Alternative Twins Paradox

LOL.

What is wrong with me posting on SR.

Folks seem to like discussing it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, the multiple light emission points are a problem when you place a clock at the light emission point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R, I have offered several proofs the two postulates are not consistent. The twins paradox, forces reciprocol time dilation against the absoluteness of the clock sync.

I have placed a clock at the origin of any light emission in the moving frame.

That clock beats time dilated and causes a contradiction with LT.

I have come up with a points such t'=t. I can then use this as a vector in the stationary since the time coordinates are equal and cause a vector add with the direction of travel causing the angle consistent with a moving light source. The resultant path is a vector of magnitude c.

But, that implies light is propagated at a magnitude less than c.

Thre are other things also.

I doubt anyone would accept a refutation of SR anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What we were talking about is:
1) Map the light emission points with LT. It does not.
2) SR claims the light path is from the light emission point in the frame to the light receiver. It claims this path is "free from contradictions". Given that absolute light path, SR is then and only then able to measure c. Do not forget, to measure c, you need an absolute light path and a clock.
3) Yet, since SR confesses multiple light emission points it confesses multiple correct light paths "free from contradictions".
This is a contradiction.

Next, SR cannot answer, in the time coords of the stationary frame, of when the light in the moving frame is a given distance r from the point of light emission. That is a light sphere in the moving frame.

You cannot make a light sphere unless it is a light sphere. To map it, you must have one and only one time in the stationary frame of when the light sphere has a radius r in the moving frame.

Also, last time I checked, a sphere has only one origin. Yet, SR confesses an infinite number of valid light emission points and thus multiple origins.
All, the possible light emission origins satisify the equation

0 < x² + y² + z² < c²t² for any time t in the stationary frame.

 

AN I am OK with this.

This is calculation one.

Now use calculation two.

When the clock at the light emission point in the stationary frame reads rγ/c, then the clock at the light emission poin in the moving frame reads r/c. This is time dilation and is a legal calculation.

Next, whenever a clock at the light emssion point in a frame reads r/c, then light must be a distance r from the light emission point in all directions. This is the SR light sphere.

Therefore, when the clock in the stationary frame reads, rγ/c, the clock in the moving frame reads r/c and hence the light is a distance r down the positive x-axis from the origin of the moving frame.

When you use LT, you will find x' < r. This is a contradiction.

Our lack of communication is that you keep insisting I use LT. I agree it must be used, but you will not look at time dilation plus the logic of the light sphere you get a different result.

OK, LT is one calculation and all agree.

But so is time dilation and the light sphere logic.


Anyway, LT calculates x' = r( γ² - vγ²/c)
and time dilation combined with the light sphere calculates
x' = r.

 

Given the fact, you saw the light emission point in the train frame as crucial unlike the group think crowd that claims an absolute light emission point, this implies you will strictly apply the rules of the theory in terms of truth.

Yes, I noticed that.

 

Cool change

 

Making up your own criteria which do nothing to demonstrate your claim. The light cone transformed under a LT such that each and every point maps to another point on the light cone in an invertible way. You claim the light cone should depend on the path of the emitter. It shouldn't and experimentally it doesn't. Your own criteria are contradicted by experiment. All different frames agree on the point in space-time of the emission. The motion of objects at that point in space-time to other positions in space at a later time has no effect on the light cone produced at that point in space-time.

You're claiming light cones should depend on the motion of their emitters. This is not true in SR and its not true in experiment.

To transform the light cone you transform the position of the light. Not the position of the centre of the sphere, which has no light on it. Its obvious that the light define null paths while the centre of the sphere is time-like. They transform differently. This isn't new, you aren't being novel, its just old news which you don't understand.

And in each frame the photons form a sphere and every frame agrees on the causal structure. You're complaining because you don't understand the light cone is defined by the point in space-time which is the apex of the cone. All other points which may or may not be centres of the sphere at a given point in time are irrelevant.

Then you accept you're wrong.

In other words you don't understand what I said so you're going to ignore it and repeat your already debunked crap again.

Addressed, explained and debunked in the post of mine you quote. You obviously didn't understand it. You claim the motion of the emitter should affect the light. Experimentally wrong.

If you can't respond to what I've said and actually explain why you're ignoring it then I'm going to just keep posting it. It explained why you're mistake, why you're obsession with motions of different rigid spheres is wrong, both in terms of SR and experiment, and why you're mistaken. You claim you're 'okay with it' but since you then immediately repeat your claims in contradiction to it its obvious you aren't okay with it and you can't understand it.

Your claims are responded to and retorted. If you simply keep repeating your nonsense without responding to specific points I made then it'll seem like you're unable to do so. You claim you understand it so you have no excuse. Assuming you haven't lied about understanding it. But then if you haven't lied why did you contradict yourself by saying you're okay with it and then posting something it just debunked?

Once again you make it clear you understand a hell of a lot less than you'd like people to believe.

 

The acceleration phases are not symmetric. The first acceleration happens when the twins are together in the same place. The second acceleration happens when they are far apart. That makes a difference.

Before the second acceleration happens, each twin considers the other twin's reference frame to be out of syncronization. The distant twin is young, but a nearby clock in the distant twin's reference frame is way ahead in time. If the twin accelerates into the frame of the nearby clock, then all clocks in that frame must become syncronized to that time, and that is when the distant twin must age accordingly. Whichever twin accelerates in the second phase will be the younger twin.

