Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof That It's SR?

[SeanF]

Even worse, is the potential box, which we've discussed before. Accelerate two clocks in an inertial reference frame so that they experience the same forces, but one is at a different potential.

I answered that already. Every time I answer a question, but you don't understand my answer, then you claim I didn't answer your question.

Einstein mentions the box in his 1911 theory but he doesn't use the "potential" concept, and he says all the clocks everywhere inside the box will tick at the same rate, just as I said.

I assume you're talking about this answer, where you quote Einstein as saying,

"For if we measure the velocity of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free system K’, employing clocks U of identical constitution, we obtain the same magnitude at all these places."

I don't see how that's different than what you yourself said here:

If the two guys on the two mountain tops use atomic clocks to measure the speed of the light, mountain to mountain, they will measure “c” for the mountain to mountain beam . . . But when we use our own atomic clock or the perfect and well-adjusted Harrison clock, we will measure “c” for our sea-level light beam.

Identical clocks measure the speed of light as exactly c both on top of the mountains and at sea-level. Same as in the box, ain't it?

[Sam5]

I don't see how that's different than what you yourself said here:

Identical clocks measure the speed of light as exactly c both on top of the mountains and at sea-level. Same as in the box, ain't it?

Depends on whether they are atomic clocks or not. That's why I added the Harrison chronometer.

This is Einstein's “box” resting on the earth in a gravitational field:

”The same holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitational potential.”

If we want to know the true “time” all around and above the surface, inside the box, we can’t use atomic clocks, because atomic clocks will slow down at the bottom of the box and speed up at the top. That's why we need a perfect Harrison chronometer that is not affected by gravity.

He doesn’t make this stuff very clear. That’s why it took me 12 years to figure out what he was saying. That’s why you didn’t see the two different box thought experiments right away. He doesn’t even tell us in the theory that the “U” clocks are atomic clocks.

This part of the theory is so confusing, maybe that’s why that guy on the internet just left it off of his webpage.

[SeanF]

This is Einstein's “box” resting on the earth in a gravitational field:

”The same holds good, by our fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution, for measuring time at places with differing gravitational potential.”

What, exactly, "has just been said"? How about a couple of paragraphs right before this?

[Sam5]

What, exactly, "has just been said"? How about a couple of paragraphs right before this?

I told you that you can buy the whole book and the entire theory for $10, so I'm not going to sit here and type the whole thing.

[SeanF]

What, exactly, "has just been said"? How about a couple of paragraphs right before this?

I told you that you can buy the whole book and the entire theory for $10, so I'm not going to sit here and type the whole thing.

Not surprising - wouldn't want to actually back up what you're saying would you?

Tensor, you said you've got this book . . . what do you think about this?

[Normandy6644]

You can’t just jump into the middle of this and hope to understand it.

Stop patronizing me, as well as everyone else in here. You have given no one any reason to believe that you are right, no one recognizes your claims because you haven't backed them up with either math or experimental evidence, and no one in the scientific community knows who you are or cares about what you think. We are debating this here for the sole purpose of stopping misinformation, as Tensor said. If you're so smart and know so much about relativity that we just "can't understand," great, more power to you. Publish it. Then we'll see if your ideas can really hold up.

[swansont]

In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:

In his first statement, he has light always traveling at “c” in “empty” space:

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”

And this is not correct. Space is not “empty”. It contains gravitational fields that slow down the speed of light.

And there is no such thing as a frictionless surface. But that doesn't mean we can't think about an ideal system, in order to isolate effects.

Talking about what c is in empty space is perfectly valid.

[swansont]

What electrodynamical effects, if you have shielded the clock from them?

Can you “shied” an atomic clock from the gravitational field?

There is apparently some type of electrodynamical effect when an atom is moved sideways, laterally, through a radiating gravitational field.

Then the slowdown from lateral motion should depend on the value of g, shouldn't it? I mean, didn't Lorentz assume a "constant" aether?

[Sam5]

What electrodynamical effects, if you have shielded the clock from them?

