includes embedded objects with actual velocities relative to the actual metric.

The evolution of the structure of the universe is obviously something independent of any observer, and to be complete it must include the velocities of all objects relative to the metric.

This is what I've (no doubt clumsily) been trying to explore in my previous posts re 'actual velocity'.

Different frames can have different velocities relative to each other. So though the general method above works for all frames, it begs the question of which frame most closely conforms to the actual metric, and thus in some sense calculates actual TD from actual velocity relative to the metric and thus gives some notion of an 'actual' clock rate for all objects in the universe.

If anyone is able to actually understand this and elucidate it please do so.

Relativity is NOT just frame dependent calculations on paper. There is a real actual universe out there that continually recalculates itself not from any observer dependent frame but in some sense from the 'actual' frame of the metric itself. That's what I'm trying to get al.

Thanks,
Edgar

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/27/19 5:29 PM, RichD wrote:
> One cannot measure a
> clock's tick rate within its local frame, since it is
> THE REFERENCE, by definition; there is nothing to measure it against.

Not true. One simply puts a time standard next to the clock and measures
its tick rate using the standard. How do you think clocks are calibrated
in the real world? -- by comparing them to a time standard.

Of course the time standard is itself a clock....

> Once one (arbitrarily) designates a device as "the clock",

This is not "arbitrary" -- we designate certain devices as clock because
they behave the way clock must behave, and because they do so when
compared to other devices already designated as clocks.

Tom Roberts

[Edgar L. Owen]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/27/19 5:29 PM, RichD wrote:
> > One cannot measure a
> > clock's tick rate within its local frame, since it is
> > THE REFERENCE, by definition; there is nothing to measure it against.
>
> Not true. One simply puts a time standard next to the clock and measures
> its tick rate using the standard. How do you think clocks are calibrated
> in the real world? -- by comparing them to a time standard.

Tom,

NO, this just measures the accuracy of individual clocks, not the intrinsic tick rate of time in a frame. That can only be determined by comparing to tick rates of an identical clock in another frame...

>
> Of course the time standard is itself a clock....
>
> > Once one (arbitrarily) designates a device as "the clock",
>
> This is not "arbitrary" -- we designate certain devices as clock because
> they behave the way clock must behave, and because they do so when
> compared to other devices already designated as clocks.
>
> Tom Roberts

Tom,

Comparing clocks in the same frame to claim they always are running at the same rate is irrelevant irrational lunacy. Time is not something that refers to clocks but to frames. Of course all (good) clocks in the same frame run at the same rate because they are using some standard physical process to display the intrinsic time rate of the frame. Rich is correct here.

Edgar

[Edgar L. Owen]

> Tom,
>
> Comparing clocks in the same frame to claim they always are running at the same rate is irrelevant irrational lunacy.

Tom, I apologize for my language above. It was thoughtless and I retract it. I do still agree with rich though.


> Edgar

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 28.09.2019 21.01, skrev Edgar L. Owen:
> Paul, et al,
>
> Fundamental method for calculating TD for any clock in a gravity free universe:
>
> For any inertial frame:
>
> 1.Take the integral of the velocity of the clock over its worldline from any point A to any point B. Apply the LT to calculate its TD relative to the reference frame.
>

Enough!

> [snip nonsense]

I can only repeat:

Your problem is that you lack basic knowledge
of elementary physics.

Read a book, you have yet again demonstrated that

[RichD]

On September 28, tjrob137 wrote:
>> One cannot measure a clock's tick rate within its local frame,
>> since it is THE REFERENCE, by definition; there is nothing to
>> measure it against.
>
> Not true. One simply puts a time standard next to the clock and
> measures its tick rate using the standard. How do you think clocks
> are calibrated in the real world? -- by comparing them to a time standard.

You're unclear on the concept of a reference standard.
It's a matter of logic, not physics.

> Of course the time standard is itself a clock....

You recognize the circularity of your own assertions.
That's some progress, at least -

>> Once one (arbitrarily) designates a device as "the clock",
>
> This is not "arbitrary" -- we designate certain devices as clock because
> they behave the way clock must behave,

We establish the minimum properties that a clock must possess.
This set of properties may or may not be arbitrary, depending
on your definition of 'arbitrary'.

Then we specify a device as a clock. That IS arbitrary.
And we're done.

At that point, it becomes THE REFERENCE. Each tick defines
a unit of time. The questions of whether those ticks define
time per se, or measure time, is a matter of semantics and
metaphysics.

