Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
Last edited:
Einstein view of time
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
Here Mike is a chart of how time dilation affects are seen......
That's a perfectly good graph of the gamma factor as a function of the twins' relative speed. And that DOES tell EACH twin, WHENEVER THEY ARE NOT ACCELERATING, that the OTHER twin is ageing more slowly. But when the traveler (he) is accelerating, that time dilation result DOESN'T APPLY. While he is accelerating, he has to use the Minkowski diagram, or (more easily), the CADO equation, to determine the home twin's (her) current age. And when he does that (provided their separation is large enough), he will conclude that she is rapidly getting older whenever he is accelerating in the direction TOWARD her, and that she is rapidly getting YOUNGER whenever he is accelerating in the direction AWAY FROM her. Look at Brian Greene's NOVA program video clip, for an especially dramatic example of these effects.
That would set up rather bizarre paradox. If he could really see his twin getting younger then at some point he would see himself with his twin while he was also on the ship.
No. Nobody ever sees time going backwards.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Time never can go backwards. It is always going toward the temporal future regardless what spatial direction you are traveling.
At every moment you will age that moment, regardless of speed or direction. You can never not live as long as you have lived. It's a contradiction in terms. You cannot age younger.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
At some point his twin brother would be born while he was watching the event as an old man.
Bob-a-builder
Registered Senior Member
Simplifying:
No person will ever get a day (or second) younger viewed from any angle or distance. Reversing time is impossible. A person can look at someone in time dilation and see them appear to age slower. Slower time does not equate to reverse time.
Are you just trolling? This is not hard to understand.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
First of all, he never SEES her getting younger. And he never SEES her instantly get older. TV images that he receives from her show her age when she transmitted the image, NOT her age when he received the image. If he properly corrects for how much she ages during the transit of the image, he will find that she rapidly gets OLDER whenever he is accelerating TOWARD her, and that she rapidly gets YOUNGER whenever he is accelerating AWAY FROM her.
Bob-a-builder
Registered Senior Member
@ James R,
I had said,
Time is "memory".
To shorten an Einstein quote,
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.
IN THE OPENING POST OF THIS THREAD! WHICH I HAVE RE-EXPLAINED A FEW TIMES NOW!
I also said it was a from a fringe scientist whom I cannot even recall the name of... showing how much i give a crap.
You responded...
No. Tim1e can be defined independent of the operation of a particular1 organism's brain. Memory is biology. Time is physics.
The concept ALBERT EINSTEIN was referring to is that we would not even be aware of time without memory.
GO ARGUE WITH EINSTEIN... He was the one who said,
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after.
From the Opening Post....
PONDER is a way of saying thinking about your past... i.e. MEMORY!
I had said,
"Einstein is an idiot" - Nikola Tesla
You said,
Is that a real quote, or did you make it up?
Here's a suggestion... why not GOOGLE IT!
It is no secret Nikola Tesla HATED Albert Einstein. He has called him an "IDIOT", RETARD" and "A FRAUD".
Thomas Edison (another famous scientist who was credited with many inventions) said he heard Tesla call Einstein a "retard".
Was it not Nikola Tesal who wrote (google it),
[The Theory of Relativity was just] “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists....”
But HEY! Thanks James R for making me sound like I'm making this stuff up.
Shouldn't someone with STAFF on their name-tag at least attempt to use truth?
BUT... If you were serious in asking if he truly called Einstein an idiot..
YES. YES. YES. YES.
James R also asked,
Regarding Tesla, which views on gravity and spacetime are you referring to, specifically?
Um.. simple answer..
NIKOLA TESLAS VIEWS ON GRAVITY... also something you could find if you know anyone with an internet connection.
I typed in "Nikola Tesla Gravity" into GOOGLE... This is what I see.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nikola+tesla+gravity&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA771CA771&oq=nikola+tesla+gravity&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3919j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
However if you are too lazy to learn these things yourself or are merely trolling.
I will say Nikola Tesla has "DYNAMIC GRAVITY" as his explanation for the effects we see and feel.
Here is a video on it since you could not google before asking (thus causing me all this typing).
@ James R further,
You said,
Hint: it's not because relativity doesn't "work".
Yes.. I get you are big on suggesting Theory is fact. It is still a Theory whether it works or not. Mankind also has ridiculous (to me) theories that work such as Earth being the center of the Universe.
I had said,
Einsteins claims to fame are not "stupendous".
You replied,
Are you qualified to judge that? Are you, for example, an expert in general relativity? And how much do you know about the foundations of quantum physics?
From what I've witnessed in your last posting I'd say more qualified than you.
Bohr and Heisenberg did more to advance Quantum Mechanics than Einstein. The Cat in the box was meant to RIDICULE the Copenhagen Interpretation (google it) by placing a life form into "matter that does not exist". Einstein preferred to think the moon was still there even when no one is looking at it. All theory and guessing.. no know truths as of yet.
