Alternative Twins Paradox

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Jack_, Feb 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383

    You are comparing apples to oranges.

    I am forcing time dilation and the LT calculation in the same box and they produce different results.

    As such, I am answering your question on the light cone, perhaps in a way you cannot understand.

    According to my model under the rules of SR, I can make the light cone appear at two different distances in the moving frame using one time coordinate of the stationary frame.

    That is a contradiction to the light cone.

    I provided all the math.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    (x,t) versus (x',t') are apples and oranges. They are descriptions of the location of an event from two separate observers. How fortunate it is that there is a mathematical transform to let one observer walk in the other observer's shoes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383

    Sho nuf.

    We also have time dilation to walk in another's shoes.

    You recall the twins paradox and time dilation, no?

    So, which are you calling false, the time dilation logic or the light sphere logic?

    Or, are you calling LT false.

    They arrive at different answers.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Say, where is Trout BTW?

    I wonder why he is not here. I kinda like his caustic nature.

    Cept he likes to beat up on weaklings. Guess that is why he hangs at BAUT all the time and not here.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    No, I'm comparing the definitions of the light cones and how they transform under a Lorentz transformation. The light cone is specified entirely by the space-time location where its apex resides. Nothing more.

    No, you're assuming you have a perfect understanding of this and then building a straw man.

    Are you going down this road again? The issue isn't my understanding, its yours. And given I've provided explanations and retorts in terms of mathematics which you haven't responded to other than to say "I'm ok with this" and then promptly ignoring and contradicting it. I've tried to raise the discussion to the level of fibre bundles but you're unable to understand. Draw a few space-time diagrams and consider the time axis in each.

    Yes, your model which doesn't actually reflect special relativity or reach the same conclusions.

    I've already been through this with you. The light sphere is emitted at point p in space-time. ALL frames agree on this point. Thus they all agree on the location of the light cone in space-time. They agree on the location, up to a Lorentz transformation, of all physical objects. Thus they agree on all physical predictions. Thus they are consistent with one another. You're assigning a physicality to the point in space which the light cone is centred on in a given frame. It has no physicality. It doesn't have any properties or relevance other than simply being the centre of a null sphere. Frames are allowed to disagree on the location of this point since it has nothing to do with the physics, I've already explained to you that if you put in a bunch of emitters into space and all of them moved on different constant trajectories and passed through one another all at once and a light sphere is made then its impossible to tell which one emitted it since the only way would be for the light sphere's motion to depend on the motion of its emitter. Which it is NOT.

    There's no contradiction. All frames agree on the position of the point of emission at the moment of emission[/]i. Each frame has one and only one light cone associated to that point of emission and they are all related by Lorentz transformations. If you put in something physical like a bunch of emitters just mentioned then Each will view itself to be in the centre of the light sphere at a later time. But their relationships to one another will not be affected. Their intersection with the light sphere in some way will not be affected. Nothing in the physical predictions is affected by the fact they disagree on who is at the centre of the light sphere. It has no physical relevance.

    You haven't provided anything. You've simply come up against the fact light cones depend not on the motion of their emitters but only their location. I've explained this in both words and in mathematics (several ways). You have yet to retort any of the mathematics I've given. You have yet to even admit you contradicted yourself by saying "I'm okay with this" and then saying the opposite without addressing anything I said.

    The contradiction is in your logic. You know how time-like positions of objects transform. You then define a physically irrelevant time-like position by a null object and you expect it to transform in the same manner as the physical time-like positions. That's a contradiction.

    Draw some space-time diagrams for 1+1 dimensions and draw a light cone with apex at (0,0). A vector V at (0,0) which is vertical views itself as stationary in that given frame. However, given any time-like vector W at (0,0) there is a Lorentz transformation which maps W to being vertical. Yet the light cone is left unchanged, its still a light cone defined at (0,0). All the points within the light cone has moved a bit but the relationships between any objects inside the light cone are unchanged. Thus the physical predictions are unchanged.

    You're confusing yourself about the mathematics and also not realising that even with this disagreement the predictions are the same and this is experimentally backed up.

    If you can't retort my post about fibre bundles and how \(\pi(V)\) defines the light cone and all frames agree on that then you can't justify your claim.
     
