Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false

[externo]

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 :

 

Quote

In all that precedes, the reference systems used are assumed to be in uniform translational motion: for such systems only, observers who are linked to them cannot experimentally detect their overall motion, for such systems only, the equations of physics must retain their form when one passes from one to the other. For such systems, everything happens as if they were immobile relative to the ether: a uniform translation in the ether has no experimental meaning.

But one should not conclude from this, as has sometimes been prematurely done, that the notion of ether must be abandoned, that the ether is nonexistent, inaccessible to experience. Only a uniform speed relative to it cannot be detected, but any change in speed, any acceleration has an absolute meaning. In particular, it is a fundamental point in electromagnetic theory that any change in speed, any acceleration of an electrified center is accompanied by the emission of a wave that propagates through the medium with the speed of light, and the existence of this wave has an absolute meaning; conversely, any electromagnetic wave, luminous for example, has its origin in the change of speed of an electrified center. We therefore have a grip on the ether through accelerations, acceleration has an absolute meaning as a determinant of the production of waves leaving the matter that has undergone the change of speed, and the ether manifests its reality as a vehicle, as a support for the energy transported by these waves.

 https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Évolution_de_l’espace_et_du_temps

Edited April 18 by externo
corrections

[swansont]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:39 AM, externo said:

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.

Why does it suggest that? The frequency of the light is determined by the source, and the relative velocity between source and observer. Once there is an acceleration of the observer, the relative velocity changes. Acceleration is not relative - we know the observer is the one whose velocity has changed.

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, externo said:

Is Einstein's theory of relativity able of solving the twin paradox?  

Absolutely both SR and GR are able to solve the twin paradox. The paradox wasn't due to any lack of ability of either SR or GR. They both have the same transformation rules.

The paradox arose in SR simply because of the constant velocity treatment which was incorrect. Take the acceleration into account and both SR and GR will get the same answer.

Fundamentally the only real difference between the two is GR is better suited for field treatments and handles curvature terms better. The other difference is that in GR there is no "at rest observer" . 

Both SR and GR use the same transformation rules. They both employ the Minkowskii metric though in GR the Minkowskii metric is used in the weak field approximation.

\[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\]

Both are part of the SO(3.1) Poincare group.

As they  both use the same Lorentz transformation rules claiming one is incorrect while the other is correct is in error.  Let's put it another way the solution to the twin paradox is identical in both SR and GR when correctly done 

 

Edited April 18 by Mordred

[DanMP]

3 hours ago, externo said:

... 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.

Interesting observation. You have +1 from me.

On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity is "able of solving the twin paradox".

[externo]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why does it suggest that? The frequency of the light is determined by the source, and the relative velocity between source and observer. Once there is an acceleration of the observer, the relative velocity changes. Acceleration is not relative - we know the observer is the one whose velocity has changed.

No, that’s not what relativity says.

Einstein's relativity is based on the idea that it is always the observed object that moves relative to the ether and not the observer. If we prove that it is the observer who is moving relative to the ether we invalidate Einstein. Lorentz says that the observed and the observer can both move relative to the ether

The relativistic Doppler effect contains time dilation so if the Doppler effect comes from the one accelerating, time dilation can only come from him too.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Absolutely both SR and GR are able to solve the twin paradox. The paradox wasn't due to any lack of ability of either SR or GR. They both have the same transformation rules.

The paradox arose in SR simply because of the constant velocity treatment which was incorrect. Take the acceleration into account and both SR and GR will get the same answer.

Fundamentally the only real difference between the two is GR is better suited for field treatments and handles curvature terms better. The other difference is that in GR there is no "at rest observer" . 

Both SR and GR use the same transformation rules. They both employ the Minkowskii metric though in GR the Minkowskii metric is used in the weak field approximation.

μν=ημν+hμν

 

Both are part of the SO(3.1) Poincare group.

As they  both use the same Lorentz transformation rules claiming one is incorrect while the other is correct is in error.  Let's put it another way the solution to the twin paradox is identical in both SR and GR when correctly done 

 

You cannot resolve the paradox with Einstein's SR, if you believe you do it it is because you are using Lorentz theory, as the mathematics is the same you cannot decide with them. To decide, we must study what happens during an acceleration, and we then see that Einstein's SR is experimentally invalidated.

