Leaderboard

This is only true on a field that is of characteristic > 2. In discrete arithmetics it's not true that 1+1=2. In binary arithmetics 1+1=0 or 2=0 (mod2). The moral of my silly little story: Don't take anything for granted. Not even aether theory. Yes, I know what acceleration is. I wonder whether you do. As to your last statement, it went badly wrong the moment you wrote 'so if'. Because nothing you said after that follows from the antecedent. But don't mind me. Carry on with your enthralling conversation.

This is a misconception which is as common as it false. SR is a model of Minkowski spacetime - it describes the relationship between any set of frames within this paradigm, irrespective of what their states of relative motion and acceleration are. In the special case of inertial motion, this relationship is simply a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime (=Lorentz transformation); if acceleration is involved, the relationship is a little more complicated, but nonetheless well defined: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) There’s no “paradox” in the twins scenario that somehow needs resolution, it’s simply a straightforward consequence of the geometry of Minkowski spacetime, which has to do with the lengths of world-lines.

Hence why I stopped adding to the mix. Once I saw you were progressing from their comments I didn't want to add any potential confusion. Threads can get too easily derailed.

No I know the paper your referring to that proposed that. It was published well over a decade ago. I even recall numerous discussions on its merit on other forums. The claimed that supposed one way speed of light tests were two way tests All that did was motivate the physics community to develop new tests. This paper mentions some of those tests and regularly updated. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02029 Though this is the 2021 update. It's not even close to a complete list but it covers some of the major ones.

! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.

That's an interesting philosophical question, do you have scientific evidence you do believe in God? Aww bless, you seem awfully confused, are you saying that a belief in god is necessary to not rape women? Is that why some priest's choose to rape little boys?

I am sorry to report a brief period of backsliding. A canister of honey coated almonds. Our eyes met across a crowded room, at the home of Sam and Janet Evening, and I felt a sick rush of almond lust that I had assumed was long ago consigned to my distant youth. I stumbled across the room, my mouth filled with saliva, and began to pack my cheeks like a squirrel at the peak of acorn season. Fermentable oligosaccharides! I moaned. Not the easiest phrase to moan with a full and avidly chewing mouth. California aquifers be damned! (also a challenging word string to enunciate while masticating) A beautiful woman who bore an eerie resemblance to the Santitas Corn Chip lady walked past, and I took advantage of the distraction, the substitution of one sensual delight for another, handed her the canister and said please keep these away from me! Pobrecita! she said, with a silken yet husky voice only a corn chip lady could possibly manage. Later I walked home, my feet pounding the hard macadam, back to the macadamia nuts to whom I had pledged my life and my sacred honor. One of the hardest journeys of my life.

Excellent analysis, both of you. Sorry, I have no more reaction points available today or you'd both get a +1. This is exactly what I came here to explore. All I have to do now is re-read both comments carefully to make sure I understand. Thanks.

OK. As I understand it, the idea is inserting the tab, or finger, causes the magnets to be attracted to it, instead of repelled from one another as they are in the previous phase of the motion. If we describe the operation in terms of an engine cycle, there are 4 phases:- 1) magnets close together no tab inserted, high energy of the field 2) magnets have moved apart due to mutual repulsion, reduction in field energy. Work imparted to output shaft 3) tab or finger inserted into the gap, causing magnets to be now attracted towards it, with further lowering of field energy. More work output to the output shaft (and some work output to the input shaft as well, due to the attraction) 4) tab removed from the gap between the magnets, which are now close together. This replaces the force of attraction to the tab or finger by mutual repulsion of the magnets, which are now at close separation, i.e. back to (1). It is this step that requires the substantial work input which returns the stored energy in the field to its stating value. Failure to realise the work need to do this is what can lead the incautious designer to think he has an over-unity machine, as the other steps all involve extracting work from the magnetic field. At least, that is my energy-based analysis of this machine.

Put that hotdog in my bun!

He must eat pie 22/7.

Will you just read what's answered to you??? Otherwise it's a monumental waste of time for everyone involved. (my emphasis.) The returning twin is subject to accelerations. Is it not? This is the major bone of contention with people who don't understand the twin's paradox. (Or should I say it just goes over their heads?) It is practically a socio-physical theorem that there will always be people who don't understand it. You are living proof of it.