  9. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    We're calling your interpretation false. See this is precisely what I said when I commented I don't believe you come here for debate and discussion, you just come here to preach your ignorance. You are assuming your grasp of this material is superior to anyones' anywhere and its undeniably right. Don't you ever stop to think that maybe you're not understanding something you haven't studied?

    You claim they arrive at different answers but for what? Nothing physical. All frames agree on the space-time apex of the light cone. All see one and only one light cone. All predict the same things. No contradiction. You simply don't like a counter intuitive result.

    And given you mentioned myself, Rpenner and now Trout I'm wondering if you've been a poster on PhysOrg.

    And have you started writing up your work for a journal? Or did you just say you would to get me off your back so I'd stop pointing out that if you aren't willing to submit your work for peer review then you're admitting to being a hack and just wanting to try to BS people on a pseudoscience forum.
     
  10. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Now, did you say you refute time dilation or the light sphre to assert your argument.

    You cannot run, well you can and have, but this is the logic.

    So, explain specifically why the time dilation argument is false.

    LOL

    In other words, prove time dilation is false.

    :xctd:
     
  11. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Look, I know how things are.

    You would just provide simple math equations to prove I am wrong.

    That is what I would do.

    You cannot. I know for a fact you cannot. I am at a different level than you.
     
  12. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Did you stop beating your wife to post that?

    Excellent flawed question. If you bothered to read what I said I explained why your reasoning is wrong. Simply repeating your flawed reasoning changes nothing. Can you at least reply to soomething specific I said?

    Now you're just trolling. I've written lengthy posts and provided plenty of explanation and algebra, which you keep demanding. How am I running? I've replied to your misunderstandings, I've explained why they are incorrect, I've approached the issue from the point of view of basic relativity, fibre bundles and physical motivation. None of which you've responded to.

    Do you think no one will notice that I provide lengthy responses, addressing what you say point by point? That if you say "Oh you've run and hide" no one will notice that large post of mine only a few posts up? Or that people following your posts will not have seen both Rpenner and I post lengthy mathematical explanations to you? Are you that desperate to clutch at straws?

    Straw man. Again. Can't you do something else? Where did I say time dilation didn't occur? There is time dilation, there is length contradiction, there are photon spheres. All frames agree on the light cone apex, all frames have equivalent physics, all frames agree on causality, all frames see one and only one light cone, all physical objects in all frames map into one another and give equivalent physics.

    And we're back to you assuming you have perfect understanding and thus reaching flawed conclusions.

    Would you care to retort any of the mathematics I provided? You keep demanding maths, I keep providing and you keep avoiding it.

    No, you don't. This is you, yet again, believing you can't possibly be wrong. The fact you've never done special relativity and you're unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry doesn't seem to register.

    This is going to the point where I start reporting your posts for trolling. I've provided mathematics. There's plenty of it in this thread. If you can't understand it then its not my fault you're lying about your knowledge. If you can't retort it then man up and admit it, rather than this pathetic and repetitive "Show me maths" when I've already done so several times and you've failed to respond. If you can't reply to what I've provided accept it. I've explained to you space-time diagrams, walked you through the algebra for light cone to light cone, talked fibre bundles, group theory, given diagrams. Its all been provided, you've ignored them and then gone "Provide me with the maths". Are you hoping I forgot I've written such a post? Are you hoping I won't notice it when scrolling through the thread?

    Okay, now its just plain trolling. I've mopped the floor with you several different ways, as have other people. You demand people respond then ignore their responses and demand they post again. You lie about your knowledge. You ignore direct questions, yet whine when people don't respond to you. If you're on a different level to me why can't you reply to my fibre bundles post? Because you don't know it.

    Initially I thought it was naivety on your part, thinking that you're doing something advanced and other people struggle with it. Now its clear you know full well people understand SR and find it straight forward and you just want to troll. I asked you a number of direct questions and you ignored them all. Why are you not sending your work to a journal? Did you just lie to get me off your back? It certainly seems that way. Afraid to be corrected by people you can't ignore as 'primitive' or on a 'lower level' than you?
     
  13. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,391
    I'm crap at using tex tags, but the asymmetry can be seen in the Lorentz transforms. When the two twins are in the same place, the x variable is zero. So the first acceleration only affects the twin's clock rates, not their simultaneity. In the second acceleration, the x variable is now presumably very large. So the second acceleration will have to include a simultaneity shift. Whichever twin accelerates second will be younger because if the other twin is far away, the simultaneity shift will be large.