Einstein's SR does not know how to deal with accelerations.

You can't solve the paradox with GR, this was invalidated by the scientific community a long time ago, anyway there is no gravitational field during an acceleration.

By the way, I'm not talking about GR but about LET

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Interesting observation. You have +1 from me.

On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity is "able of solving the twin paradox".

You cannot solve the paradox with SR, but only with LET.

[MigL]

6 hours ago, externo said:

 When the traveling twin turns around to reach Earth, it observes a blueshift of the light emitted by Earth instantaneously, not after some time.
 ...
The Earth, on the other hand, must wait for the blue shifted light from the traveling twin to reach it at the speed of light.

You seem to have assumed there should be simultaneity, where relativity  says there is none.
Your analysis incorrectly uses a common 'now' for the two observers.

Things have to be caused for them to happen, and causality moves at c .
( Dan should take the +1 back )

[swansont]

1 hour ago, externo said:

Einstein's relativity is based on the idea that it is always the observed object that moves relative to the ether and not the observer. If we prove that it is the observer who is moving relative to the ether we invalidate Einstein. Lorentz says that the observed and the observer can both move relative to the ether

You’re omitting an important condition: this only applies to inertial frames of reference. Acceleration is not relative - you know who is undergoing an acceleration (and thus changing to a different inertial frame)

The accelerating twin changes from a frame where there is a red shift to one where there is a blue shift. That applies everywhere in that frame of reference.

 

1 hour ago, externo said:

The relativistic Doppler effect contains time dilation so if the Doppler effect comes from the one accelerating, time dilation can only come from him too.

I didn’t say the doppler effect comes from the one accelerating. You did (or at least you claimed this is what relativity says) and you are wrong. 

[externo]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

You seem to have assumed there should be simultaneity, where relativity  says there is none.
Your analysis incorrectly uses a common 'now' for the two observers.

Things have to be caused for them to happen, and causality moves at c .
( Dan should take the +1 back )

I didn't assume anything. This is the Doppler effect solution of the paradox :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#What_it_looks_like:_the_relativistic_Doppler_shift

The traveling twin notices an acceleration of the Doppler effect as soon as he turns around, the sedentary twin only towards the end of the trip. This asymmetry cannot be explained by Einstein's SR.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You’re omitting an important condition: this only applies to inertial frames of reference. Acceleration is not relative - you know who is undergoing an acceleration (and thus changing to a different inertial frame)

The accelerating twin changes from a frame where there is a red shift to one where there is a blue shift. That applies everywhere in that frame of reference.

 

I didn’t say the doppler effect comes from the one accelerating. You did (or at least you claimed this is what relativity says) and you are wrong. 

Where does the Doppler effect come from if it does not come from the one accelerating?  It is the speed of light that is changing relative to the one accelerating.

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, externo said:

Einstein's relativity is based on the idea that it is always the observed object that moves relative to the ether and not the observer. If we prove that it is the observer who is moving relative to the ether we invalidate Einstein. Lorentz says that the observed and the observer can both move relative to the ether

The relativistic Doppler effect contains time dilation so if the Doppler effect comes from the one accelerating, time dilation can only come from him too.

You cannot resolve the paradox with Einstein's SR, if you believe you do it it is because you are using Lorentz theory, as the mathematics is the same you cannot decide with them. 

Everything in this post tells me you never  actually studied the mathematics yourself. Had you ever studied the mathematics You would know Neither theory uses Ether. Nor does it uses the ether for a observer or relative to.

Your claims is not what either theory states. Each frame of reference is emitter /observer relative to each other not the Ether.  So forget thinking Ether is involved in either theory. That is absolutely incorrect 

 

Edited April 18 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, externo said:

Where does the Doppler effect come from if it does not come from the one accelerating?  It is the speed of light that is changing relative to the one accelerating.

If you look at the equation, you can easily see it’s from the velocity. It doesn’t matter if it’s the source or receiver in motion.

[externo]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Everything in this post tells me you never  actually studied the mathematics yourself. Had you ever studied the mathematics You would know Neither theory uses Ether. Nor does it uses the ether for a observer or relative to.

