JohnLesser

Given that was my first post, I've insisted no such thing.

Can you read? ''you'' in quotation does not mean you.

No, and there's no way you're this unintentionally obtuse. Stop trolling.

How rude, you are trolling a good thread and trying to ruin it.

''you'' are insisting both twins always occupy the present, i.e synchronous in time

Contradictory to a time dilation.

I am not sure most of you understand SR.

You mostly are telling me there is no time dilation, huh......

A general observation.

Surely we all agree that there is no such thing as time dilation -- it is merely a change or difference in ticking.

 

That is what they are saying.

This thread has been a goid example why physics veers away from qualitative descriptions and vague terminology.

 

Time passage is relative. But at no point does anything travel backward in time, i.e. into the past. If that's what you think, you're missing something, and the focus should be on what your misconception is.

Maybe you are missing something.

I will try to explain to you by using a calendar.

Twin 1 ground state marks 1 day every 24 hrs of time elapsed.

Twin 2 in motion with a slower rate of time marks one day every 24 hrs elapsed.

Twin two marks 1 day, later than twin one. Twin ones days are shorter than twin 2's days.

 

I'll give it one last try. Observing an object in a time dilations bubble is not observing an object in your relative past. It's observing the viscus effects of time dilation on that objects motion and aging, which slows relative to your non-viscus temporal state. However, observing objects at a distance is indeed an observation of that object's past state, which is merely observing light from a distant object that has traveled a measure of time to reach your observation. What you would be observing isn't the object itself but rather it's light delayed and aged by the time it took to reach your position of observation.

So time does not really slow down?

Again contradiction

 

With equal respect, you are not giving full consideration to what any of us here are clearly conveying. If you were to observe a clock in a time dilation bubble from outside of that bubble, you would observe that time dilated clock moving slowly compared to your ground clock. If your were to observe a ground clock from inside a dilation bubble, you would observe that outside ground clock hands moving more rapidly than your clock inside the time dilations. In either case, you would not be observing either past or future--you would merely be observing variations in the speed at which time passes. Further still, time dilation and observations of distant objects do not regard the same effect.

Quite clearly you are being contradictory, in one breath saying that time slows down then in another breath saying it does not.

If time was passing slower for me, I would be still in 2016 for example.

Let's look at distance rather than time. It may be less confusing for you.

 

Two cars set off on different routes from X to Y, but they leave and arrive together. One car (A) drives a straight line between X and Y. The other (B) takes a longer circular route.

 

A watches B's odometer and sees that it is incrementing miles more slowly than his (it is "dilated" with respect to his).

 

When they both arrive at Y they compare "clocks" (odometers) and B's odometer is reading more miles travelled. Lets say 10 miles more. This doesn't mean that he is 10 miles ahead of A. They are at the same place. It just means he took a different journey through space-time.

 

But they still end up in the same place at the same time.

 

No.

 

 

It only appears contradictory because you don't understand.

Oh , I understand, to arrive at the same time their journey time would have to be synchronous, the curved vector travelled needing more speed to compensate for extra distance to retain synchronisation.

I hardly ''see'' how that is relevant though.

 

 

Or, at least, they can be.

 

 

No.

 

 

No.

So then you agree twin 2 ''drifts'' into the past?

I wish you would please stop being contradictory.

 

 

Are you deliberately missing the point?

 

One of the twins clock reads a different time and she has aged less. BUT IS NOT IN THE PAST.

 

Yes.

So you are saying time does not slow down.

A short time line can not be synchronous to a greater length.

If they both remained in the present then you will have to define absolute time?

 

You referred to objects in time dilation as being behind your time, as if in the past. Observations of objects in time dilation are not observations of those objects in your temporal past, they are observations of time passing more slowly for those objects than it does for you.

With due respect you are not thinking about what you are writing and saying.

time passes slowly , so the clock will show a lesser time than the ground state clock. Are you saying if the clock showed a shorter length of time it would still be in the present?

 

 

But they are not "in the past".

 

 

The two twins can still talk to each other. There isn't a 5 minute delay before twin 1 hears twin 2.