    If you want the accelerations to be symmetric, you have to have the same distance between the twins at both accelerations. If you only accelerate one twin, there is no way the other twin will be the same distance away for the second acceleration. You could accelerate both twins in opposite directions, though. Then at some preset time you can accelerate both of them back into the same reference frame. Their clocks will read the same because of the symmetry in that case.
     
  14. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Now, I put it in a simple way.

    If r/c has elapsed on the clock of the moving frame at the origin, where is the position of the light sphere in the moving frame with respect to the origin. Answer: Light is a distance r in all directions.
    Try to stay oof you strawmans and deal with this specifica issue.

    Otherwise, use your so-called complete SR theory and explain the time in O when O' sees the light sphere a distance r from the origin. This should not be hard.


    Amusing, I provided the math for LT for this problem. Yet, you cannot provide the exact time in the stationary frame when the moving frame sees light a distancer r from its origin. SR claims the light proceeds spherically from the light emission point in the frame.

    Since, it makes this assertion for the moving frame, I want to see the time in O when this occurs. If you cannot then you are trolling since I provided this answer.

    Now, I will try to make it simple.

    When in the time of O does O' see light a distance r in all directions from O'.

    I have provided an answer according to the rules of SR and you have failed completely to do this.

    If I am wrong, what is the answer?

    Hint: Any answer to this question forces SR into a contradiction.


    This question is the most fundamental question to SR. If SR asserts that the moving frame must see light a distance r in all directions for any r, then SR must provide an answer with LT for this question in terms of the time this occurs in the stationary frame or it is a failed theory.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,127
    Jack_:

    Please explain exactly what you want here. Correct me if I'm wrong:

    I'm assuming O is the stationary frame and O' moves at some speed relative to O. Correct? And O and O' are at the same location at time t=t'=0. Correct? And light is emitted from that point at time t=t'=0?

    Now, what do you want to know? Do you want to know at what time the light reaches a coordinate of x=r and x=-r, or x'=-r and x'=-r, or what?

    Also, you say you've already provided your answer to your question. Could you please repost your answer once you've clarified the question? Once you've answered the above and reposted your solution, I'll tell you what SR says.
     
  16. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    All the above is false.


    I hope you do not mind, but I have been through uniform acceleration so many times it is now completely boring. Read these links and then present your case.

    You are just plain wrong.

    http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no521/RMF52110.pdf
    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
    http://rmf.fciencias.unam.mx/pdf/rmf/52/1/52_1_070.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf
     
  17. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    I already have posted LT.

    Here is the answer you should calculate.

    x' = r ( γ² - v γ²/c )

    If this is what you calculate, then you have the correct answer.

    That is not the issue.

    I am taking a second path of calculation under SR.

    I am using time dilation and the logic of the light sphere.

    You see, there is an important question.

    When in the time of O does O' see light a spherical distance r from O'.

    This should be logically decidalbe under SR.

    I provided an answer according to the rule of SR.


    Now, if I am wrong, maybe you can show me with LT how to answer this question.

    Then, I will admit to you I am wrong.

    Hint: LT claims this occurs in O' for all t in the interval

    t ε [ r/c( √ ( ( c-v )/ (c+v) ), r/c( √ ( ( c+v )/ (c-v) ) ]
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,127
    Jack_:

    You haven't answered any of my questions. I'll wait until you do before I go on.
     
  19. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    OK

    The above setup is correct.

    I do not need you to teach me LT. So, the rest of it is unnecessary.

    Now, when in the time of O will O' see the light a distance r spherically?
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    The reason I keep saying "straw man" is because you keep making them.

    You still continue to avoid responding to anything I've said. I have provided responses which address all your issues.

    I have already said that different frames give different points as the centre of the light cone but I've explained using words, diagrams and equations why this isn't a problem and its simply you not understanding a non-Newtonian system.

    All you're doing it avoiding responding to anything I've provided and simply trying to rehash already debunked claims.

    You haven't provided any mathematics which justifies your claim there's a contradiction. You seem to be completely failing to understanding anything I've said. I've already agreed, repeatedly in many threads, that there's a disagreement between frames on the centre in space of a photon sphere at a given moment in time. This is required if SR is to describe the physically observed fact that light's motion doesn't depend on the motion of its emitter. Its not a contradiction, its simply an entirely equivalent description.