Your claims is not what either theory states. Each frame of reference is emitter /observer relative to each other not the Ether.  So forget thinking Ether is involved in either theory. That is absolutely incorrect 

 

The first relativity theory is the Lorentz Ether Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Only this theory correctly uses Lorentz transformations in accelerated frames of reference, Einstein's relativity only works in inertial frames of reference. Explain to me what happens according to Einstein's theory of relativity in accelerated frames of reference.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you look at the equation, you can easily see it’s from the velocity. It doesn’t matter if it’s the source or receiver in motion.

If you observe an object that is accelerating, you see that the Doppler effect it perceives is due to its change in speed relative to light. If we place ourselves in the reference frame of the accelerating object, what explanation do you find for the Doppler effect other than the same thing, a change in the speed of light?

During inertial phases, it is impossible to know who is moving and who is stationary relative to the ether, but during acceleration it becomes visible, because the one who accelerates is the one who changes speed relative to the ether and who produces the Doppler effect.

In the twin paradox, the traveling twin ages less from the Earth's point of view during the outward and return journeys, and from the traveling twin's point of view it is the Earth that ages less during the outward and return journeys. This is because each assumes that it is the other who is moving and undergoing time dilation. But this assumption is arbitrary, it could very well be the observer who is moving and the observed who is at rest, the observed Doppler effect would be the same because the relativistic Doppler effect is symmetric. In fact, once the traveling twin accelerates to leave Earth he undergoes time dilation, but due to the symmetry of the relativistic Doppler effect, he can assume that it is Earth that is moving and undergoing the Doppler effect. As I have already explained, the fact that he perceives the effect instantaneously shows that he is the one who is moving and undergoing time dilation. All that I am saying here is nothing more than Lorentz's theory, which claims that the symmetry of Lorentz transformations is only observational and not physical.

In fact, Einstein's theory does not work in accelerations, it predicts physical changes in simultaneity that do not exist experimentally. It predicts that the Earth ages suddenly at the time of the U-turn, but this is false because the light signals emanating from the Earth do not undergo a jump into the future, they are entirely predicted by kinematic Doppler effects. The Earth's jump into the future comes only from resetting the clocks. After the U-turn, the clocks are resynchronized because the speed of light has changed and they need to be recalibrated. The estimated time of the Earth is then projected into the future, but the light signals from the Earth are not projected into the future, it is only the hands of the clocks that change. There is no physical jump.

------------------------

Look at this paper : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228609140_The_twin_paradox_in_special_relativity_and_in_Lorentz_ether_theory

Quote

1. Application of the standard formalism of special relativity to the twin paradox in the presentation by Van Flandern repeats his results. There are no rapid changes in local time of an accelerated clock; sudden changes happen with remote clocks. This creates paradoxical situations upon detailed analysis of the twin paradox.
2. A variety of twin paradox, where the motional trajectories of the twins have a probabilistic nature (“butterflies paradox”), shows that it is impossible to explain under equivalence of all inertial reference frames. 
3. Application of the LET postulates to analysis of the rate of a light clock in empty space indicates that in ether theories one should distinguish between true (physical) values and the values obtained via measurements. This approach reveals that a dilation of true time is absolute; dilation of “measured” (“illusory”) time is relative. This fully explains all possible observations in the twin paradox.
4. In any ether theory that adopts the Galilean metrics for absolute space and the reciprocity principle, the observable world looks as in SRT: the “measured” space and time intervals obey the Lorentz transformations. The exclusive place of LET among an infinite number of such ether theories is defined by a choice of the Galilean transformations for physical space-time four-vectors, the simplest kind of non-trivial transformations in Nature. The Lorentz ether postulates are not independent artificial assumptions, they are derived from the Galilean transformations, keeping Galilean metrics of the absolute space. In this theory the twin problem loses its paradoxical nature.

 

Edited April 18 by externo
Add text

[Mordred]

The first relativity never used the ether for the observer nor the emitter.  It used the ether to describe how photons travelled between the two prior to proving ether wrong through the Michelson and Morley experiments.

Those experiments are far far more precise in modern tests. Either way if you look at SR the emitter isn't ether and the observer isn't ether. 