@ James R. STILL....
I had said,
Anyways. I am not suggesting Einstein was an Idiot.
It means I am waiting for evidence
Oh, good. Because for a moment there, that's what it sounded like. And suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making you look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?
Since it has been established throughout History that NIKOLA TESLA REPEATEDLY CALLED EINSTEIN AN IDIOT (or worse "Retard", Fraud", etc)
Then if I am to understand your above sentence you are suggesting...
[NIKOLA TESLA] suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making [HIM] look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?
Hmmm. I will consider that Nikola Tesla may have been an idiot like you say. I just may not consider it for long.
Please do not make the claims I make from WOO filled people like NIKOLA TESLA be represented as fact. I merely state I am a fan of Tesla more than Einstein. Noticing speed requires two points to measure is not deep thinking and neither is realizing light can bend. There are other theoruies that explain the exact same thing. When they call it "The FACT of general relativity" I will come back and admit that Tesla looks like an idiot as is your claim when yiu stated, "[NIKOLA TESLA] suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making [HIM] look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?"..
Actually you had stated "Oh, good. Because for a moment there, that's what it sounded like. And suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making you look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?"...
and since KNOWN HISTORY has recorded that Nikola Tesla called Einstein this and worse (retard/Fraud/moron/mass of error/deceptive/fallacies/opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. )... You are suggesting it may make Nikola Tesla seem like an idiot.
Again.. I will consider that Nikola Tesla was an idiot.. just not for very long.
I had said,
Time is "memory".
To shorten an Einstein quote,
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.
IN THE OPENING POST OF THIS THREAD! WHICH I HAVE RE-EXPLAINED A FEW TIMES NOW!
I also said it was a from a fringe scientist whom I cannot even recall the name of... showing how much i give a crap.
You responded...
No. Tim1e can be defined independent of the operation of a particular1 organism's brain. Memory is biology. Time is physics.
The concept ALBERT EINSTEIN was referring to is that we would not even be aware of time without memory.
GO ARGUE WITH EINSTEIN... He was the one who said,
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after.
From the Opening Post....
PONDER is a way of saying thinking about your past... i.e. MEMORY!
I had said,
"Einstein is an idiot" - Nikola Tesla
You said,
Is that a real quote, or did you make it up?
Here's a suggestion... why not GOOGLE IT!
It is no secret Nikola Tesla HATED Albert Einstein. He has called him an "IDIOT", RETARD" and "A FRAUD".
Thomas Edison (another famous scientist who was credited with many inventions) said he heard Tesla call Einstein a "retard".
Was it not Nikola Tesal who wrote (google it),
[The Theory of Relativity was just] “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists....”
But HEY! Thanks James R for making me sound like I'm making this stuff up.
Shouldn't someone with STAFF on their name-tag at least attempt to use truth?
BUT... If you were serious in asking if he truly called Einstein an idiot..
YES. YES. YES. YES.
James R also asked,
Regarding Tesla, which views on gravity and spacetime are you referring to, specifically?
Um.. simple answer..
NIKOLA TESLAS VIEWS ON GRAVITY... also something you could find if you know anyone with an internet connection.
I typed in "Nikola Tesla Gravity" into GOOGLE... This is what I see.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nikola+tesla+gravity&rlz=1C1AVNG_enCA771CA771&oq=nikola+tesla+gravity&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3919j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
However if you are too lazy to learn these things yourself or are merely trolling.
I will say Nikola Tesla has "DYNAMIC GRAVITY" as his explanation for the effects we see and feel.
Here is a video on it since you could not google before asking (thus causing me all this typing).
@ James R further,
You said,
Hint: it's not because relativity doesn't "work".
Yes.. I get you are big on suggesting Theory is fact. It is still a Theory whether it works or not. Mankind also has ridiculous (to me) theories that work such as Earth being the center of the Universe.
I had said,
Einsteins claims to fame are not "stupendous".
You replied,
Are you qualified to judge that? Are you, for example, an expert in general relativity? And how much do you know about the foundations of quantum physics?
From what I've witnessed in your last posting I'd say more qualified than you.
Bohr and Heisenberg did more to advance Quantum Mechanics than Einstein. The Cat in the box was meant to RIDICULE the Copenhagen Interpretation (google it) by placing a life form into "matter that does not exist". Einstein preferred to think the moon was still there even when no one is looking at it. All theory and guessing.. no know truths as of yet.
@ James R. STILL....
I had said,
Anyways. I am not suggesting Einstein was an Idiot.
It means I am waiting for evidence
Oh, good. Because for a moment there, that's what it sounded like. And suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making you look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?
