“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Yes, ships A and B accelerate from ship 1 relative to ship 1. You have a problem. In the rest frame of ship 1 time is passing at 0.87 of the rate of time on Earth. Ship B will accelerate away from ship 1 so their time will start ticking slower than on ship 1. How is it now possible that you think their time will start ticking faster and become the same rate as on Earth? Did you use ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION? Your difficulty is that you think there is some absolute rate of time and that clocks either fast or slow compared to that absolute. That is simply not the case. Yes, ship1 measures ship B's clocks as moving slower than ship1's. But the earth measures them as moving at the same rate as the earth's. The time dilation factor depends on the relative speeds, not on comparison to some absolute. I did not use acceleration at all. I simply used the relative velocities. For uniform motion, that is all that is required.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Your difficulty is that you think there is some absolute rate of time and that clocks either fast or slow compared to that absolute. That is simply not the case. Yes, ship1 measures ship B's clocks as moving slower than ship1's. But the earth measures them as moving at the same rate as the earth's. The time dilation factor depends on the relative speeds, not on comparison to some absolute. I did not use acceleration at all. I simply used the relative velocities. For uniform motion, that is all that is required. The difficulty is all yours, you have used absolute time in your reasoning. Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B. You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame). This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration. You constantly fall into the fallacy of ship 1 measuring ship B's clock to tick slower and vice versa. THE SHIPS CAN NOT MEASURE THE PROPER TIME ON THE OTHER SHIP, PERIOD. They can record logs of their own proper time and those logs can be the observable facts to be reviewed later. I am talking about *real* dilation of proper times and not your illusion of doppler effected light causing seemingly different rates of time. The fact is that for predicting any kind of different aging on the ships you are now using an *absolute* frame relative to which some acceleration causes slower rate of time and some faster rate of time. Your horse is dead, why do you keep beating it?:)

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

humble brother wrote: The difficulty is all yours, you have used absolute time in your reasoning. Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B. You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame). This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration. We can extend this situation to the good old twin paradox. The claim is that the twin on the space ship ends up aging more (his proper time is the one ticking slower). How would you be able to make this claim? What if Earth had already accelerated to the opposite direction with regard to the path of the traveling twin? Earth has accelerated in the universe and you have no idea how much. Therefore you can not predict the aging difference of the two twins. The relativistic model collapses totally.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Sorry the claim is that the twin on ship ages less as his proper time ticks slower due to the acceleration.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

We are arguing how many seconds pass in my time compared to to your seconds in your time. On spaceships that do not exist at speeds impossible to achieve. As compared to a third reference frame that we just totally made up. Whoopee!
You could argue about real world velocities and it would have some meaningful consequence.
Like how it is calculated to slingshot a spacecraft around Jupiter to get it to Pluto or something.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Aura Mytha wrote: We are arguing how many seconds pass in my time compared to to your seconds in your time. On spaceships that do not exist at speeds impossible to achieve. As compared to a third reference frame that we just totally made up. Whoopee! You could argue about real world velocities and it would have some meaningful consequence. Like how it is calculated to slingshot a spacecraft around Jupiter to get it to Pluto or something. The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times. Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Ship 1 and ship B are in a single rest frame, forget everything around them it's just ships 1 and B. OK, this shows you don't know what it means to be a rest frame. Ship 1 and ship B are moving with respect to each other, so definitely do NOT have the same rest frame! You have now declared that acceleration of ship B away from ship 1 does not cause the proper time on ship B to start ticking slower than the proper time in the rest frame where it accelerated (ship 1's frame). The difference is caused by the relative velocity NOT the acceleration (although acceleration can affect it also). This acceleration apparently causes a totally opposite effect and the time on the ship will start ticking faster after the acceleration. You constantly fall into the fallacy of ship 1 measuring ship B's clock to tick slower and vice versa. THE SHIPS CAN NOT MEASURE THE PROPER TIME ON THE OTHER SHIP, PERIOD. The difference in how the clocks measure time *is* the time dilation. In addition to not understanding what a rest frame is, you also seem not to understand the concept of proper time. The proper time is path dependent: it is how much time elapses for someone (or something) that moves over that path in spacetime. It is analogous to the length of a path, but not identical. And yes, ships can watch the clocks of the other ships and thereby know how the time dilations. They can record logs of their own proper time and those logs can be the observable facts to be reviewed later. To do a real comparison, you need to record not only times of events, but locations. I am talking about *real* dilation of proper times and not your illusion of doppler effected light causing seemingly different rates of time. The fact is that for predicting any kind of different aging on the ships you are now using an *absolute* frame relative to which some acceleration causes slower rate of time and some faster rate of time. Exactly wrong. I am not using an absolute time. Both time and distance are relative to the frame of the observer. In going from the description in one frame to that in another, you use a Lorentz transformation. All of this can be discussed with no accelerations at all and doing so simplifies the discussion (which you clearly need). Your horse is dead, why do you keep beating it?:) My horse isn't even injured. And you don't have a horse at all. Once again, And event is something that has both a location in spacetime. In other words, each observer will say an event happens at a definite place and at a definite time. Two events can be at different locations and/or different times. An observer will measure the two events to be some distance apart and with some time interval between them. Different observers measuring the same event will disagree about both the time interval and the distance between the events. Suppose two ships, A and B are moving with respect to each other (in other words, are not at rest and so do not have a common rest frame). Both measure time with clocks that are at rest for them. But, A's clock is moving with respect to B and B's clock is moving with respect to A. So two clicks of A's clock will be at the same location for A, but at different times for A. Those same two clicks will be at both different locations and at different times for B. Time dilation is the fact that B measures A's clocks as running slower than B's clocks. But, by symmetry, A will measure B's clocks as running slower than A's clocks. In this situation, the time dilation factor is the same both ways. But, this time dilation factor only holds for events at the same location in the measured frames. If two events happen at different locations and different times in both frames, then the two observers may even disagree about which event happened first as well as the time between them.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> We can extend this situation to the good old twin paradox. The claim is that the twin on the space ship ends up aging more (his proper time is the one ticking slower). If neither twin accelerates, they *both* see the other as aging slower. Since they will only meet once, this is no problem. The twin paradox happens when at least one has to accelerate so that they can meet twice. The degree of acceleration will then break the symmetry (or not) and determine which twin is younger (or not). Acceleration is not relative, but velocity is. How would you be able to make this claim? What if Earth had already accelerated to the opposite direction with regard to the path of the traveling twin? The earth is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue with whether the twins meet twice and the pattern of acceleration of the two twins. Earth has accelerated in the universe and you have no idea how much. Therefore you can not predict the aging difference of the two twins. The relativistic model collapses totally. Huh??? What relevance do you think the acceleration history of the earth has in this? What is relevant is the acceleration history of the two twins on their journey. Since they meet twice, at least one has to accelerate. You *do* know what it means to accelerate, right? As in a *change* of velocity? As in, not uniform motion?