Can you “shied” an atomic clock from the gravitational field?

There is apparently some type of electrodynamical effect when an atom is moved sideways, laterally, through a radiating gravitational field.

Then the slowdown from lateral motion should depend on the value of g, shouldn't it? I mean, didn't Lorentz assume a "constant" aether?

Yes, I think so. So the lateral motion through a strong field should cause more of a slowdown than the lateral motion through a weaker field. Also, the speed would be a factor too, and also any accelerative effects would be a factor. The rate change due to speed and the strength of g would be Lorentz theory, while the acceleration and the g-elevation part would be GR theory.

It’s my understanding that just simple “raw” SR (Lorentz) and GR equations can not be used on the GPS clocks since they constantly change speeds and altitudes slightly. What do you know about this? I’m still trying to learn all of it. It’s rather complicated with all the factors considered. Plus, with slow-speed airplane atomic clocks, there are East-West and North-South considerations, such as in the H-K experiment. There are some latitude considerations too.

[Sam5]

In the 1905 paper, Einstein never says that the speed of light is c in all frames of references. Earlier, in setting up his "stationary" system, he explicitly restricted himself to inertial frames of references:

In his first statement, he has light always traveling at “c” in “empty” space:

“light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”

And this is not correct. Space is not “empty”. It contains gravitational fields that slow down the speed of light.

And there is no such thing as a frictionless surface. But that doesn't mean we can't think about an ideal system, in order to isolate effects.

Talking about what c is in empty space is perfectly valid.

Not in today's world. Not when you want and need the accurate details.

For example, Newton predicted that light would bend when it passed near the sun, but he didn’t provide any formulas or any accurate details.

The 1905 guess was just a guess, based mainly on the “average speed of light” as measured at the surface of the earth by various physicists. Einstein stuck his neck out and guessed that that speed was “constant” everywhere, and he turned out to be wrong. And of course he thought the universe and the stars were all “fixed” in 1905, so that was an easy guess to make, but it doesn’t apply with today’s expanding universe and the details we now know about light speed slowdowns in gravity fields.

Anybody could have guessed in 1905 that “the speed of light is the same everywhere, and light speed is the fastest speed of anything”.

Doh

The fastest trains went only 60 mph and the earth only 18.6 mps. So, guessing that light speed was “the fastest speed” in the universe wasn’t such a big deal in 1905. But, anyway, it turned out to be wrong, and there are combined relative speeds of light that are faster than c. And there are also negative earth-relative speeds for light coming from distant galaxies.

[Sam5]

Not surprising - wouldn't want to actually back up what you're saying would you?

Tensor, you said you've got this book . . . what do you think about this?

As I explained, I’m not going to type out the whole book for you when you can buy it for $10 or get it on loan from a library for free. Your own public library can order it for a two week loan, and you can photocopy the paper for about $1.

Hey, Tensor, why don't you type out the book for SeanF?

[SeanF]

Not surprising - wouldn't want to actually back up what you're saying would you?

Tensor, you said you've got this book . . . what do you think about this?

As I explained, I’m not going to type out the whole book for you when you can buy it for $10 or get it on loan from a library for free. Your own public library can order it for a two week loan, and you can photocopy the paper for about $1.

Hey, Tensor, why don't you type out the book for SeanF?

Is that why you won't answer either my question or Tensor's about the GR equations? Too much work typing for you?

[Sam5]

Publish it. Then we'll see if your ideas can really hold up.

I’m practicing that right now, trying to decide what to include and what to leave out, and who to send it to.

I’ve got to leave quite a lot out, or it just won’t be published in a mainstream journal. For example, I approached someone about this who said my idea sounded too much like an “ether” theory, and any form or kind of anything that hints of an “ether” theory is totally unpublishable in physics right now. But it was Einstein, not me, who turned gravitational fields into a kind of light-speed regulating "ether".

If I have to leave too much out to conform to politically correct customs of modern physics, I won’t do that.

