Time and the speed of c

[dad]

Actually we know quite a bit about outer space and distant galaxies etc.. You may be totally ignorant, but that does not mean that others have that problem.

I agree, we know quite a bit...ho hum...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Contrary to the Fairy Tales you are told, no. We know this is a fact because the GPS clocks appear to run faster to us, but clocks on earth run slower to the GPS clocks. The GPS clocks do not see our clocks run faster as well.

We were talking about contraction due to velocity, not due to an object being in a gravitational hole. The effects due to gravity are very very small, but the effects from velocity can be quite striking.

This Fairie Dust is because they refuse to shrink the rulers in the spaceships frame. The exact problem you have problems understanding and the entirety of this debate. It is the spaceship that is accelerating - not the earth in this scenario. This is why even E used a stationary twin and an accelerating twin - to show it was the accelerating twin's clocks and rulers that changed due to that acceleration. IF the accelerating twin saw the stationary twin's clocks and rulers as shorter - then neither of the twin's would age differently. It would be reciprocal. But since even E understood that only the twin in the spaceship aged slower - only the twin in the spaceship was affected. The twin in the spaceship sees the stationary twins clocks tick faster and his rulers as being longer. This is how we are able to do transforms from one frame to another.

No, the spaceship is moving at a constant speed. Special relativity is done where you compare inertial frames of reference. If an object is accelerating it is not in an inertial frame of reference by definition. This is why they banned you. You were wrong and asked a question on the order of "have you quit beating your wife yet". I know that if I asked a question like that I would get banned here. I asked it once without the quotes and spent a few days in the sin bin since the question was taken out of context.

The problem is you all are refusing to shrink the accelerating twin's rulers and slow his clocks when you talk about reciprocal viewpoints and distances. The twin in the accelerating spaceship does not measure the same distance between points as the stationary twin, his ruler is shorter. You can't then violate the thought experiment by applying the effects of acceleration and velocity to the stationary twin - when only the twin in the spaceship is affected. Proven by the fact that only the twin in the spaceship ages slower - not the stationary twin as well. Or of you prefer the stationary twin ages faster if you take the accelerating twin's viewpoint, your choice.

Because we are not talking about an accelerating space ship. The twin paradox applies to a twin that stays home and a twin that accelerates very quickly so that he spends almost all of his time at a constant velocity. You are trying to change the problem to a much more difficult one when you don't even understand the simple question.

IF it was truly reciprocal as claimed - then neither twin would age slower - since both would see the exact same thing. Their claims are falsified on their face - which is why they do not want to answer the question posed to them - because they know the answer falsifies all claims of reciprocal viewing. Don't believe for a minute I was banned for an improper phrasing of a question. I was banned because the answer would in the end falsify all claims they make and they know it.

Wrong again, the twin that leaves changes inertial frames of reference when he turns around.

If they claim rulers don't shrink they show their refusal to accept experimental evidence. If they admit the rulers are shorter - their claims of the distances being the same is falsified. It's a catch 22 and they know it. That simple little question puts them into a box into which they have no answer to, because either answer falsifies all their claims. This is why I was banned, because they are not stupid and see the box they are being put into - and so banning keeps them from having to answer and entering that box. Banning is the only answer they can give that preserves their Fairie Dust.

No you are simply confused. And rude. Being wrong and rue is a very bad combination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No known way...correction.

So if you want to claim that there is then the burden of proof is upon you. Again dad, when you claim that things are different you are responsible for an answer.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Contrary to the Fairy Tales you are told, no. We know this is a fact because the GPS clocks appear to run faster to us, but clocks on earth run slower to the GPS clocks. The GPS clocks do not see our clocks run faster as well.

This Fairie Dust is because they refuse to shrink the rulers in the spaceships frame. The exact problem you have problems understanding and the entirety of this debate. It is the spaceship that is accelerating - not the earth in this scenario. This is why even E used a stationary twin and an accelerating twin - to show it was the accelerating twin's clocks and rulers that changed due to that acceleration. IF the accelerating twin saw the stationary twin's clocks and rulers as shorter - then neither of the twin's would age differently. It would be reciprocal. But since even E understood that only the twin in the spaceship aged slower - only the twin in the spaceship was affected. The twin in the spaceship sees the stationary twins clocks tick faster and his rulers as being longer. This is how we are able to do transforms from one frame to another.

The problem is you all are refusing to shrink the accelerating twin's rulers and slow his clocks when you talk about reciprocal viewpoints and distances. The twin in the accelerating spaceship does not measure the same distance between points as the stationary twin, his ruler is shorter. You can't then violate the thought experiment by applying the effects of acceleration and velocity to the stationary twin - when only the twin in the spaceship is affected. Proven by the fact that only the twin in the spaceship ages slower - not the stationary twin as well. Or of you prefer the stationary twin ages faster if you take the accelerating twin's viewpoint, your choice.

IF it was truly reciprocal as claimed - then neither twin would age slower - since both would see the exact same thing. Their claims are falsified on their face - which is why they do not want to answer the question posed to them - because they know the answer falsifies all claims of reciprocal viewing. Don't believe for a minute I was banned for an improper phrasing of a question. I was banned because the answer would in the end falsify all claims they make and they know it.

If they claim rulers don't shrink they show their refusal to accept experimental evidence. If they admit the rulers are shorter - their claims of the distances being the same is falsified. It's a catch 22 and they know it. That simple little question puts them into a box into which they have no answer to, because either answer falsifies all their claims. This is why I was banned, because they are not stupid and see the box they are being put into - and so banning keeps them from having to answer and entering that box. Banning is the only answer they can give that preserves their Fairie Dust.

