1. That's just sophistry. You haven't worked out what SR actually predicts for your scenario (or at least, haven't posted your calculations). I think your scenario is a useful one, but you need to work out what SR predicts for it, or put it in Q & A if you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

2. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
Ok. But later you say the mainstream has no answer?

I never did any such thing. I said that the specific sentence you're quoting as if it is the SR solution to the TP is not in fact SR, but just a rebuttal to a one specious objection to the TP. Further, SR itself can be applied to your thought experiment.

You haven't even worked out what the mainstream theory of SR predicts for your thought experiment. Surely you must realize that you need to do that before you can say anything about how the theory handles your thought experiment.
Ok. But later you say the mainstream has no answer?

I do not find any in the literature for this proposal.

That is correct.

Correct, that is my assertion.

3. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by abcdefg
1) Given the acceleration for both is the same, you make the case for the integral. Yet, both apply this acceleration in the same fashion. Therefore, the integral has no operation here in that each clock will be adjusted in an equal corresponding manner given the description.
Challenge1: do the calculations .

To integrate, you need a differential on one axis ie lack of symmetry to compare the domains. We do not have this.

2) We are then left with deciding LT based on purely relative motion and the results herein.

3) It is you assertion that LT does not correctly apply to relative motion.
Nope. It is just another one of your red herrings. You have a calculation to do. Let's see it.

4. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Ok. But later you say the mainstream has no answer?

I do not find any in the literature for this proposal.
Ignorance is not an excuse. You have been given the tools to do the calculations by yourself, so let's see them.

5. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
That's just sophistry. You haven't worked out what SR actually predicts for your scenario (or at least, haven't posted your calculations). I think your scenario is a useful one, but you need to work out what SR predicts for it, or put it in Q & A if you are unable or unwilling to do so yourself.
Here is what I have.

t' = \gamma t

and

t = \gamma t'

from the respective observers.

Would you like to know my real resolution such that each see t' = t?

It is very simply and saves your SR.

6. You may not be able to find your specific example covered anywhere, but SR does apply to your scenario nevertheless. So you need to work out what SR predicts for your scenario.

In your attempts so far, you have only considered time dilation while they have a non-zero relative velocity. You haven't factored in the leap that distant clocks make when they undergo a change of reference frame (that's the relativity of simultaneity rearing it's paradox busting head again).

7. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
You may not be able to find your specific example covered anywhere, but SR does apply to your scenario nevertheless. So you need to work out what SR predicts for your scenario.

In your attempts so far, you have only considered time dilation while they have a non-zero relative velocity. You haven't factored in the leap that distant clocks make when they undergo a change of reference frame (that's the relativity of simultaneity rearing it's paradox busting head again).
relativity of simultaneity
Yes, I have seen pretzel logic of the relativity of simultaneity applied to the normal paradox which is completely different from the mainstream solutions.

However, if you carefully read my proposal, I circumvent this disaster by applying communications by light such that the relative motion of the two is not dependent on the outcome of the communication.

Let me be more specific, I said

"After some long time period, T1 then flashes a light to T2."
Note how I do not depend on the arrival time from T1 to T2.

It is only when you structure logic based on the outcome of two frames and the time light arrives to each as a necessary condition that you have to worry about the relativity of simultaneity.

8. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. When one changes frame, distant clocks (in the direction of the change) leap forward (or backward in the opposite direction) as a direct consequence of the Lorentz transformation. You clearly don't know your SR.

9. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. When one changes frame, distant clocks (in the direction of the change) leap forward (or backward in the opposite direction) as a direct consequence of the Lorentz transformation. You clearly don't know your SR.

First, do not let distant clocks scare you.

They operate as clocks that are close.

Agreed, frame changing operates on clocks but I apply the exact frame changing to both canceling the effect leaving naked SR with its predictions of time dilation for both.

10. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Here is what I have.

t' = \gamma t

and

t = \gamma t'

from the respective observers.

Would you like to know my real resolution such that each see t' = t?

It is very simply and saves your SR.
This is (yet) another rookie mistake when it comes to understanding relatiivity. It is called the "Dingle Paradox".(it isn't really a paradox)It does not belong in ATM, it belongs in Q&A. Open a thread there and I'll explain your error.

11. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by macaw
This is (yet) another rookie mistake when it comes to understanding relatiivity. It is called the "Dingle Paradox". It does not belong in ATM, it belongs in Q&A. Open a thread there and I'll explain your error.
Not at all.

Dingle operated with intervals of SR and compared them to instantaneous logic of Newtionian physics.

I am clearly not making this mistake.

I am operating completely under the rules of SR and the domain it claims to service.

12. Originally Posted by abcdefg
First, do not let distant clocks scare you.

They operate as clocks that are close.

Agreed, frame changing operates on clocks but I apply the exact frame changing to both canceling the effect leaving naked SR with its predictions of time dilation for both.
In SR, when you change frames distant clocks leap. In your thought experiment there are two frame changes where the observers are apart. You need to consider that leap for the one doing the frame change as well as the time dilation for both in order to get what SR says. If you miss it out then you are not working out what SR actually predicts.

13. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2007
Posts
5,398
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Not at all.

Dingle operated with intervals of SR and compared them to instantaneous logic of Newtionian physics.

I am clearly not making this mistake.

I am operating completely under the rules of SR and the domain it claims to service.

14. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
In SR, when you change frames distant clocks leap. In your thought experiment there are two frame changes where the observers are apart. You need to consider that leap for the one doing the frame change as well as the time dilation for both in order to get what SR says. If you miss it out then you are not working out what SR actually predicts.
Yes, but I carefully cause each to frame change in the same fashion but at different times.

It is my objective to leave SR exposed on its own without outside help.

I have done this.

15. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Yes, but I carefully cause each to frame change in the same fashion but at different times.
Right, so work out what SR actually predicts, and don't miss out bits of it.

It is my objective to leave SR exposed on its own without outside help.

I have done this.
Distant clocks leaping on frame change is part of SR, not outside help. How can you expect to be taken seriously in ATM when you clearly don't even know pop-sci level SR?

16. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
Right, so work out what SR actually predicts, and don't miss out bits of it.

Distant clocks leaping on frame change is part of SR, not outside help. How can you expect to be taken seriously in ATM when you clearly don't even know pop-sci level SR?
Distant clocks leaping on frame change is part of SR

We have talked about the frame change and resolved it.

Now, sure a distant clock is an issue, but in the world, of math I can wait.

So, I apply Einstein's clock synchronization method and wait. So what if it takes a long time.

The results are claimed to be accurate.

This is your mainstream, not mine.

17. Sorry, but that's meaningless. I'll come back and see if you've figured out what SR actually says later. Until you make the effort do so, talking to you is a complete waste of time.

18. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by worzel
Sorry, but that's meaningless. I'll come back and see if you've figured out what SR actually says later. Until you make the effort do so, talking to you is a complete waste of time.

You may proceed with your opinion in the face of facts of this presention.

I support all having some opinion.

19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,776
Originally Posted by abcdefg
The logic of the normal paradox is "overall" symmetry.

I confess after the burn of T1, the clock of T1 operates differently. Further I confess motion by acceleration is widely assumed to be absolute.

Finally, I confess during the burn of T1, all agree T1 is moving.

However, after all that completes and we return to relative motion and SR.

Then T2 burns and the same conditions apply.

Once the T2 burn completes, both clocks have gone through the same acceleration operations. As such, the clocks are returned to SR predictions and LT with relative motion predicting time dilation between the two.
So what? You havent accounted for the difference in time between T1 moving away and T2 accelerating.

In the situation you describe you have several stages
Start: Both stationary
T1 accel: T1 accelerates to speed v, T2 stationary
T1 cruise: T1 at speed v, T2 stationary
T2 accel: T1 at speed v, T2 accelerates to speed v
End: T1 at speed v, T2 at speed v

What happens to the clocks from T2's view:
Start: clocks read the same and tick at same rate
T1 accel: T1 clock starts falling behind and starts running slower
T1 cruise: T1 clock is slower at the value given by time dilation and is falling farther behind
T2 accel: T1 clock speeds up to same rate as T2, but is still behind
End: T1 and T2 run at same rate, but T1 is still lagging behind

Note that during the T2 accel stage, T2 is slowing down when compared to a stationary observer, not that T1 is actually speeding up.

Note that at no time does the T1 clock run faster than the T2 clock. This keeps the two clocks from returing to the same reading even tho they have returned to the same rate.