Anyway, there are other guys spreading the word about this, like on those two websites I linked you to. And as I said, if you don’t understand them either, then that’s not my problem. Many people will understand them and will learn from them.

[parejkoj]

Sam5: commenting from listener land here, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the following, which Tensor has posted repeatedly and you have consistently ignored. Unless you respond to this -- and it is your job to respond, since you are making the claim that there is a difference -- people will continue to assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

Sam has been making this claim for this whole thread. Sam has been challanged to show us his GR calculations, where gravity can be ignored and then show us his SR calculations. As soon as he shows us the two calculations don't match, he can claim GR is accurate and SR is not. He has yet to do so. Notice I'm asking for his calculations, not a cut and paste of an equation.

(As an aside, you have already shown that you know how to insert special characters into a post, so you could even make it pretty with greek letters and other symbols.)

If you can do that, good. You've done something no physicst in the past 80 years has been able to do. Publish and maybe win a Nobel.

If you cannot do that, then stop jumping up and down about SR, since you either know you are wrong or do not understand. As has been previously stated, you can't understand the physics without understanding the math. So, please show us that you understand the math and respond to Tensors challenge above.

[Sam5]

Is that why you won't answer either my question or Tensor's about the GR equations? Too much work typing for you?

What questions? Anyway, he’s got the book. You got questions? Then just ask him.

I showed him the two boxes in the paper a couple of hours ago, so I guess he’s been thinking about them since then. I expect a response soon. As soon as he figures out what Einstein and I are talking about. Then he’ll pretend he “knew it all along”.

Right now he’s probably stuck on trying to figure out what the “U” clocks are.

[Sam5]

Sam5: commenting from listener land here, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the following, which Tensor has posted repeatedly and you have consistently ignored. Unless you respond to this -- and it is your job to respond, since you are making the claim that there is a difference -- people will continue to assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

It’s my “job” to respond??? Ok, I’ll respond as soon as I get my first pay check and full insurance benefits and a retirement plan.

I don’t have any “calculations”. The calculations are in the SR and 1911 papers. One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2), but the math isn’t going to do you any good if you don’t understand the concepts. Just relative motion alone can not induce any 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) condition in any clock. Wouldn’t you agree? What do you think Lorentz had to say about this?

If you can do that, good. You've done something no physicst in the past 80 years has been able to do. Publish and maybe win a Nobel.

Actually, Einstein changed SR theory in 1918, so I can not win a Nobel Prize for what he did 85.2 years ago. I could possibly receive some kind of "honorable mention" in the field of investigative journalism.

What you guys are mad at is that you can’t yet understand Einstein’s theories or what I’m explaining and you are taking it all out on me, as if it is my fault that you can’t understand them.

[russ_watters]

Ok, it hasn't been 10 pages since my last post, but I can't let this gem go:

I don’t have any “calculations”.

#-o

[SeanF]

I don’t have any “calculations”.

Well, at least you admit it.

Just relative motion alone can not induce any 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) condition in any clock.

But it can on time. Remember that whole time vs. clock discussion that you just dropped out on? It's one of many discussions in this thread that you'd like to forget, I'm sure.

What you guys are mad at is that you can’t yet understand Einstein’s theories or what I’m explaining and you are taking it all out on me, as if it is my fault that you can’t understand them.

No, we completely understand Einstein's theories. You don't. I mean, you claim that the equation ø(v)=ø(-v) shows that Special Relativity is direction independent, for pete's sake!

We're not mad, but we are frustrated with you because you make claims but can't back them up, and because you ignore questions put to you (like the time/clock thing I mentioned above).

[Sam5]

I don’t have any “calculations”.

Well, at least you admit it.

There is no reason for me to change the Lorentz Transformation or Einstein's 1911 calculations, except to modernize them and make them include other factors. And we can all get those off of various websites.

So you actually have some of your own unique personal SR and GR calculations? That's great, we'd all like to see them.

What are they?

[Normandy6644]

One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2)...

