1. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Right, they started with the same now, but O' 's now changes while accelerating, so they are no longer the same when O' reads the time on the clock of O from the new frame.
grav, this is the equation that comes from the mainsteam. It is a prediction.

http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no521/RMF52110.pdf
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...eleration.html
http://rmf.fciencias.unam.mx/pdf/rmf/52/1/52_1_070.pdf

BT for O'
c/a sinh(aBT/c) for O

Your "in the now argument" has no meaning to the mainstream and is ATM.

2. Originally Posted by abcdefg
grav, this is the equation that comes from the mainsteam. It is a prediction.

http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no521/RMF52110.pdf
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...eleration.html
http://rmf.fciencias.unam.mx/pdf/rmf/52/1/52_1_070.pdf

BT for O'
c/a sinh(aBT/c) for O

Your "in the now argument" has no meaning to the mainstream and is ATM.
Right, those are the equations, but according to whose observations, the observer that remained inertial or the one that accelerated?

3. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Right, those are the equations, but according to whose observations, the observer that remains inertial or the one that accelerates?
It does not matter.

Acceleration is accepted as absolute motion, dirty word, uniform motion from the mainstream.

There is no perspective. All agree period.

When they launch a gps satellite, they downgrade the frequency of the clock prior to launch.
Why? Clocks beat faster in less gravity.

The earth frame and the satellite frame are all in agreement on this.

Reciprocal time dilation does not apply to acceleration and gravity operations on proper time calculations.

4. Originally Posted by abcdefg
If we ignore all this complexity for the time being and just focus in on the necessity of C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame matching the actual frame's actual elapsed time, then we can proceed.

This will be where you will see the R of S does not explain this issue.
When should C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame match the actual frame's actual elapsed time?

In what frame of reference is the age ordinality of the twins both decidable and not decidable?

5. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
When should C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame match the actual frame's actual elapsed time?

In what frame of reference is the age ordinality of the twins both decidable and not decidable?

When should C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame match the actual frame's actual elapsed time?

Assume C and this frame, call it twin are synched at some start point.
Ater that start at any time t in the context of C, the acceleration and time dilation SR equations should apply accordingly and the proper time of the twin should match these calculations if C had the ability to look at the clock.

In what frame of reference is the age ordinality of the twins both decidable and not decidable?

It does not become decidable until the twins occupy the same inertial frame. This is the frame of D

Clock synchronization is not decidable between relative motion frames.

Once the twins are inertial, Einstein's clock synchronization applies allowing the twins to decide their actual age ordinality.

6. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
When should C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame match the actual frame's actual elapsed time?
In what frame of reference is the age ordinality of the twins both decidable and not decidable?

This is not really the question.

Here is what I said.

Here we are again, the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable.

The intention of the is that C claims twin1 is younger and D claims twin1 is older.

From this logic, the age ordinality is not decidable. In other words, C and D do not agree. If they did agree, then the age ordinality is decidable.

However, in the frame of the twins, they clock sync and the age becomes decidable.

Therefore, the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable.

7. Originally Posted by abcdefg
"When should C's SR calculations of elapsed proper time of a frame match the actual frame's actual elapsed time?"

Assume C and this frame, call it twin are synched at some start point.
Ater that start at any time t in the context of C, the acceleration and time dilation SR equations should apply accordingly and the proper time of the twin should match these calculations if C had the ability to look at the clock.
"if C had the ability to look at the clock."

Does that mean what I think it means?

Originally Posted by abcdefg
"In what frame of reference is the age ordinality of the twins both decidable and not decidable?"

It does not become decidable until the twins occupy the same inertial frame. This is the frame of D

Clock synchronization is not decidable between relative motion frames.

Once the twins are inertial, Einstein's clock synchronization applies allowing the twins to decide their actual age ordinality.
So there is no frame of reference where the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable?

8. Originally Posted by abcdefg
It does not matter.

Acceleration is accepted as absolute motion, dirty word, uniform motion from the mainstream.

There is no perspective. All agree period.

When they launch a gps satellite, they downgrade the frequency of the clock prior to launch.
Why? Clocks beat faster in less gravity.

The earth frame and the satellite frame are all in agreement on this.

Reciprocal time dilation does not apply to acceleration and gravity operations on proper time calculations.
Yes, it does matter. As a simple example, let's say observer A and observer B are in different frames and that each sees two seconds into the other's past, whereby each sees the other's clock lagging two seconds behind their own. So when A sees A's own clock read AT = 10 seconds according to A's perspective, A sees B's clock read BT = 8 seconds. So when B sees B's own clock read BT = 8 seconds according to B's perspective, what reading does B see on A's clock?

9. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
"if C had the ability to look at the clock."

Does that mean what I think it means?

So there is no frame of reference where the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable?
Does that mean what I think it means?

Probably, what do you think it means?

My intention is that the SR calculations should actually match what they claim. I do not know how to say it because it is impossible to "look" at another frames clock unless the two frames somehow become inertial.

I am just saying it as a statement of logic.

So there is no frame of reference where the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable?

Correct, the experiment itself sets up this conclusion. No frame of reference has contradictory information about the experiment.

10. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Yes, it does matter. As a simple example, let's say observer A and observer B are in different frames and that each sees two seconds into the other's past, whereby each sees the other's clock lagging two seconds behind their own. So when A sees A's own clock read AT = 10 seconds according to A's perspective, A sees B's clock read BT = 8 seconds. So when B sees B's own clock read BT = 8 seconds according to B's perspective, what reading does B see on A's clock?
So what.

I did not propose this and none of the logic in the experiment or simple example I gave uses any of the above logic.

Apples to oranges.

My example was simple, assume O and O' are inertial. Assume O' accelerates at a for a time period BT.

The following results for the elapsed time periods for O and O'

O' - BT
O - c/a sinh(aBT/c).

11. Originally Posted by abcdefg
So what.

I did not propose this and none of the logic in the experiment or simple example I gave uses any of the above logic.

Apples to oranges.

My example was simple, assume O and O' are inertial. Assume O' accelerates at a for a time period BT.

The following results for the elapsed time periods for O and O'

O' - BT
O - c/a sinh(aBT/c).
Apples to oranges? It is the same thing. When in different frames, each observer's perspective of the other is temporally distorted. So if O reads BT on the clock of O' and AT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) on O 's own clock when O' stops accelerating according to the perspective of O, then O' will observe BT on the clock of O' and AT' = sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) sinh(a BT/c) on the clock of O when O' stops accelerating according to the perspective of O'. In other words, AT does not equal AT' because O and O' do not share the same "now", being in different frames when they read each other's times after the acceleration.

12. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Does that mean what I think it means?

Probably, what do you think it means?

My intention is that the SR calculations should actually match what they claim. I do not know how to say it because it is impossible to "look" at another frames clock unless the two frames somehow become inertial.

I am just saying it as a statement of logic.
I think you mean "if C had the ability to look at the clock", instantly, across space-time, don't you?

You think there is some absolute sense where C's "now" matches the twins "now".

Am I correct?

Originally Posted by abcdefg
So there is no frame of reference where the age ordinality of the twins is both decidable and not decidable?

Correct, the experiment itself sets up this conclusion. No frame of reference has contradictory information about the experiment.
If no frame of reference has contradictory information, where is the problem again?

13. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Apples to oranges? It is the same thing. When in different frames, each observer looks into the past of the other. So if O reads BT on the clock of O' and AT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) on O 's own clock according to the perspective of O for when O' stops accelerating, then O' will observe BT on the clock of O' and AT' = sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) sinh(a BT/c) on the clock of O according to the perspective of O' for when O' stops accelerating. In other words, AT does not equal AT' because O and O' do not share the same "now", being in different frames when they read each other's times after the acceleration.
It is the same thing. When in different frames, each observer looks into the past of the other.
I suppose if light is the method this is true.

But, the time dilation calcs are supposed to work.

The rest of what you wrote does not apply.

The equations:
BT
c/a sinh(aBT/c).
are predictions of what will happen. They cannot actually "look" at their respective clocks. Frame to frame clock synchronization is not decidable.

So, this must be used only in terms of logic and expected outcomes.

This is the mainstream predictions for the above acceleration.

14. Originally Posted by abcdefg
It is the same thing. When in different frames, each observer looks into the past of the other.
I suppose if light is the method this is true.

But, the time dilation calcs are supposed to work.

The rest of what you wrote does not apply.

The equations:
BT
c/a sinh(aBT/c).
are predictions of what will happen. They cannot actually "look" at their respective clocks. Frame to frame clock synchronization is not decidable.

So, this must be used only in terms of logic and expected outcomes.