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,776
Originally Posted by abcdefg
Distant clocks leaping on frame change is part of SR

We have talked about the frame change and resolved it.

Now, sure a distant clock is an issue, but in the world, of math I can wait.

So, I apply Einstein's clock synchronization method and wait. So what if it takes a long time.

The results are claimed to be accurate.

This is your mainstream, not mine.
Actually, it is your misunderstanding of mainstream.

21. Originally Posted by worzel
So, you haven't seen a mainstream exposition of the thought experiment you propose, but you know anyhows that the mainstream explanation for your thought experiment requires a lack of symmetry, despite not even knowing what the mainstream predicts for your thought experiment, because that difference features in many English sentences rejecting a common specious objection to to some other thought experiment that might be similar to yours in some way

How about you work what SR actually predicts for the thought experiment you proposed and tell us why that is problematic, or post it in Q & A if you want some help doing the math.
This is why I stopped. When trying to understand abcdefg's scenario he/she kept altering the scenario, waved their hand and said SR doesn't handle it.

It's amazing how many people claim some theory doesn't cover their scenario but don't even know how to use the theory to begin with.

The fact abcdefg keeps talking about "deceleration" leads me to believe that they don't understand vectors at all thus doing the transformation and that when 2 vectors are equal they won't be moving in relation to each other. It isn't that hard to say what is happening in the scenario, it isn't immediately obvious but when you sit down and actually do the maths for yourself it isn't very hard.

22. Originally Posted by abcdefg
Wow.

All the mainstream I know for this paradox operates of the post I just provided. It does not operate on this problem and yet you say it does. My assertion is that there is no mainstream explanation foir this problem.
Further, I contend the times wil be equal.

I have applied LT in both contexts, i.e. T1 and T2 and find time dilation in both.
abcdefg, that is like saying multiplication doesn't handle 3,049,294x4,329,402 because you've never seen that actual problem written down anywhere.

I'm not sure what scenario you are dealing with now?
Last one I understood you where pitching is

O accelerates at a rate of nm/s for t1 amount of time in direction X
O' waits for t2 amount of time before accelerating at a rate of nm/s for t1 amount of time in direction X

From this point, or actually any other point, I don't know what your problem is with SR.

Please spell out your scenario step by step with all relevant data.
Feel free to plug in numbers for us to use. IE instead of saying nm/s for t1 seconds say something like 10,000m/s for 15,000s and tell use to what observer this acceleration rate is measured by.

Then if you wanted you could do the maths and point out where you think SR falls over. Otherwise you could say where you think it falls over and someone here can show you the maths that demonstrates what you don't understand about SR.

23. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,238
Originally Posted by korjik
Actually, it is your misunderstanding of mainstream.
Heheheheheh, I wish I had a nickel for each time we could have used this statement, in this forum.

24. Originally Posted by korjik
Actually, it is your misunderstanding of mainstream.
And there it is. Since abcdefg actually refuses to do the actual maths and show his/her work we can't even pinpoint exactly where their misunderstanding lays without going though countless numbers of posts where all they do is a lot of hand waving thinking they are very cleaver but to the rest of us we just see someone refusing to accept that there is a gap in their knowledge.

abcdefg, according to the ATM rules you must answer questions put to you. I've seen it asked multiple times for you to actually do the maths, as you understand it, and show the work. Please do so.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by WayneFrancis
And there it is. Since abcdefg actually refuses to do the actual maths and show his/her work we can't even pinpoint exactly where their misunderstanding lays without going though countless numbers of posts where all they do is a lot of hand waving thinking they are very cleaver but to the rest of us we just see someone refusing to accept that there is a gap in their knowledge.
Based on another thread, it appears that they don't believe that the Lorentz Transform is consistent with SR, thus they feel that they can just ignore it?

abcdefg, is that an accurate statement?

26. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by korjik
So what? You havent accounted for the difference in time between T1 moving away and T2 accelerating.

