I want to say this.
I get the argument, well now abcdefg no one agrees with you.
Yet, when I was on other ATM threads, I was instructed to not agree with the ATM position.
I was instructed to ask questions
So, if it is the case that no mainstream folks can agree with ATM logic, then how can it be otherwise that anyone would do anything but disagree?
Therefore, because of the rules, this is a baseless and useless argument.
Mainstream folks should be allowed to agree with ATM on points if they choose.
Otherwise, we create a false impression of disagreement when in fact it may be very limited.
Logic would certainly indicate we would not want to do that, if, we are in pursuit of the truth.
Say it loud, you are against SR's clock sync method and deny the results.
I just want to caution you, there are hundreds of papers in the mainstream that rely on this method for clock synching.
So, you are forced from the mainstream to accept the results.
This is not a valid argument.
I have not seen one mainstream advocate come here and refute the conclusions and the proofs.
I will come up with the other model later if you will be patient. I know you have asked this 3 times now but folks have to understand the basics of what is really going on or they will never see anything else.
I am creating doubt right now. If that is all I achieve, future ATM's I do will be able to use that.
Okay, that's cool, and should be interesting. Remember it has to pass the same tests that were put to SR.I will come up with the other model later if you will be patient. I know you have asked this 3 times now but folks have to understand the basics of what is really going on or they will never see anything else.
The doubt may or may not already be there in the logic, but there is no doubt in the math based upon that logic.I am creating doubt right now. If that is all I achieve, future ATM's I do will be able to use that.
I will make it pass more tests.
That's because the conclusions for the math are correct. When the twins are separated by some distance, difference frames will view different times on their clocks.
This is not relevent. This is an ability of mine to use the tools available in a different way.
It is not my fault.
But, in the Definition of Simultaneity Einstein assured everyone this result of clock synching was valid.
So, the twins know the answer but the frames do not.
This implies the LT translation cannot be trusted.
I don't really think this issue is about an alternative model
Wonder if somebody could refute the abcdefg's points more directly.
abcdefg your point will be diverted with your "new model" i suggest you to avoid it.
All of you will end discussing other points and other issues than the original proposed problem
Is more less what i'm thinking on this problemhe conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SR
he conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SRLet's exploreIs more less what i'm thinking on this problem
post #511 with the tunnel observers? According to the tunnel observers, all of thier clocks are synchronized all the way down the tunnel, but to us while travelling toward the tunnel, the clocks in the back of the tunnel show a greater time than those in the front of the tunnel. It is the same way with the twins. Since there is some distance between the twins once they reach the new frame, there will be a simultaneity shift for the difference in times read on their clocks by other frames. However, if you were to put both twins in the same place with no distance between them in the new frame, then their clocks will read the same difference in times to all other frames as they read between their own clocks because there is no distance between them for the simultaneity shift to act.
Surely, you are not claiming that outside factors entangle the results of those clock readings are you?
There is an answer between the twins and it is known to them. It is just that SR cannot logically decide it.
Get this through your skull there is no "universal now" Observer C looking at the 2 clocks sees things differently because of SR and SR allows you to calculate what is actually seen.
Pleas fill in the answer to the following questions.
I'll use your scenario and I'll describe it in full
Alice (A) and Bob (B) have a ship that can accelerate at 10,000m/s, relative to the Charlie's frame
Charlie (C) remains stationary at the launching pad
At T0 all clocks are synced up as the are at rest in the same reference frame and = 0s
T1 = 14989.6229s in Charlie's Reference frame
Both will accelerate for 14989.6229s, in Charlie's frame.
T2 = 14989.6229s * 2 in Charlie's Reference frame.
Alice Launches at T0
Bob Launches at T0 + 14989.6229s
Answer the following questions as you understand how SR work
What is Alice's proper time when she stops accelerating?
What is Alice's Distance from Bob and Charlie when she stops accelerating in her reference frame?
What is Bob's proper time when he stops accelerating?
What is Bob's Distance from Alice when he stops accelerating in his reference frame.
What you are missing is that Bob and Alice looking at each others clock separated by distance x is while in the same reference frame is not the same as what they would see if one or both then proceeded to accelerate toward the other so they are side by side to compare the 2 clocks.