Sound has to travel, there is a delay .

 

In my water analogy your hand is slowed when passing through water. The effect of time dilation is represented by the water. Time dilation exist as the analogous influence slowing your theoretical clock's hands. Time dilation is not an effect consigning objects to the past, it's an effect that appears to slow the experience of time.

Time is a measurement, I am not sure we experience time but rather observe the affects of it.

 

 

That is the same thing.

 

For example, in the Twin Paradox, the two twins get together at the end. One has aged less (experienced less time). But they are together at the same time - one is not in the past.

So if one experiences less time then most certainly they are behind in time. 11.55am is not noon, it would be in the past relative to twin 1.

 

 

In your version of time dilation, the clock at light-speed is behind your relative time or in the past as you have continually conveyed. In reality, it's merely registering time temporally more slowly rather than experience some past time. It's analogous to passing your hand through water as opposed to air. Through water, your hand moves more slowly than it does through air. In time dilation, the hands of the light-speed clock moves more slowly than it would at ground time.

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying absolute time exists and time dilation is made up?

 

 

Why do you keep claiming people said things that they didn't say?

 

This is a "straw man" argument. And not very constructive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The opp claimed it was ageing that slowed, not time.

 

A clock at light-speed is materially younger and not one that is in the past.

So you are saying time does not slow down?

You missed the point.

 

Twin 1 is also at that time "behind" twin 2. When twin 2's clock shows noon, twin 1's clock shows less than noon.

 

(That's what puts the "paradox" into "twins paradox"; but isn't the issue in this thread.)

The ground state clock is the absolute time relative to the inertia reference frame. The ground state clock is constant.

Don't forget that there are few absolutes in relativity.

 

Your "ground state" clock is not the judge of absolute time.

 

Especially: for the clock that your "ground state" clock considers moving, it is sitting still and it's your "ground state" clock that is moving. (And it will consider your "ground state" clock to be slow).

 

They are not both "moving into the past" or whatever.

I understand simultaneity. The twins start in locality of each other, both having the same rate of time which is simultaneous for both twins. When twin departs he experiences time slowing down relative to twin one. When twin one's time measures noon, twin two's time shows less than noon ,twin 2 is effectively then behind in time relative to twin 1.

 

 

Quote me, where I said that.

I maybe read with ambiguity.

 

Read this:

 

 

Exactly. Well done. You are getting there.

Your age is equal to the measurement of time passed and nothing to do with the discussion.

 

 

Not at all. You could have read any amount of it. But you either didn't understand it or you are making a terrible hash of explaining it.

Relativity is not difficult to understand. This is more SR.

 

Think in terms of age instead of clock time. Objects at light-speed age slower than non light-speed objects. This is not about past or present.

Age is measured by a clock.

 

 

Yes.

So therefore the clock in motion is behind in time relative to the ground state clock?

 

 

You can go back and peruse my post as many times as you want. I defy you to find a passage where I suggested you can't read.

 

(Almost ironically, the only way to come to that conclusion is if you, in fact, can't comprehend what you read)

You said I would not be able to explain relativity, for that to be true I would have to not be able to read all the free information on the net.

 

 

No.

Then if my ground state clock reads noon, the slower clock reads less than noon ?

 

What question? There's no denying relativity, just a denial of your perspective of relativity.

The clock time question!

 

 

Stop mangling logic, please.

I am not mangling anything, Twin 1 and twin 2 at ground state observe a distant star in it's past?

 

 

I don't think you are in a position to explain what is mainstream relativity to Janus (or anyone else here who has studied physics)

Are you suggesting I can not read?

 

You're still not getting it. Time dilation refers to the bubble of slowed time surrounding objects traveling at light-speed. It's not that the objects are behind time, it's merely that those objects are experiencing time at a slower rate than non light-speed objects. Conceptualized as aging, the light-speed object isn't in the past, it just not aging as quickly. This, of course, is different from the observation of distant astronomical objects in that they are not moving at light-speed. The distinct here, again, is that the light from those objects has traveled long distances that required millions of light-years to reach us--essentially, ancient light.

So you ignore the question and deny relativity?