“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times. of course it can. It does and the results correspond to actual measurements. Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses. Funny that we can calculate how long an unstable particle will take to decay given its velocity relative to us. Funny that the predictions agree with the results from using atomic clocks on aircraft, on satellites, etc. Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> The fact is that the relativistic model can not produce a prediction of the rates of proper times. Some day those velocities may be achieved and the tests can then be carried out. You problem is that you can not produce predictions of ageing because the model collapses. No they don't actually they are all theoretical based on Lorentz transformations , there is nothing that has proven them wrong because they are theoretical. But since relativity has been confirmed by the , http://einstein.stanford.edu/ It's a pretty good indicator that the Lorentz transformation is correct.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: OK, this shows you don't know what it means to be a rest frame. Ship 1 and ship B are moving with respect to each other, so definitely do NOT have the same rest frame! ... Talk about twisting straw man arguments! When the small ship B prior to its acceleration is in the cargo hold of ship 1, are these two ships 1 and B in the same rest frame? Answer: YES THEY ARE. The rest of your post went totally past the point. Are you deliberately trying to confuse other people here?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: <quoted text> If neither twin accelerates, they *both* see the other as aging slower. Since they will only meet once, this is no problem. The twin paradox happens when at least one has to accelerate so that they can meet twice. The degree of acceleration will then break the symmetry (or not) and determine which twin is younger (or not). Acceleration is not relative, but velocity is. <quoted text> The earth is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue with whether the twins meet twice and the pattern of acceleration of the two twins. <quoted text> Huh??? What relevance do you think the acceleration history of the earth has in this? What is relevant is the acceleration history of the two twins on their journey. Since they meet twice, at least one has to accelerate. You *do* know what it means to accelerate, right? As in a *change* of velocity? As in, not uniform motion? Do you understand that the previous acceleration of Earth in space dictates the (a)synchronicity of the scenario??? 1. When one twin accelerates away from the Earth twin you claim that the accelerating twin ages less because asynchronicity. 2. When two twins accelerate away from Earth to opposite directions you claim that they age an equal amount because of synchronicity. If Earth had accelerated towards some direction your reasoning falls apart totally. Has Earth never accelerated???