This is what I've been trying to explain to you. In this equation you see terms for change in frequency (f and fo), a term for gravitational field and height (Φ), and then the velocity of light squared. There is nothing to suggest that a photon will travel faster than c. The same is even true for your other equation, since when v = c, you have division by 0, which even you (I hope) will admit is not possible.

I’ve got to leave quite a lot out, or it just won’t be published in a mainstream journal...

Ooooh I see. Well, if that truly is the case (which if your math and theory hold correctly I would doubt) then there are plenty of scientists in the past who were forced to publish independently and then received eventual recognition, most notably some of the early thermodynamicists: Mayer, Joule, Thomson, and even Carnot.

[Sam5]

No, we completely understand Einstein's theories.

LOL!

You don't. I mean, you claim that the equation ø(v)=ø(-v) shows that Special Relativity is direction independent, for pete's sake!

LOL! Doh... LOL, from his 1905 paper.. this is how he gets the amout of clock slowdown, and NO speedup:

”From reasons of symmetry it is now evident that the length of a given rod moving perpendicularly to its axis, measured in the stationary system, must depend only on the velocity and not on the direction and the sense of the motion. The length of the moving rod measured in the stationary system does not change, therefore, if v and -v are interchanged.”

[Sam5]

One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2)...

This is what I've been trying to explain to you. In this equation you see terms for change in frequency (f and fo), a term for gravitational field and height (Φ), and then the velocity of light squared. There is nothing to suggest that a photon will travel faster than c. The same is even true for your other equation, since when v = c, you have division by 0, which even you (I hope) will admit is not possible.

Doh...

You guys...

I feel like I'm talking to the Bowery Boys.

He is talking here, about this frequency equation, about the emitted lower frequency, not about its speed. He talks about the speed later in the paper and that’s a different equation in which he uses c1 and c2.

Do you have a copy of the book with the paper in it, or are you just doing a lot of guessing?

[Normandy6644]

One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2)...

This is what I've been trying to explain to you. In this equation you see terms for change in frequency (f and fo), a term for gravitational field and height (Φ), and then the velocity of light squared. There is nothing to suggest that a photon will travel faster than c. The same is even true for your other equation, since when v = c, you have division by 0, which even you (I hope) will admit is not possible.

Doh...

You guys...

I feel like I'm talking to the Bowery Boys.

He is talking here, about this frequency equation, about the emitted lower frequency, not about its speed. He talks about the speed later in the paper and that’s a different equation in which he uses c1 and c2.

Do you have a copy of the book with the paper in it, or are you just doing a lot of guessing?

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. If those aren't the equations that show that a photon can travel faster than light, then what are? This is what I'm asking you for. I'll spell it out for you: Show me an equation that shows that a photon (or anything else) can travel faster than c. Also, you never did answer my question about a single experiment yielding results of a photon travelling faster than c.

[SeanF]

You don't. I mean, you claim that the equation ø(v)=ø(-v) shows that Special Relativity is direction independent, for pete's sake!

LOL! Doh... LOL, from his 1905 paper.. this is how he gets the amout of clock slowdown, and NO speedup:

”From reasons of symmetry it is now evident that the length of a given rod moving perpendicularly to its axis, measured in the stationary system, must depend only on the velocity and not on the direction and the sense of the motion. The length of the moving rod measured in the stationary system does not change, therefore, if v and -v are interchanged.”

That paragraph indicates that the length contraction is direction independent. That paragraph does not indicate that SR in its entirety is direction independent. Besides, the direction independence of length contraction referred to in that paragraph does not come from ø(v)=ø(-v).

[Sam5]

[quote="Normandy6644"]

One is 1 : √1 – (v^2/c^2) and the other is f = fo (1 + -Φ/c^2)...

This is what I've been trying to explain to you. In this equation you see terms for change in frequency (f and fo), a term for gravitational field and height (Φ), and then the velocity of light squared. There is nothing to suggest that a photon will travel faster than c. The same is even true for your other equation, since when v = c, you have division by 0, which even you (I hope) will admit is not possible.

Doh...

You guys...

I feel like I'm talking to the Bowery Boys.

