"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

[Aura Mytha]

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-rel...

[KittenKoder]

This shows that there is a God, the only original creator
http://www.ucg.org/god-science/prove-there-go...

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

Stop confusing yourself with the illusion of time dilation which can never be observed and verified. A good example of this illusion of yours is the twin paradox. The stay-at-home twin will predict that the travelling twin ages more. Alas, his prediction is falsified.

If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.

Time dilation of proper times can only be observed by two observers by sharing the same rest frame twice and one/both having accelerations between.

Remember this when you ask about whether clocks are ticking slower or faster.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO OBSERVE TIME DILATION OF OBSERVED PROPER TIMES.

Not true, of course. Simply look at the clock of the other ship. measure how fast it ticks compared to yours.

Of course there is and you must have, otherwise you can make no predictions at all. Each object/observer has their own rate of time. Two observers can compare their times by joining into one single rest frame.

This is not the only way to compare frames! Simply *look* at what is happening to the other ship. Watch their clock and determine how fast it is clicking. Take into account the speed of light if you wish.

Joining into two separate rest frames they can compare their average rates of time that occurred between those two frames when they were in separate rest frames.

The phrase 'rates of time between two frames when they were in separate rest frames' is non-sensical and shows your lack of understanding of the terms used.

How many times do I have to tell you that AN OBSERVER IN ONE FRAME CAN NOT MEASURE TIME FOR AN OBSERVER IN ANOTHER FRAME.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong. Simply *look* at the clocks in the other frame. Look at processes going on in the other ship and measure them with *your* devices.

They can predict their times and this is where the relativistic model fails miserably. The observers end up making contradicting predictions of times for each other and when the facts are observed one or both predictions are falsified.
I'll write a separate post about the experiment...

Again, you don't understand what the theory actually predicts.

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Again...
1. A ship accelerates from Earth to reach 0.5*c velocity. The established fact is that the PROPER TIME on the ship will begin ticking slower than on Earth due to the acceleration.

*sigh* No. The acceleration in this case (because they are not meeting up again), is irrelevant. Only the relative velocity is relevant. And both will measure the clocks of the other as going slower. There is no absolute standard by which proper time goes faster or slower.

2. Then a shuttle accelerates out from the cargo hold of the ship towards Earth to reach 0.5*c velocity relative to the ship. The established fact is that the PROPER TIME on the shuttle will begin ticking slower than on the ship due to the acceleration.

Once again, the acceleration here is not relevant because we are not talking about meeting more than once. So the only way to compare is by measuring the rates of things on the earth, ship, and shuttle. In this situation, the relative speed of the shuttle with respect to the ship is .5*c, so both see the clocks of the other as running slower. BUT, the relative speed of the shuttle and the earth is zero, so the shuttle and the earth see their clocks as running the same rate. However, the clocks will no longer be synchronized because of the time when the shuttle was moving along with the rocket. The clock on the shuttle will be behind that of the earth (while now running at the same rate).

3. The shuttle is now in the rest frame with Earth but apparently its time is ticking slower than on the ship and therefore much slower than on Earth.

And this is an incorrect conclusion. Once again, there is no standard for time where one is ticking faster or slower. There is only comparison between measured time values between events.

There is no escape from this paradox for you, EXCEPT TO GENERATE ABSOLUTE TIME and in fact say that the PROPER TIME on the shuttle will begin to tick faster and on the ship even though it is the shuttle that accelerates.
The relativistic model fails miserably.

A more interesting variant is obtained as follows:

Ship 1 moves away from the earth at .5*c. After a while, a shuttle leaves the ship and starts to move away at .5*c in the opposite direction from the ship. After a while longer the ship accelerates (decelerates) to be at rest with respect to the earth. Now all three (earth, shuttle, ship) are at rest with respect to each other. Which has aged less? Answer: the ship has aged the least, the shuttle has aged more and the earth the most.

[Subduction Zone]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You are very confused.
Does the stay-at-home twin predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
Does the traveling brother predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.
Even hypothetically the model produces at least one prediction that fails miserably and is falsified when the facts are observed.
Is this something you can ever comprehend? Or will you just cling to your religious reasoning?

No, you have it wrong. Did you check out the link that I gave that said the stay at home will age more? I have never seen you version of the twin paradox. Like I said, find a site that supports your claim, link it and quote it. Otherwise we all will know that you did not have a clue what the Twin Paradox was.

[Subduction Zone]

Another link describing the Twins Paradox for hb where again the traveling twin is much younger:

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html

[Subduction Zone]

And one more with illustrations, maybe this will explain it to hb:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/...

Again, the traveling twin stays younger.

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I like the last one best. Because it shows how to get the wrong answer that hb did and why that is the wrong answer. So one more time:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/...

Joe observes that Jane's on-board clocks (including her biological one), which run at Jane's proper time, run slowly on both outbound and return leg. He therefore concludes that she will be younger than he will be when she returns. On the outward leg, Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she observes that it ticks slowly on the return run. So will Jane conclude that Joe will have aged less? And if she does, who is correct? According to the proponents of the paradox, there is a symmetry between the two observers, so, just plugging in the equations of relativity, each will predict that the other is younger. This cannot be simultaneously true for both so, if the argument is correct, relativity is wrong.