The speed of light remains invariant to all observers that is precisely what invariant means. The confusion is on your end

The whole point of the light clock is that the speed of light doesn't change. You don't seem to have much of an understanding of relativity. You should listen to the people on this forum, you will learn a lot.

Interesting observation. You have +1 from me. On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity is "able of solving the twin paradox".

Sorry, I must be more careful next time. Now maybe I'll go to sleep, so I would put the data that I consider relevant, God willing, or maybe a copypaste.

If time dilation was a relative effect, it would not be absolute and the twin would not return younger. If the speed of light does not change relative to a moving object, how does a light clock work? It is the measurement of the speed of light that does not vary, not the speed itself. Meters and measuring standards are transformed in such a way that they always measure the same round-trip speed.

Walking droplets are mainstream physics. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics and it's mainstream physics.

Hi could this be a more simple way to calculate time in light clock time dilation experiment? On the lower picture the side of triangle 1/2xvxdelta t’ is actually 0.5 sec time - for spweed v=0 to c I will repeat this - the time tv =0.5 sec for any speed from 0 to 3x10e8 . for side L of left triangle at the bottom picture file is equal to delta t this time is easy to calculate delta t=2L/c to calculate delta t’ (Delta t’)^2=(0.5 sec)^2 + (delta t)^2 is this more simple way to calculate time dilation for light clock experiment ? And is there time dilation at all?

Is Einstein's theory of relativity able of solving the twin paradox? When the traveling twin turns around to reach Earth, it observes a blueshift of the light emitted by Earth instantaneously, not after some time. This seems to suggest that the blueshift arises from the twin's own acceleration and therefore its own motion through ether, not from the apparent movement of Earth relative to it. The Earth, on the other hand, must wait for the blueshifted light from the traveling twin to reach it at the speed of light. This seems to indicate that the observational symmetry of special relativity is not physical, but that there might be an underlying asymmetry as proposed by Lorentz's ether theory. Here is another line of reasoning that leads to the same conclusion: Consider two bodies, A and B, in relative inertial motion. A accelerates and immediately observes a change in the relativistic Doppler effect of the signal emitted by B. It then stops accelerating. This change in the relativistic Doppler effect is composed of a kinematic and a transverse Doppler effect component. According to Einstein's relativity, from the point of view of A, the change in the Doppler effect arises from the change in B's motion. It includes the transverse kinematic Doppler effect component, therefore B undergoes a change in time dilation. However, this change in the transverse Doppler effect does not originate from a change in B's motion but from A's acceleration. We are certain of this because it appears as soon as A accelerates. If it came from B, A would have to wait for it to propagate from B to A at the speed of light before perceiving it. Since the change in the relativistic Doppler effect does not originate from B, B cannot experience the change in time dilation. On the other hand, since A causes the change in the Doppler effect, he undergoes the change in time dilation but observationally perceives it as happening to B due to the perfect symmetry of the relativistic Doppler effect. Indeed, A can always imagine that the signals it receives are distorted by the change in B's motion since the observed deformation is the same as if B had changed its motion. However, since A knows that the change in the Doppler effect arises from its own acceleration, he knows that he is the one experiencing the change in time dilation. Here a citation by Langevin : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Évolution_de_l’espace_et_du_temps

The cmb is sending light through a cone but the galaxy's actual position is about a half sphere When I'm in the mood

Do you have scientific evidence you don't believe in God? Also why are you being a dumb a.? If you choose not to believe females have a right not to be raped because "i don't believe in absolute morals" that doesn't mean "well I don't believe in absolute morals therefore I can't hate that females have a right not to be raped". May I rabidly insult your demonic psychopath self now? Say you have a dad you hate and put him out of your mind, and someone says, "you hate your dad" and you reply in childishness: "how can I hate him I don't think of him!" And if you love someone, you think of them. Are Satan's blinders coming off yet? Seeing your immaturity now? It's really bad man, it's stinking childishness. "But God how could I hate you I only said you didn't exist despite endless evidence, I didn't believe in you that is why I hated on your messengers and rejected Jesus' Golden Rule which I chose to reject and not lying, stealing and murdering." Good luck with that on Judgment Day, your "but God I chose not to believe and stay ignorant and stubborn". Try it, see if your rotting flesh isn't shredded with flails. Bless you.