> and because they do so when
> compared to other devices already designated as clocks.

More circularity -

--
Rich

[Edgar L. Owen]

Paul,

Hmm, thought I was just formulating the method you used in your examples and that you'd agree, though not perhaps with the exact wording.

Are you disagreeing with the method, or with my later speculation on the universe computing a single metric that includes objects in motion within it?

Edgar

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/28/19 2:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 3:04:16 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/27/19 5:29 PM, RichD wrote:
>>> One cannot measure a clock's tick rate within its local frame,
>>> since it is THE REFERENCE, by definition; there is nothing to
>>> measure it against.
>>
>> Not true. One simply puts a time standard next to the clock and
>> measures its tick rate using the standard. How do you think clocks
>> are calibrated in the real world? -- by comparing them to a time
>> standard.
>

> NO, this just measures the accuracy of individual clocks, not the
> intrinsic tick rate of time in a frame.

This most certainly does measure the tick rate OF THE CLOCK. Because
that is what those words mean.

Tine is what clocks measure. But time does not "tick",
it flows equably into the future.

> That can only be determined
> by comparing to tick rates of an identical clock in another frame...

Nonsense. If you attempt to describe how to compare tick rates of clocks
in different inertial frames, you will either: a) screw it up, or b)
find it compares signals rather than tick rates, or c) find it has
systematic errors so large that it is useless.

Relativity only works if clocks always display their own elapsed proper
times [#]. Anything else would violate Einstein's first postulate. But
no measurements inconsistent with this have ever been observed.

[#] Calculated by integrating the metric over the clock's
path through spacetime. Measured by a physical clock.

> Comparing clocks in the same frame to claim they always are running
> at the same rate is irrelevant

No. Clocks always run at their usual rate, regardless of whichever frame
they are at rest in. Note the difference between my "usual" and your
"the same".

> Time is not
> something that refers to clocks but to frames.

Tine is what clocks measure. Clocks need not be at rest in some frame.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/28/19 2:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Fundamental method for calculating TD for any clock in a gravity free universe:

> [...]

This is fundamentally WRONG.

You clearly do not understand basic physics. You cannot hope to write
such things without understanding them FIRST. Get a good book on
relativity and STUDY. You are just wasting your time posting nonsense to
the net.

Tom Roberts

[Edgar L. Owen]

Tom,

If it's wrong you should be able to explain what's wrong with it clearly and simply. I'm certainly interested in learning what.

Thanks,
Edgar

[Paparios]

There are some very good and simple explanations of how and why time dilation
appears in SR.

I recommend the Landau-Lifshitz book (The Classical Theory of Fields) available
at archiv.org. Read the full of chapter 1, and particularly section 2
(intervals), section 3 (proper time) and section 4 (Lorentz Transformation)
All the derivations are from very simple algebraic notions and very easy to
follow.
The other very easy to read book is Spacetime Physics from Tayloer and Wheeler,
also available at archiv.org. Chapter 3 is the one to read.

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:

Edgar, I’m in agreement with Tom that Usenet is not the place to learn a
subject you don’t know. Books are.

[Edgar L. Owen]

> Edgar, I’m in agreement with Tom that Usenet is not the place to learn a
> subject you don’t know. Books are.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd, et al.

The best way to learn things is to ask questions because in that way you always learn precisely what you don't know without having to search through what you do already know. But of course this depends on asking the questions to someone who actually knows the answers and can explain them clearly, and has the courtesy to do so.

Edgar

[Odd Bodkin]

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is the hope and plan of many who come here.

However, consider that even in the context of a university course, where
you are paying someone to answer your questions, the instructor will expect
that you read books as primary source material and will suggest a book that
meets purpose. It really isn’t wise to respond, “But I have neither the
money nor the time nor the desire to read a book. I just want to ask
questions.”

Now if someone here gives the free advice to read a certain book, what
excuse do you loft?

[rotchm]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:33:27 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> The best way to learn things is to ask questions because in that
> way you always learn precisely what you don't know without having

But the problem is that you dont even know the language; you lack the very basics. As others have suggested, you should read a few books first, a few academic books too so as to get acquainted with the meaning of the words used & the concepts. This you have not done. If you think you did, then everything went over your head, so read them over again. Then study those books and work them through. Then, and only then, come back here for specific & well posed questions.