 

The center of the sphere is one bulb in one frame, and a different bulb in the other frame. Of course the bulbs are only in the same place at t=0. Is that what you are proving?

 

No.

 

Show your math, I have show mine and it is the standard interpretation.

Show the integral wuch that the accelerations are not symmetic.

However, I have an argument in spite of this.

If you claim to show the accelerations are not balanced, then balance them such that they are symmetric and then proceed with the logic.

If you have the math to prove they are not symmetric, then your can adjust the accelerations such that they are.

 

I would think you would at least refute the first post in this thread before making such a sweeping generalization that you cannot prove.

 

No matter how many times you claim you're not making stuff up it won't change the fact you are.

Already retorted. Each and every frame has one and only one light sphere. These light spheres are mapped to one another under Lorentz transformations. All frames agree on the space-time location of the light cone apex. Light cones only depend on \(\pi(V)\), while time-like paths require \(V\). No contradiction, no retort from you.

There, you just made something up. SR doesn't require that. SR doesn't say that. It says light spheres are frame independent and independent of their emitters velocity at time of emission. This is indeed that is experimentally observed. You claim they should depend on the emitter velocity, as you're using that to define your later time 'sphere centre' as somehow more valid than anything else.

Light cones are null. Thus invariant under Lorentz transformations. Time-like trajectories are not. The path swept out by the light sphere's centre is a time-like curve. Its not expected to be invariant under Lorentz transforms. You keep claiming this is a new result no one has realised but its obvious and its not a problem.

Do all frames see only one light sphere? Yes. Do they all agree on its space-time origin. Yes. Do they all agree on causal structure? Yes. Do they disagree on any physical prediction? No. Are they contradictory? No. Are you making up straw men for something you odn't understand? Yes.

So if I can't develop something I never claimed existed for a theory I'm wrong? Good one.

Firstly stop mentioning Godel's work because you obviously have no grasp of it. The fact I've corrected your use of the word 'proof' on more than half a dozen occasions demonstrates you are unfamiliar with its meaning in mathematics. Secondly you're making a straw man. Thirdly you haven't proven the completeness theory has any relevancy here.

No, SR doesn't make any such claims. It follows from the first SR postulate that light is independent of its emitters motion. Hence light cones only depend on their emission point. Hence two emitters moving in different directions can emit exactly the same light cone. You claim this is a contradiction, it isn't. You're claiming that if two emitters pass through one another and a light sphere is produced at that event then you should be able to say which emitter made it, as the velocity of the emitter should effect the light cone. SR says this is not the case and experiments agree.

You're not just arguing with mathematics, you're arguing with nature. And if you fail to understand this its not my fault. I've provided mathematical retorts to all your issues. If you can't address them please go away. If you're unwilling to post your work to a journal then you'd admitting to being unwilling to put up or shut up. If you can't understand something get over it.

You're making stuff up again. You think that you're understanding is in perfect sync with mathematics. You're wrong. Get off your fucking high horse and accept it. You've not shown you can do any mathematics not expected of a 1st year physics student. You throw around 'decidable' and 'completeness theory' but you don't ever use them in a working manner, you just want to say buzzwords. I've provided an explanation on the level of fibre bundles why your claims are equivalent to claiming Euclidean geometry is wrong. You didn't respond. You didn't respond to anything I said. You said "I'm okay with this" then went on to say something in direct contradiction to it, so obviously you aren't okay and you don't understand.

You're just going to have to accept you don't understand non-Euclidean geometry. It's not the end of the world, most people don't. I only understand a smattering of non-Euclidean geometry and my PhD is on it! All of your claims and complaints track back to you not understanding the role of coordinates in manifolds. I suggest you read 'Geometry, Topology and Physics' by Nakahara (published by IoP). It's got an excellent 5th chapter on coordinates in manifolds and plenty more besides. Its pitched at postgrads so it'll be mostly over your head but you'll get bits and pieces.

I did, in previous posts. I'm still waiting for you to address anything I said.

 

OK, let discuss.

 

OK AN, you argue well.

Let's get to it.

You refuse to understand SR requires multiple origins and yet you said it does.

So, I will make this proof simple.

O and O' are clocks in relative motion along the x-axis.

At co-location, O' emits light.
By Time dilation, when O elapses t, O' must elapse t/γ.

Thus, if O elapses rγ/c, then O' must elapse r/c.

This is called time dilation. Are you with me?

Now, when any stationary frame elapses r/c, light is a distance r in all directions.

This is the logic of the SR light sphre.

So you understand this?

Thus, if O elapses rγ/c, then it must be the case light is r in all directions from O'.

 

You're repeating the same debunked stuff. Either you retort what I said, which explains your misunderstanding or you're going to get nowhere.

You believe a light cone, defined by null paths, should transform in the same manner as the path swept out by the centre of the light sphere, which is false. This isn't contradictory, this isn't a problem, it just means you don't understand Lorentzian geometry. Each and every frame sees one and only one light sphere with one and only one centre. Light cones map to light cones. None of this points you have contradicted, nothing you've said has been in any way a demonstration of a contradiction.

Either retort what I said or stop repeating your already debunked ignorance.