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium. Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one. The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical. Only at the end of the trip, until the Doppler effect is transmitted at the speed of light, because it is not light which changes speed in relation to the waves. What do you mean by “en route” What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation. Here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Relativity_of_simultaneity you can see that there is a "simultaneity jump" Its in Lorentz theory you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks, in Einstein's theory what’s happening with the clocks is considered physical reality, it's the only way to explain the constancy of the speed of light, or else this constancy itself is not physical reality and then it's no more Einstein interpretation but Lorentz. If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

Time dilation occurs in a propagating medium when confined standing waves are set in motion. Lorentz transformations are classical wave physics. Here are references: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4534 https://web.archive.org/web/20120228112717/http://glafreniere.com/sa_Lorentz.htm So the Lorentz transformations tell us that matter is made up of standing waves of ether. Electron is probably a standing wave according to Milo Wolff's model.

This is your science you hypocrite? "As soon as you abandon scientific rigor, you’re no longer a mathematician. You’re a numerologist." Meaning what genius? Do you know what science is? Look it up, it isn't "my huffing and puffing and telling someone they aren't being scientific and my personal feelings." Your reply isn't scientific, and you show massive ignorance and superstitious stupidity by saying "numerology" as if means "opposite of math". It means study of numbers you numbskull ignoramus. Duh can't you see the word components you giant moron? Science isn't merely "math" and science has nothing to do with your rigor mortis brain, there is no "science is rigorous" in any dictionary you pretentious oaf. Science is not just basic addition and subtraction that you half learned in your woke rainbow school in downtown Chicago it is also theology, gematria, linguistics, textual criticism (as in the study of ancient texts), cryptology, psychology, statistics none of which any of you seem to be adept in, unlike me, with the exception of statistics, but I do use statistical analysis. It's also archeology, which no doubt you are all repelled by who hate the Bible being that you hate your Creator. Something the load of you babblers don't know due your complacency and hate for God is that the Bible is filled with math codes, that besides symbology, metaphors, riddles, musical annotations, acrostics, prophecies everywhere, codes all over the text, and even encrypted codes. Unlike most of you empty babblers babbling in ignorance I know this as I bothered to study the research, it's all over the net including YouTube, besides that I have code scanning software and have been using it for years. Another thing most of you don't seem to remember is to apply scientific analysis to the supernatural not simply material. For exanple if God hates everyone as Psalm 5:5 says, due to their arrogance and hatred for him, well then as Jesus said count on being confused and blinded, deluded with Satan's hell, God's weapon against mockers, scoffers and arrogant hatemongers. And you love God and are humble and asked him for extreme wisdom (for HIS GLORY not yours) repeatedly, it is reasonable he would comply. So then don't expect to know anything but what is shallow with regards to God's word. Why would he share his secrets with those he sees as imbecilic mocking goblins and next to no morals, morals are required for correct science, did you forget? Yep. Stop with narcissistic gaslighting and feelings babble. You are like the Pharisees Jesus said he was thankful God his his secrets from. Repent and turn to Christ before the Antichrist subdues you and gets your spiritually dead selves to take his mark. Do you know what his name is? I do, your harbinger of doom: he will strike your heel, but you will strike his head God said of his chosen. And when Antichrist comes back to life will you then believe in the supernatural? Will you believe if dead man comes back as a spirit to tell you there is life after death? How many videos of people using ouija boards or going into haunted houses or spots or talking to demons they think are dead people using stupid electronic contraptions do you need to see? You have no brain to "scientifically analyze" what you see and hear, you are that blind and stubborn? So if a rock out of no where hits your eye in a haunted house is it science to think, "oh rocks just fly all the time, oh it must have been a midget hiding in the dark or bats that throw rocks or my friend conspired to blind me". That's your science, conspiracies everywhere. Narcissists are paranoid, big surprise.