He is talking here, about this frequency equation, about the emitted lower frequency, not about its speed. He talks about the speed later in the paper and that’s a different equation in which he uses c1 and c2.

Do you have a copy of the book with the paper in it, or are you just doing a lot of guessing?

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Well, as long as we come to some kind of agreement about who and what we are both talking to, I guess that's ok.

If those aren't the equations that show that a photon can travel faster than light, then what are? This is what I'm asking you for. I'll spell it out for you: Show me an equation that shows that a photon (or anything else) can travel faster than c. Also, you never did answer my question about a single experiment yielding results of a photon travelling faster than c.

Look, just buy the book, or order it through your inter-library loan system. "c" is a relative term. In his speed equation, just the terms c1 and c1 show you that light speed changes. The theory explains that if you are with an atomic clock at the surface of the sun, your local light speed would be "c" and you would measure a FASTER speed for light when the light leaves the gravity field of the sun.

Can I have your autograph?

I think your best movie was “The Bowery Boys Meet Dr. Einstein”.

CLIPS FROM THE FILM

[Normandy6644]

Show me an equation that shows that a photon (or anything else) can travel faster than c. Reference an experiment corroborating the result.

By the way, I love your work on houses all across America.

[Sam5]

Show me an equation that shows that a photon (or anything else) can travel faster than c. Reference an experiment corroborating the result.

By the way, I love your work on houses all across America.

Thank you. Here’s a home move of some of my work being put to a severe acceleration test:



Here is his equation in the 1905 theory for the relative speed of light going faster and slower than “c”:



In the 1911 paper, his light speed equation is:

c = co (1 + Φ / c^2)

So, if your atomic clock is on the sun, that’s the speed of light you will measure being emitted by an atom at the surface of the earth. If your atomic clock is on the earth, then you use a -Φ and then that’s the speed of light you measure of the light being emitted by the same kind of atom at the surface of the sun.

If we figure about 333400 for the mass of the sun (I got that number off a website), when compared to the earth, and if I haven’t made a calculation error, then we’ve got the earth clock seeing 1 : .999990363047751185108104983235056 as the speed of light at the sun’s surface, and the sun clock seeing 1 : 1.00000963695224881489189501676494 as the speed of the light at the earth’s surface. But I think today the radius of each is added into the equation and Φ is changed to gravitational potential. Also mass is included today.

We could call those numbers .999990363047751185108104983235056 c and 1.00000963695224881489189501676494 c, with “c” being about 186,000 mps.

[Normandy6644]

From the very section from which your equation came:

The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.

Note the bold. In fact, I'll go one further and post the sentence immediately preceeding these equations:

Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that..."

and then you have your equation.

In the 1911 paper, his light speed equation is:

c = co (1 + Φ / c^2)

No, it's not. HE didn't write that, YOU did. You out c and co in for the frequencies in the redshift equation. I don't think you can do that, since they aren't quite the same thing.....

I'm still waiting for experimental evidence too....

[Eroica]

Here is his equation in the 1905 theory for the relative speed of light going faster and slower than “c”:

You clearly don't understand what Einstein is saying here. His second postulate is that any observer who is in an inertial frame of reference will always measure the speed of light relative to himself as c.

However, if he tries to measure the speed of light relative to another observer who is in another frame of reference, he will get a figure greater or less than c. In the equation you quoted, c-v and c+v are the speeds of a ray of light and its reflection relative to the moving observer as measured by the observer in the stationary frame! It does not violate or contradict Einstein's second postulate.

In fact, this should be obvious. If the light is always going at c relative to you, and you see someone else approaching the light source at high velocity, of course you're going to measure the speed of light relative to them at greater than c.

[Eroica]

Einstein mentions the box in his 1911 theory but he doesn't use the "potential" concept, and he says all the clocks everywhere inside the box will tick at the same rate, just as I said.

No, he doesn't. What he says is:

Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitational potentials must be regarded as going at the same rate ... Therefore the two clocks in S(1) and S(2) do not both give the "time" correctly.