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

It is funny that you think that acceleration history plays no role in the Earthtwin situation but suddenly the acceleration history plays a role in the ship 1  ship B situation.
Hypocrite much?:)

humble brother
Vanda, Finland


“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Talk about twisting straw man arguments! When the small ship B prior to its acceleration is in the cargo hold of ship 1, are these two ships 1 and B in the same rest frame? Answer: YES THEY ARE. Yes, when they are *not* moving with respect to each other, they have the same rest frame. When they *are* moving with respect to each other, they have different rest frames. Once ship B is moving with respect to ship 1, they have different rest frames. Once again, you show that you do not understand the terminology of the subject.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Do you understand that the previous acceleration of Earth in space dictates the (a)synchronicity of the scenario??? This is false. 1. When one twin accelerates away from the Earth twin you claim that the accelerating twin ages less because asynchronicity. it is NOT accelerating relative to the earth that is the relevant factor. It is simply acceleration. 2. When two twins accelerate away from Earth to opposite directions you claim that they age an equal amount because of synchronicity. No, I am NOT claiming that. Once again, you seem to think there is an absolute standard. Second, you are focusing on acceleration, which tends to confuse the issue here. Suppose we eliminate acceleration for the scenario for the moment. Each twin is moving at uniform speed in opposite directions, passing the earth at the same time. Each measures the clocks (and every other physical process) of the other as running slower than their own. The earth sees the clocks on both ships as moving slower than its own and both ships see the earths clocks as running slower than their own. If Earth had accelerated towards some direction your reasoning falls apart totally. Has Earth never accelerated??? Acceleration of the earth is irrelevant here. Acceleration of the ships is. Let's eliminate the earth entirely. Suppose two twins in spaceships are moving in opposite direction and pass each other. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own. Suppose they are exactly the same age at the moment they pass each other. Both will see the other as aging slower than themselves. But since they never meet up again, there is no paradox: it is simply the results of their own measurements of the other. The only time a paradox can arise is if they happen to meet again after their initial passing. For this to happen, though, at least one twin, and possibly both, will have to accelerate. If only one accelerates and the other does not, the accelerating one is the twin that ages less. If both accelerate equal amounts, then they will have the same age when they meet again. If the detailed history of their acceleration is different, which twin ages is more complicated to decide, but can be done knowing the detailed history of both.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: It is funny that you think that acceleration history plays no role in the Earthtwin situation but suddenly the acceleration history plays a role in the ship 1  ship B situation. Hypocrite much?:) The acceleration of the earth would only affect the results for accelerations during the time the twin was gone. Past acceleration is irrelevant. If the earth is unaccelerated during the twin's trip, and if the twin returns to the earth, then the twin will be accelerated and will age less. If both the earth and the twin accelerate the same amount, then they will age the same amount.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Yes, when they are *not* moving with respect to each other, they have the same rest frame. When they *are* moving with respect to each other, they have different rest frames. Once ship B is moving with respect to ship 1, they have different rest frames. Once again, you show that you do not understand the terminology of the subject. It is all trivial. You just want to straw man. I said they are in the same rest frame from which the other ship accelerates. So stop whining.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: This is false. <quoted text> it is NOT accelerating relative to the earth that is the relevant factor. It is simply acceleration. <quoted text> No, I am NOT claiming that. Once again, you seem to think there is an absolute standard. Second, you are focusing on acceleration, which tends to confuse the issue here. Suppose we eliminate acceleration for the scenario for the moment. Each twin is moving at uniform speed in opposite directions, passing the earth at the same time. Each measures the clocks (and every other physical process) of the other as running slower than their own. The earth sees the clocks on both ships as moving slower than its own and both ships see the earths clocks as running slower than their own. <quoted text> Acceleration of the earth is irrelevant here. Acceleration of the ships is. Let's eliminate the earth entirely. Suppose two twins in spaceships are moving in opposite direction and pass each other. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own. Suppose they are exactly the same age at the moment they pass each other. Both will see the other as aging slower than themselves. But since they never meet up again, there is no paradox: it is simply the results of their own measurements of the other. The only time a paradox can arise is if they happen to meet again after their initial passing. For this to happen, though, at least one twin, and possibly both, will have to accelerate. If only one accelerates and the other does not, the accelerating one is the twin that ages less. If both accelerate equal amounts, then they will have the same age when they meet again. If the detailed history of their acceleration is different, which twin ages is more complicated to decide, but can be done knowing the detailed history of both. This is just hilarious. There are two identical ship B instances in the two scenarios. The base from which one ship B accelerates away is the Earth, in the other scenario the base from which the ship B accelerates away is the bigger ship 1. Two shipB ships accelerate. And how do you calculate the time dilation of proper times? Answer: you take into account the acceleration history of one base (ship 1) but neglect the acceleration history of the other base (Earth). That is insanely funny. You mix and match previous accelerations into the equation in any way you please, as long as you get what you want. Superbly hilarious. So would you like to try to give an explanation for why you account for one acceleration history but neglect the other? Well, we already know that you are hopelessly unable to answer that :)

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: The acceleration of the earth would only affect the results for accelerations during the time the twin was gone. Past acceleration is irrelevant. If the earth is unaccelerated during the twin's trip, and if the twin returns to the earth, then the twin will be accelerated and will age less. If both the earth and the twin accelerate the same amount, then they will age the same amount. Past acceleration is irrelevant.. Except for ship1 :D