The naive interpretation--the reason why the situation is called a paradox--is to assume that the situation is competely symmetrical. If that were the case, Jane's diagram would simply be a mirror image of Joe's. But Special Relativity applies only to the relations between inertial frames of reference. In this regard, the situations of the twins are definitely not symmetrical. Joe is in one inertial frame throughout.(We discuss the partial symmetry below.)

Jane certainly knows that she has not been in the same inertial frame for the whole trip: in order to stop the outward journey and to commence the return, she had to turn the ship around and fire the engines hard and long. During that time she knew that she was not in an inertial frame

n the second of Jane's inertial frames (the homeward trip), she receives a lot of anniversary messages from Joe. If she pretends that she has been in this same frame of reference all along (the dashed line extrapolation of her returning world line), i.e. if she assumes that she has been travelling towards Earth at constant v for six of her years, she would conclude that Joe had been sending them for eight of his years (follow the dashed lines). Now this is a strange assumption

Let's now assume that Jane is not naive, that she knows about relativity, that she remembers the acceleration, that she remembers being with Joe at the beginning of the trip and that she uses this knowledge in analysing her version of the space time diagrams. First, once she has left the Earth, accelerated and is travelling without acceleration towards her destination, she can apply Special Relativity. She observes that the distance between the Earth and her destination has shrunk.(See Relativistic time dilation, simultaneity and length contraction for an explanation.) It has shrunk by the factor 1/&#947; =(1 &#8722; v2/c2)1/2 = 0.75, so she now only has to travel for three of her years to get there. Similarly, in her return trip (another inertial frame so she can use Special Relativity again) the distance is also shorter, so she only has to travel for three years to get there. So Jane's space time diagrams are those shown at right.(We repeat the diagram.

It it better to go to the site and look for yourself. It has drawings and even a simple animation to help you understand this concept.

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You are very confused.

Well,*someone* is confused, but it is not who you think it is.

I will assume that the stay-at-home twin in the following stays in the same reference frame the whole time (i.e, is not accelerating). That means his brother changes reference frames during the trip (i.e, accelerates).

Does the stay-at-home twin predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.

Wrong. The stay-at home twin will predict his brother will age *less*. This is due to time dilation the whole time.

Does the traveling brother predict that his brother will age more? Answer: YES.

This is correct. The traveling twin changes reference frames half-way through the trip and that, together with the lack of simultaneity, means he predicts the stay-at-home twin will age more.

Even hypothetically the model produces at least one prediction that fails miserably and is falsified when the facts are observed.
Is this something you can ever comprehend? Or will you just cling to your religious reasoning?

No, you simply don't understand what the theory actually predicts. In particular, you have the prediction made by the stay-at-home twin wrong.

[The Dude]

KittenKoder wrote:

This shows that there is a God, the only original creator
http://www.ucg.org/god-science/prove-there-go...

Your sin of stealing someone else's moniker is almost as bad as the sheer kitten-hate propaganda stemming from your linky.

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.
<quoted text>
Remember this when you ask about whether clocks are ticking slower or faster.
<quoted text>
Not true, of course. Simply look at the clock of the other ship. measure how fast it ticks compared to yours.
<quoted text>
This is not the only way to compare frames! Simply *look* at what is happening to the other ship. Watch their clock and determine how fast it is clicking. Take into account the speed of light if you wish.
<quoted text>
The phrase 'rates of time between two frames when they were in separate rest frames' is non-sensical and shows your lack of understanding of the terms used.
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong. Simply *look* at the clocks in the other frame. Look at processes going on in the other ship and measure them with *your* devices.
<quoted text>
Again, you don't understand what the theory actually predicts.

What nonsense from you again..

- both ships have atomic clocks inside the ship
- the ships are very far apart
- the observers in one ship can not see inside the other ship at all

You are inside one ship, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THE ATOMIC CLOCK OF THE OTHER SHIP?

Another thing:
In the case of the twin paradox, you keep babbling about both twins considering the other twin will age more. Now you say that the prediction is that specifically one twin will accelerate more.

What do you mean by both twins considering the other will age more??? Is it not a prediction? It certainly is not an observation because the twins are in different frames so they can not observe each others rates of time, only their own.

So why do you say that both twins will think the other is aging more??? Is it just nonsensical babbling from you?

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

If the stay-at-home twin does not accelerate, then they will predict the traveling twin to age *less*, not more.

Ok, less then. ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT IT IS A PREDICTION THAT FAILS?

IS IT A PREDICTION OR NOT??????

[humble brother]

You change your views.

Now you are saying that one twin predicts the other will age more and one predicts the other will age less.

So what is the nonsense about both twins thinking the other will age more? Is it just that, nonsense?

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

*sigh* No. The acceleration in this case (because they are not meeting up again), is irrelevant. Only the relative velocity is relevant. And both will measure the clocks of the other as going slower. There is no absolute standard by which proper time goes faster or slower.