Contemplate an angel 10 light years from earth flying towards us at 87% of the speed of light. At that speed, we regard his sense of time as crawling along at 1/2 the speed of ours. We regard his length, from nose to tail, as 1/2 the length of the angel if resting. (He is flying towards us nose first in this scenario). We regard our earth as spherical. He will arrive in 11 1/2 years, and because his time is slow by 1/2, he will have experienced a time duration of only 5+ years . . . almost 6 years.

Presumably we make these deductions based on telescopic observations and perhaps radio communications.

Now let us consider the way things look from the point of view of the angel, who perceives himself to be stationary and the earth rushing towards him. He perceives the earth to be slowed, relative to himself, with clocks running half as fast as the wristwatch he has on. He perceives the earth to be foreshortened, no longer a perfect sphere, but squashed in the direction it is coming towards him. And most importantly . . . he also perceives the distance from earth to himself as only 5 light years away. Because the whole universe, to him, is foreshortened by its motion relative to himself.

So he also predicts that he will arrive having experienced a time duration of only 5+ years . . . .almost 6 years . . . because he perceives the need to travel less distance than we earth residents perceive him having to travel.

Both points of view predict the same event at the arrival of the angel on earth, the same subjective time passing for the angel.

Now that's the way relativity does things, winding up with consistent predictions of events, although with alternate interpretations based on alternate perceptions accounting for those events.

 

[dad]

So if you want to claim that there is then the burden of proof is upon you. Again dad, when you claim that things are different you are responsible for an answer.

I claim you have no way other than Jesus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which has changed since the earth is undergoing acceleration just as the spaceship is undergoing acceleration.

Changed according to whom?

Yes they are - you just call shorter rulers meters and slower ticks seconds - and so can perceive no change. The fact that you understand acceleration causes rulers to shrink and clocks to slow - and then claim nothing is changing falsifies your own claims.

Slower and shorter according to whom?

Sigh..... The earth is the rocket ship since the entire galaxy is accelerating through space.

So who is the other twin in this analogy?

No they are NOT EQUAL. If they were equal no transformations would be required. You again confuse PROPORTIONAL to being equal.

You don't understand what is being said.

You keep insisting that the clocks on the rocketship are wrong. They aren't wrong. Both the Earth clocks and the rocketship clocks are right. They are both accurate measurements of the passage of time in each frame of reference. One does not take priority over the other.

The speed of c is not the "same" in all frames. It is "proportional" to the energy gained from acceleration. A second hand on a clock demonstrates this well.

c is definitely the same in all frames.

Who are all aging slower as the rocket ship accelerates as their clocks are slowing and their rulers are shrinking.

Slower than whom?

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't matter if they are ever returned to a stationary frame.

Yes, it does.

Once again - the fact that the observer in the rocket ship notices no change - does not stop his clocks from slowing under acceleration.

Slowing according to whom?

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration. Yes or no?

That isn't answerable since it is relative to the observer. You have to establish a frame of reference before that question can be answered.

The fact that obfuscation is your only recourse shows you have no science in which to argue with. Answer the question and stop avoiding.

Already answered it several times.

In order for your twin analogy to work, you have to take rocks off of the Earth, accelerate them for eons at near c, and then return them to Earth. Obviously, that didn't happen. Those rocks are accurate clocks for measuring the passage of time in Earth's frame of reference since they have remained in Earth's frame of reference, even if the passage of time differs in other frames of reference.

Are you denying that clocks slow under acceleration. Yes or no?

Are you denying that rocks have not been accelerating with respect to Earth?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is this your excuse?

Are you telling me that this question:

"So I guess my question is how does one justify using the same distance in two frames when one is traveling at a significant speed compared to the other frame - when according to length contraction the accelerating frames rulers are shorter and therefore can not measure the same distance?"

The rocks and the Earth are in the same frame of reference, not in two different frames of reference.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's a simple fact. Zone has been wrong in every conversation we have ever had.

You were thoroughly demolished by this post by Zone:

"First off, it is not acceleration, it is relative velocity that causes apparent contraction. And you can't tell which one is the "accelerating frame". Such nonsense only shows again that you do not understand relativity and that you still believe in absolute velocity."

The fact that you don't know it says a lot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Zone and Loudmouth both seem to have the Twin Paradox correct - if we take the Earth to be our rest frame, and one twin accelerates rapidly then moves at a constant (relativistic) velocity for some time, during this constant velocity outward phase, each twin will see the other's clock run slow and each will see the other foreshortened in the direction of travel. When the travelling twin is on his constant velocity return leg, the same situation applies - each twin will see the other's clock run slow and each will see the other foreshortened in the direction of travel. It is at the turnaround of the travelling twin, where he decelerates, turns around and accelerates again, that he would see the home twin's clock running fast enough to more than compensate for its relative slowing on the outward and return legs (and, conversely, the home twin would see the travelling twin taking a very long time to turn around).

It's worth noting that the clock slowing and the foreshortening in the direction of travel that one twin measures for the other are not just 'apparent' changes, they're quite real - from the point of view (inertial frame) of the relevant twin.

As far as Earth rocks go, since they're always in the same frame as the Earth, it makes no difference whether Earth has accelerated or not, their time is always Earth time.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as Earth rocks go, since they're always in the same frame as the Earth, it makes no difference whether Earth has accelerated or not, their time is always Earth time.

It is also worth mentioning that it isn't just clocks and rulers that are affected. It is spacetime itself that is warping.

I also find it fascinating that Justa can use the Earth as a rest frame in the Twin Paradox, but then treats it as a non-rest frame for the rest of the thread. He can't seem to understand that there is no Golden Frame of Reference that all others are compared to. Passage of time is passage of time, no matter where you are.