In the situation you describe you have several stages
Start: Both stationary
T1 accel: T1 accelerates to speed v, T2 stationary
T1 cruise: T1 at speed v, T2 stationary
T2 accel: T1 at speed v, T2 accelerates to speed v
End: T1 at speed v, T2 at speed v

What happens to the clocks from T2's view:
Start: clocks read the same and tick at same rate
T1 accel: T1 clock starts falling behind and starts running slower
T1 cruise: T1 clock is slower at the value given by time dilation and is falling farther behind
T2 accel: T1 clock speeds up to same rate as T2, but is still behind
End: T1 and T2 run at same rate, but T1 is still lagging behind

Note that during the T2 accel stage, T2 is slowing down when compared to a stationary observer, not that T1 is actually speeding up.

Note that at no time does the T1 clock run faster than the T2 clock. This keeps the two clocks from returing to the same reading even tho they have returned to the same rate.

It looks to me like you left off the relativity portion "v" from T1's point of view.

Under SR, T1 will see T2 moving and T1 claims to be at rest and thus the clock at T2 beats slower.

Likewise, T2 will see T1 moving and T2 claims to be at rest and thus the clock at T1 beats slower.

27. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by Fortis
Based on another thread, it appears that they don't believe that the Lorentz Transform is consistent with SR, thus they feel that they can just ignore it?

abcdefg, is that an accurate statement?
That is a correct statement, but that has nothing to do with what we are doing here.

28. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by WayneFrancis
And there it is. Since abcdefg actually refuses to do the actual maths and show his/her work we can't even pinpoint exactly where their misunderstanding lays without going though countless numbers of posts where all they do is a lot of hand waving thinking they are very cleaver but to the rest of us we just see someone refusing to accept that there is a gap in their knowledge.

abcdefg, according to the ATM rules you must answer questions put to you. I've seen it asked multiple times for you to actually do the maths, as you understand it, and show the work. Please do so.
I must go and will come back with your request.

Also, I want to get some links for everything I do.

So, please give me a little time.

Thanks

29. Banned
Join Date
Sep 2009
Posts
1,804
Originally Posted by WayneFrancis
abcdefg, that is like saying multiplication doesn't handle 3,049,294x4,329,402 because you've never seen that actual problem written down anywhere.

I'm not sure what scenario you are dealing with now?
Last one I understood you where pitching is

O accelerates at a rate of nm/s for t1 amount of time in direction X
O' waits for t2 amount of time before accelerating at a rate of nm/s for t1 amount of time in direction X

From this point, or actually any other point, I don't know what your problem is with SR.

Please spell out your scenario step by step with all relevant data.
Feel free to plug in numbers for us to use. IE instead of saying nm/s for t1 seconds say something like 10,000m/s for 15,000s and tell use to what observer this acceleration rate is measured by.

Then if you wanted you could do the maths and point out where you think SR falls over. Otherwise you could say where you think it falls over and someone here can show you the maths that demonstrates what you don't understand about SR.
I simplified the problem.

It is basically the same and I am sorry this caused you confusion.

Further, frame switching of one twin and not the other is typically the explanation.

Resolution of the paradox in special relativity
The standard textbook approach treats the twin paradox as a straightforward application of special relativity. Here the Earth and the ship are not in a symmetrical relationship: the ship has a "turnaround" in which it undergoes non-inertial motion, while the Earth has no such turnaround. Since there is no symmetry, it is not paradoxical if one twin is younger than the other. Nevertheless it is still useful to show that special relativity is self-consistent, and how the calculation is done from the standpoint of the traveling twin.

Special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent. But the space ship jumps frames (accelerates) when it performs a U-turn. In contrast, the twin who stays home remains in the same inertial frame for the whole duration of his brother's flight. No accelerating or decelerating forces apply to the homebound twin.

Special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent. But the space ship jumps frames (accelerates) when it performs a U-turn. In contrast, the twin who stays home remains in the same inertial frame for the whole duration of his brother's flight. No accelerating or decelerating forces apply to the homebound twin.

There are indeed not two but three relevant inertial frames: the one in which the stay-at-home twin remains at rest, the one in which the traveling twin is at rest on his outward trip, and the one in which he is at rest on his way home. It is during the acceleration at the U-turn that the traveling twin switches frames. That is when he must adjust his calculated age of the twin at rest.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by abcdefg
That is a correct statement, but that has nothing to do with what we are doing here.
Just to check, for what we are discussing here we are assuming that the LT is part of, and consistent wit, SR. Is that correct?

#### Posting Permissions

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