There you go with your FALLACY again. How do you measure the atomic clock of an observer millions of miles away from you??? HOW?

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

The acceleration in this case (because they are not meeting up again), is irrelevant.

This is hilarious actually. You are saying that General Relativity does not apply but Special Relativity only because they don't "meet up". The funniest thing ever.

We didn't meet up with the GPS satellites, why do we need to take into account the GR time dilation with respect to the satellites???

You are hopelessly lost :)

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

And this is an incorrect conclusion. Once again, there is no standard for time where one is ticking faster or slower. There is only comparison between measured time values between events.

Logic dictates that between two clocks having different rates in different reference frames one clock will be ticking faster and one slower. This is a pure and simple fact and can be verified by bringing the clocks into the same rest frame before and after the experiment. So this is also an observable and verifiable fact.

Are you now trying to say that it is possible for BOTH clocks to tick slower (or faster) and that could become an observable and verifiable fact? YES or NO?

If your answer is "no", then your comment above is pure nonsense.
If your answer is "yes", then your comment is again pure nonsense.

So already we know that your comment is pure nonsense :)

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
What nonsense from you again..
- both ships have atomic clocks inside the ship
- the ships are very far apart
- the observers in one ship can not see inside the other ship at all
You are inside one ship, HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THE ATOMIC CLOCK OF THE OTHER SHIP?

With a telescope, perhaps?

In the case of the twin paradox, you keep babbling about both twins considering the other twin will age more.

Age *less*.

Now you say that the prediction is that specifically one twin will accelerate more.

If two twins are together, separate, and then are together again, then at least one will accelerate.

What do you mean by both twins considering the other will age more??? Is it not a prediction? It certainly is not an observation because the twins are in different frames so they can not observe each others rates of time, only their own.

Of *course* they can observe the other twin and the things happening in their ship!

So why do you say that both twins will think the other is aging more??? Is it just nonsensical babbling from you?

For uniform motion, both twins measure things for the other twin moving slower: so both see the other twin as again *less*.

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Logic dictates that between two clocks having different rates in different reference frames one clock will be ticking faster and one slower. This is a pure and simple fact and can be verified by bringing the clocks into the same rest frame before and after the experiment. So this is also an observable and verifiable fact.

And this is exactly what is wrong. Both see the clocks (and all other physical processes) of the other as running slower. You cannot bring them back to the same rest frame without acceleration, which destroys the uniform motion.

Are you now trying to say that it is possible for BOTH clocks to tick slower (or faster) and that could become an observable and verifiable fact? YES or NO?

YES. Each measures the clocks of the other as moving slower. Finally you get to one of the essential parts of special relativity.

If your answer is "no", then your comment above is pure nonsense.
If your answer is "yes", then your comment is again pure nonsense.
So already we know that your comment is pure nonsense :)

Again, the fact that you don't understand doesn't make it non-sense. Special relativity has several counter-intuitive aspects:

1. time dilation: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, each sees the clocks of the other as moving slower.

2. length contraction: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, each sees lengths of the other contracted in the direction of motion.

3. violation of simultaneity: when two observers are moving with respect to each other, then events which are measured to be simultaneous by one will *not* be simultaneous for the other.

These all happen for *uniform* motion, where the velocity does not change.

For *accelerated* motion, you have to add up the effects of all the pieces of uniform motion (technically, you integrate the effect). The point is that accelerated motion *requires* a change in reference frame: accelerated frames are NOT inertial.

Now, if you have two twins that are together, then separate, then are together again, at least one has to accelerate, which means they change their inertial frame. because of the lack of simultaneity between the inertial frames, the accelerated twin will age less. BOTH twins agree on this point.

[polymath257]

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
This is hilarious actually. You are saying that General Relativity does not apply but Special Relativity only because they don't "meet up". The funniest thing ever.

No, general relativity applies, but it gives the same results as special relativity in these cases.

We didn't meet up with the GPS satellites, why do we need to take into account the GR time dilation with respect to the satellites???
You are hopelessly lost :)

I might point out that this is an example of measuring what is going on in a moving frame. Just the type of thing you said is impossible. There are two effects for the GPS satellites: a velocity effect which slows down time and a gravity effect which speeds it up with respect to us here on the earth. The two effects don't quite cancel and the net effect is that we see time for the GPS satellite as going slower (the velocity effect is more than the gravity effect here).

But, if someone were on the GPS satellite,*they* would see time on the earth as going slower also and have to take *that* effect into consideration. But the satellites are getting time signals from earth. But this *is* an effect that must be considered for communication satellites.

Again, time dilation *both ways* is a measurable phenomenon.

[humble brother]

polymath257 wrote:

With a telescope, perhaps?

Ok. Lets destroy your logical fallacies one by one. I'll start with this one.

You think you can measure the proper time (and its rate) of some other observer far away in some other rest frame by pointing a telescope at that observer and his atomic clock.

How did you plan to accomplish that exactly?