Since it has been established throughout History that NIKOLA TESLA REPEATEDLY CALLED EINSTEIN AN IDIOT (or worse "Retard", Fraud", etc)
Then if I am to understand your above sentence you are suggesting...
[NIKOLA TESLA] suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making [HIM] look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?
Hmmm. I will consider that Nikola Tesla may have been an idiot like you say. I just may not consider it for long.
Please do not make the claims I make from WOO filled people like NIKOLA TESLA be represented as fact. I merely state I am a fan of Tesla more than Einstein. Noticing speed requires two points to measure is not deep thinking and neither is realizing light can bend. There are other theoruies that explain the exact same thing. When they call it "The FACT of general relativity" I will come back and admit that Tesla looks like an idiot as is your claim when yiu stated, "[NIKOLA TESLA] suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making [HIM] look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?"..
Actually you had stated "Oh, good. Because for a moment there, that's what it sounded like. And suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making you look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?"...
and since KNOWN HISTORY has recorded that Nikola Tesla called Einstein this and worse (retard/Fraud/moron/mass of error/deceptive/fallacies/opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. )... You are suggesting it may make Nikola Tesla seem like an idiot.
Again.. I will consider that Nikola Tesla was an idiot.. just not for very long.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood.
Please supply a source for this or admit that it is your own idea and not General Relativity.
I have known that some of Tesla's ideas were goofy but I didn't realize how wrong he was about modern physics.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
It's special relativity, not general relativity. The twin "paradox" scenario takes place in empty space, with no significant masses anywhere. General relativity is about gravitational effects, and that is not pertinent to the twin "paradox".
And as for another source besides me, look at the YouTube clip of Brian Greene's PBS NOVA program that I referenced earlier in this thread.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
It is called the Andromeda "paradox" though it is not really a paradox. Mike_Fontenot has it right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that Wiki page before. I HAD read Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" years ago (as well as Penrose's more recent books), and had read his description of the Andromeda paradox, but I understand his argument better now, and am more impressed with the careful way he words it than I was before. Penrose is a master. His treatment of quantum mechanics in "Shadows of the Mind" is the best I've ever seen.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
That above statement by me was INCORRECT ... sorry for my error.
The traveler (he) will NEVER conclude that her current age is less than zero ... i.e., he can never conclude that she hasn't been born yet, no matter how he accelerates). That is because he cannot get far enough away from her during his outbound leg for his later acceleration away from her to cause her current age to be less than zero.
He COULD have gotten that far away from her, if he had been able to move faster than the speed of light on his initial outbound leg, but he wouldn't have been able to do that, of course.
It IS possible for OTHER observers, who have never been co-located with her in the past, and who are farther away from her than he is, to conclude that her current age is less than zero ... i.e., that she hasn't even been conceived yet, and even that her mother has not reached puberty yet. But her twin can't get that far away from her. All this can be seen from a Minkowski diagram.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
More specifically, the traveling twin (he) will never conclude that her current age is less than his own age divided by gamma, (assuming we choose a constant speed and stick to it regardless of whether he reverses direction). He can conclude that she gets older by reversing direction, but if he immediately reverses direction again, she goes back to being his own age divided by gamma.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
The gamma I am referring to is the Lorentz factor. It is a scalar with no units. It is also always greater than or equal to 1, for velocities less than the speed of light, c.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
But I think I see where you are going with this. If you assume age is a scalar, then it cannot go backwards, because it has no direction, right? Hmm, you are tricky.
Last edited:
Bob-a-builder
Registered Senior Member
The andromeda paradox is like a spaceship traveling faster than light and so looking back the earth would appear to get younger. That has nothing to do with the earth getting physically younger. That is only concerning how we can view it years later. If we look at a distant star we can see it billions of light years and the light entering our telescopes have been traveling for those billions of years. So in a way it seems like we are looking back in time.
If we travel faster than light we could view history. If we went far enough and fast enough we could videotape world war II from a distant telescope (if such a telescope is possible).
That does not mean the earth gets a minute younger. We are simply traveling faster than the rays can reach our telescopes if faster than light travel is possible.
We could never get far enough into a viewed past where turning around and entering that past would be possible because we would always be fast forwarding through viewed history (VIEWED history) and then some to get back to earth.
In no situation does the history alter or time alter. There is no scenario where one can get "younger" except as viewed from a faster than light engine (if somehow possible for sake of discussion).
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Actually the Andromeda paradox has nothing to do with what could be seen by eye.
Below is an excerpt from the wiki article I linked to earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument
"Notice that neither observer can actually "see" what is happening in Andromeda, because light from Andromeda (and the hypothetical alien fleet) will take 2.5 million years to reach Earth. The argument is not about what can be "seen"; it is purely about what events different observers consider to occur in the present moment."