This is the mainstream predictions for the above acceleration.
Again, these are only the times according to an observer that remains inertial the whole time while the other accelerates, not according to the accelerating observer themself. So for O that remains in the original frame, it would be BT for O' and AT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) for O 's own clock. For D that remains in the new frame, it would be BT for O' and DT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) for D's own clock. D reads O 's time as sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) (c/a) sinh(a BT/c), so since D and O' are now in the same frame, O' reads sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) on the clock of O.

15. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
I think you mean "if C had the ability to look at the clock", instantly, across space-time, don't you?

You think there is some absolute sense where C's "now" matches the twins "now".

Am I correct?

If no frame of reference has contradictory information, where is the problem again?
"if C had the ability to look at the clock" instantly, across space-time, don't you?
This is what I mean

You think there is some absolute sense where C's "now" matches the twins "now".

Am I correct?

No, the frame to frame calculations I provided show I do not agree with this.
I do not use absolute time under SR.

If no frame of reference has contradictory information, where is the problem again
The problem is the whole though experiment taken as a whole.

C concludes twin1 is younger.
D concludes twin1 is older.

At this point folks could use some type of R of S argument I guess. Actually not, but they do anyway.

Now, the twins are in the same inertial frame. Therefore, a correct age ordinality is known.

This is transmitted to C and D.

At least C or D is wrong.

So, from the totality of the thought experiment, C and D cannot both be right.

But, SR is supposed to perform frame to frame time calculations correctly. That means when you apply LT, you expect the results to be correct in the frame you are translating.

Since C and D cannot both be right, then SR does not correctly translate time correctly frame to frame.

16. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Again, these are only the times according to an observer that remains inertial the whole time while the other accelerates, not according to the accelerating observer themself. So for O that remains in the original frame, it would be BT for O' and AT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) for O 's own clock. For D that remains in the new frame, it would be BT for O' and DT = (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) for D's own clock. D reads O 's time as sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) (c/a) sinh(a BT/c), so since D and O' are now in the same frame, O' reads sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) (c/a) sinh(a BT/c) on the clock of O.
You do not understand acceleration calculations.

Both agree on the times, just like in the gps satellite example I gave you.
Both agree the accelerating clock beats slower and both agree on the amount also.

17. Originally Posted by abcdefg
You do not understand acceleration calculations.

Both agree on the times, just like in the gps satellite example I gave you.
Both agree the accelerating clock beats slower and both agree on the amount also.
Both agree on the reading of O' when O' stops accelerating according to both realities, because the reading coincides with the event in O' 's frame, but they will not agree upon the time of O during that same event as each perceives it.

18. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
Both agree on the reading of O' when O' stops accelerating according to both realities, because the reading coincides with the event in O' 's frame, but they will not agree upon the time of O during that same event as each perceives it.
Yes they do, this is not reciprocal time dilation.

The decision on the two frames agrees exactly.

O' thinks its clock is dilated and so does O think that about O'. O agrees the clock of O' is dilated.

They both agree on their clocks for each other as follows:
O'- BT
O- c/a sinh(aBT/c).

Both agree to these calculations. O will beat faster and O' will beat slower according to the calcs above.

19. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Yes they do, this is not reciprocal time dilation.

The decision on the two frames agrees exactly.

O' thinks its clock is dilated and so does O think that about O'. O agrees the clock of O' id dilated.

They both agree on their clocks for each other as follows:
O'- BT
O- c/a sinh(aBT/c).

Both agree to these calculations. O will beat faster and O' will beat slower according to the calcs above.
They would agree if both of their "now"s were the same, but in SR, "now"s differ in different frames, so each does not agree upon the same times as the other.

20. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by grav
They would agree if both of their "now"s were the same, but in SR, "now"s differ in different frames, so each does not agree upon the same times as the other.
Grav, they started in the same frame. I said that three times. They synched and had a common now.

21. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
You mean "if C had the ability to look at the clock" instantly, across space-time, don't you?
This is what I mean
You understand what problems that causes, of course.

Originally Posted by abcdefg
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
You think there is some absolute sense where C's "now" matches the twins "now".

Am I correct?
No, the frame to frame calculations I provided show I do not agree with this.
I do not use absolute time under SR.
Ok, you are using a simultaneity convention.

Originally Posted by abcdefg
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
If no frame of reference has contradictory information, where is the problem again
The problem is the whole though experiment taken as a whole.

C concludes twin1 is younger.
D concludes twin1 is older.

At this point folks could use some type of R of S argument I guess. Actually not, but they do anyway.
And they would be correct.