I'm bet you'll get a bunch of wrong answers because you do not know how to apply SR properly.
What SR will do is give you the calculations so you can predict their ages if they did return to you if you know what went on since they left you until they come back to you.
There is no rule about not being able to agree with a ATM thread. The whole purpose isn't to shoot down ideas but to critically analyse them. Ie an idea could be ATM but still 100% correct in which case no one would be able to disagree with it. They could ask questions but at the end of the day if the idea is correct then it is fine for people to post "Yes, I agree with this math/logic/postulate"
What you say in that post is a straw man. There is no conspiracy to have everyone gang up against an ATM poster. It just happens that most ATM posts are not fully thought through and the original poster doesn't account for everything.
Like you not understanding that there is no universal "NOW" that you can apply to different observers in different frames separated by different distances.
If you can begin to understand that then you should see where your whole idea is faulty and that SR, in fact, does produce the correct answers.
If 2 observer separate after synchronising their clocks and by using an agreed upon flight plan then either observer can use SR to calculate when, according to their clock, they should read a certain time on the others clock based. Add in as many other observers into the mix as you want.
Using abcdefg's scenario if I want to send a message to either twin using light then I can accurately predict the age of that twin when they receive the message using SR.
OK, then what we have is this:
We do an experiment, measure a speed of light and some times, and infer directly from the definition of speed that our firecracker, call it firecracker A, explodes in 3 seconds, and the other firecracker, call it B, explodes in 5 seconds. This holds despite the fact that when the two rockets pass each other, we note the two firecrackers are in an identical state that we normally associate with a firecracker that is going to blow in 3 seconds. What's more, the other rocket, being in exactly the same position as we are except they think we are moving away from them, concludes that firecracker B explodes in 3 seconds, and firecracker A explodes in 5 seconds. We are ready for the second question I posed:
Is there an inconsistency here?
My undergraduate course never "resolved" the twin paradox in any way at all, because there is nothing to be explained there. There is no paradox.
There is nothing to be explained, and so it was simply never mentioned.
Similarly, we did not get the area of a square explained to us, or how to go to the bathroom.
abcdefg, instinctively I want to refute just about every sentence you wrote in reply to me, but nothing new will be said so we are just going round in circles.. As KenG has really zeroed in what the problem is I'm going to bow out and watch your exchange with him for now.
The twin's synced their clocks at the beginning of the experiment.
At completion, they sync again.
The only goal is to determine the elapsed time differential between the two.
Sure, the distance may cause the sync to take a while, but they are in the same frame and so any additional elapsed time will be equal for the twins.
Since we are looking for time elapsed differentials, then that equal additional elapsed time for the twins clock sync will not affect the differential, if it exists.
Therefore, this distance between the twins does not affect the outcome of determining the elapsed time differential between the two.
If someone could at least post a link with the reference of the idea that to compare both twins, both must be exactly at the same location?
I must accept, that while it is the conventional comparation for the twin paradox, it could not ,probably ,be a must to compare the elapsed time
A bit better elaboration on this would be interesting, abcde your experiment can't be modified for such requirement?
I want to say this before I answer your questions.
It is clear to me everyone is making the same basic argument against this twins paradox.
All are making some form of an R of S argument. You are all basically saying when it comes to light/events, two or more frames will naturally reach different conclusions for two light flashes.
More specifically, it is impossible to know absolute simultaneity. In fact, if is impossible to know the ordinality of two flashes in any sense. That means you cannot decide whether one is before the other, at the same time or after the other.
So, you then conclude C and D should resolve to different conclusions regarding of the twins as a consequence of R of S under SR.
Here is the problem with that argument. Unlike R of S, we do have an answer. The twins sync and know the answer. Unlike with R of S where it is impossible to establish the ordinality the two flashes, the twins are able to decide the ordinality of their ages. So, this is different.
This means the ordinality of the ages of the twins is decidable under SR. Again, the twins know the answer with the clock sync.
But, SR contradicts itself from other calculations on this decidable twins age ordinality.
Put simply, SR has a problem within its domain that is decidable on one hand and not decidable on another.
For those of you into mathematical logic, this means the theory is inconsistent.