    You haven't shown any frames disagree on any physics. You haven't shown any frames disagree on causal structure. You haven't shown there's any impact on any physical prediction at all. And you certainly haven't responded to any mathematics I've provided. Instead you keep trying to repeat your little bit of algebra (as if its the only thing you can you mathematically), utterly ignoring I've already gone over that and retorted it. If you can't address what I've said please don't post.

    You've demanded maths and answers and people have provided. When you're asked a question you ignore it. When you're asked to retort things, you refuse. Then you come out with "I'm on a different level to you". Yes, a lower level, else you'd have responded to my fibre bundle post. Its in black and white, people like Rpenner and I have mopped the floor with you and you're either stupid enough or desperate enough to try to pretend it hasn't happened and you're a whiz at mathematics or physics.

    I'm still waiting for you to provide me with a link to a single post of yours where you show a working understanding of something beyond basic 1st year work. Can't you provide me with one?

    See, that's just you being stupid. I've gone over this from the point of view of coordinates, Lorentz groups, fibre bundles. I've provided lengthy mathematical posts, which you have obviously not understood and thus not retorted yet you try to pretend you're dumbing your discourse down for my benefit. I want you to raise the discussion to the level of fibre bundles. Forget applying a coordinate transformation on 1+1 dimensional SR, lets actually do some mathematics which isn't laughably easy. Oh wait, you can't.

    I've demonstrated vastly greater mathematical knowledge and experience than you and you're so desperate you'll continue telling lies to my face. If I'm so 'primitive' etc then why can't you raise your level of discussion to my level?

    Yet another straw man. You don't understand relativity. You don't understand coordinate transformations and non-Euclidean geometry. Its that simple. You've had all your points addressed and refuted. You're simply repeating lies again and again hoping that if you can put enough distance between the last post in this thread and all the posts proving you wrong then hopefully no one will notice you're a hack.

    You didn't address anything I said in this post :

    or this post :



    Within them I explain why you're incorrect because I explain how Minkowski geometry treats the light cone and how different frames define and transform vectors and space-time points. If you understood those posts you'd see why you're wrong.

    Given you have no wish to enter into an informed discussion, you simply want to repeat your own debunked nonsense why don't you stop posting on the forums and instead spend the next few evenings writing up your 'result' for a journal. I'll put it into the correct formatting for you once you've typed it up, I have absolutely no fear about you being published because I've already explained why you're incorrect. If you're honest and believe you've got something important then you'll do this. If you're dishonest and know you'll fail any kind of review by professors (you can't even get past a postgrad!) then you'll refuse. If you continue to hide in the pseudo section of these forums, avoiding anyone else who might have enough knowledge to see you don't then it demonstrates you know you're a hack and thus are just trolling.

    Put up or shut up.
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    A false dilemma, Alpha - you forget who you're dealing with:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ferrous Cranus
    Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

    You know he's a hopeless case. Let him go, and get back to your work. I'm still behind in my study from the time wasted on Jack.
     
  22. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    I provided a specific answer as to when in the time coords of the stationary frame that the moving frame sees light a distance r from its origin. That time is rγ/c.
    Now, I am not having any problem understanding this. Yet, you continue to dodge the answer and I do not know why. Of course, for those that really understand SR, if this answer is given, then LT is run into a contradiction as I have already done.
    So, again, when in the time coords of the stationary frame does the moving frame see light a spherical distance from its origin.
    It is clear from you that you claim to understand all of SR so, this should be quick and easy.

    This is not all I did. Perhaps you did not understand my argument.

    When rγ/c elapses in O, r/c elapses in O'. Whenever a clock at the light emission point in the frame elapses r/c, thern light is a spherical distance r from the light emission point.

    This contradicts LT.

    It is that simple.


    Wrong, by the simple logic above, LT claims the light beam along the positive x-axis is at r( γ² - vγ²/c ) in the moving frame.

    But time dilation and the light sphere says it is at r.

    Hence, the moving frames disagrees according to different ways in SR on the location of the light cone.

    It is very simple.

    The twins contradiction is still sitting at post 1 that your cannot refute. Is that first year?

    That is sufficient to bring down SR. But I can do it many ways and you cannot.
     
  23. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Flaming.

    I have a curious effect on folks.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page