Originally Posted by abcdefg
Now, the twins are in the same inertial frame. Therefore, a correct age ordinality is known.

This is transmitted to C and D.

At least C or D is wrong.
In which frame of reference are C or D wrong?

Originally Posted by abcdefg
So, from the totality of the thought experiment, C and D cannot both be right.

But, SR is supposed to perform frame to frame time calculations correctly. That means when you apply LT, you expect the results to be correct in the frame you are translating.

Since C and D cannot both be right, then SR does not correctly translate time correctly frame to frame.
The totality of the thought experiment is still spread out across space-time. You are using a God's-eye view of the thought experiment, instantaneous flitting between frames C and D and getting different answers.

From your God's-eye view, do you conclude that C and D should get the same answer?

22. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Grav, they started in the same frame. I said that three times. They synched and had a common now.
Yes, but they observe the times after O' has accelerated, so the times are observed from different frames.

23. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
You mean "if C had the ability to look at the clock" instantly, across space-time, don't you?

This is what I mean
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
You understand what problems that causes, of course.
No, it does not cause a problem.

It says we expect the calcs SR to work. This is a statement of logic.
We cannot instantly see across spacetime. But, that may imply SR is allowed to lie about the results and we cannot examine it.

Therefore, I choose to jump to a higher level out of SR using infinitary logic. I am permitted to do this because SR is an axiomatic theory with infinite models. If SR were QT, I would not be allowed this luxury.

As such, I am permitted to say SR must calculate the proper time of a frame a priori. I am not restricted by the a posteriori universe where this is not permitted.

Since SR is a priori logic, I am not violating any rules of logic.
I am exploiting them.

24. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Now, the twins are in the same inertial frame. Therefore, a correct age ordinality is known.

This is transmitted to C and D.

At least C or D is wrong.
Originally Posted by speedfreek;
From which frame of reference are C or D wrong?
It is not from a frame it is logic.

This logic is based on the proposition that SR calculations must be real. Under that proposition, when SR meets "real", it fails.

25. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804

Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdefg
So, from the totality of the thought experiment, C and D cannot both be right.

But, SR is supposed to perform frame to frame time calculations correctly. That means when you apply LT, you expect the results to be correct in the frame you are translating.
Since C and D cannot both be right, then SR does not correctly translate time correctly frame to frame.

Originally Posted by speedfreek;
The totality of the thought experiment is still spread out across space-time. You are using a God's-eye view of the thought experiment, instantaneous flitting between frames C and D and getting different answers.

From your God's-eye view, do you conclude that C and D should get the same answer?
The totality of the thought experiment is still spread out across space-time.
This is not true, it is logic based. Further, all events happen in spacetime. The transmission of the answer happens in space time.

We calculate C and D's answer and they cannot both be true. Once the twins sync, the answer is known and is transmitted in spacetime.

None of this thought experiment requires a "God's eye" view.

The only part that requires a "God's eye" view is to postulate that SR equations actually work.

That should not require a "God's eye" because this is the obvious requirement of science.

26. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Originally Posted by SpeefFreek
From which frame of reference are C or D wrong?
It is not from a frame it is logic.

This logic is based on the proposition that SR calculations must be real. Under that proposition, when SR meets "real", it fails.
Logic, like anything else, requires a frame of reference. Where is the frame of reference where logic fails in this case?

27. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
The totality of the thought experiment is still spread out across space-time.
This is not true, it is logic based.

28. Originally Posted by abcdefg
It is not from a frame it is logic.

This logic is based on the proposition that SR calculations must be real. Under that proposition, when SR meets "real", it fails.
Is this according to your own definition of real? If I were to propose a theory that says observer A and observer B are in different frames and that each sees two seconds into the other's past, whereby each sees the other's clock lagging two seconds behind their own, then when A sees A's own clock read AT = 10 seconds according to A's perspective, A sees B's clock read BT = 8 seconds. So when B sees B's own clock read BT = 8 seconds according to B's perspective, what reading does B see on A's clock?

29. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
This logic of the experiment is spread across space-time. So is the acceleration equation for SR.

So what.

All the answers are calculated with SR and the transmission of the final result occurs.

SR is either truthful or not.

It is shown SR cannot calculate the results correctly.

30. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by speedfreek
Logic, like anything else, requires a frame of reference. Where is the frame of reference where logic fails in this case?
Nope, false. Logic is universal to science. It works under all conditions.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•