Nor did Galilean relativity which the Lorentz transforms is simply an extension of (the Gamma factor constant of proportionality) 

Edited April 18 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, externo said:

If you observe an object that is accelerating, you see that the Doppler effect it perceives is due to its change in speed relative to light. If we place ourselves in the reference frame of the accelerating object, what explanation do you find for the Doppler effect other than the same thing, a change in the speed of light?

You observe a Doppler effect with no acceleration. 

If an object is accelerating the Doppler shift will change, as the relative velocity changes. 

You don’t need to manufacture a new explanation for the Doppler effect for accelerating objects.

1 hour ago, externo said:

During inertial phases, it is impossible to know who is moving and who is stationary relative to the ether, but during acceleration it becomes visible, because the one who accelerates is the one who changes speed relative to the ether and who produces the Doppler effect.

If you want to invoke an ether, you must come up with some independent evidence of it. 

The Doppler effect was present before the acceleration, so acceleration does not produce it.

1 hour ago, externo said:

In the twin paradox, the traveling twin ages less from the Earth's point of view during the outward and return journeys, and from the traveling twin's point of view it is the Earth that ages less during the outward and return journeys. This is because each assumes that it is the other who is moving and undergoing time dilation. But this assumption is arbitrary, it could very well be the observer who is moving and the observed who is at rest, the observed Doppler effect would be the same because the relativistic Doppler effect is symmetric.

Yes, it’s symmetric, and does not rely on acceleration.

1 hour ago, externo said:

In fact, once the traveling twin accelerates to leave Earth he undergoes time dilation, but due to the symmetry of the relativistic Doppler effect, he can assume that it is Earth that is moving and undergoing the Doppler effect.

The Earth will experience a Doppler effect if the space twin sends a signal. 

1 hour ago, externo said:

As I have already explained, the fact that he perceives the effect instantaneously shows that he is the one who is moving and undergoing time dilation. All that I am saying here is nothing more than Lorentz's theory, which claims that the symmetry of Lorentz transformations is only observational and not physical.

The fact that he experiences it instantly just means photons were en route, and the relative velocity has changed.

 

1 hour ago, externo said:

In fact, Einstein's theory does not work in accelerations, it predicts physical changes in simultaneity that do not exist experimentally.

Einstein’s theory works just fine with accelerations. There’s a Mössbauer experiment (late 50s or early 60s, IIRC) with a centrifuge that confirms it.

 

1 hour ago, externo said:

It predicts that the Earth ages suddenly at the time of the U-turn, but this is false because the light signals emanating from the Earth do not undergo a jump into the future,

Relativity doesn’t discuss a “jump into the future” - that’s your misinterpretation of the result. Relativity gives you clock results, and you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks.

1 hour ago, externo said:

they are entirely predicted by kinematic Doppler effects. The Earth's jump into the future comes only from resetting the clocks. After the U-turn, the clocks are resynchronized because the speed of light has changed and they need to be recalibrated.

The clocks are running at different rates; they are not synchronized once the experiment starts, nor are they recalibrated.

1 hour ago, externo said:

The estimated time of the Earth is then projected into the future, but the light signals from the Earth are not projected into the future, it is only the hands of the clocks that change. There is no physical jump.

Time isn’t physical, so “no physical jump” is not a revelation since it’s not part of relativity.

You are debunking a straw man of relativity and the twins paradox, rather than the actual material.

[Mordred]

You know it's funny to declare GR cannot solve the twin paradox when it's in nearly every textbook on GR. Acceleration is easily handled in both SR and GR. It's simply a type of boost called rapidity. You can alternately use instantaneous velocities. 

So really it's a poor defense for a theory Long shown inaccurate specifically the Lorentz ether theory. Particularly since it ties into Lorentz invariance which current tests is something of order of 1 part in 10^(18) for any deviation on the constancy of c. That is rather conclusive for any potential of any ether based theory being viable. Yes I've read lots of attempts to salvage LET over the years including professional written articles and examinations none of have ever born out though. I even have copies of those various models. Though it would take time to search for them.

 

Edited April 19 by Mordred

[Markus Hanke]

15 hours ago, externo said:

Einstein's SR does not know how to deal with accelerations.

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.

[externo]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

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.

You are talking about mathematics, this mathematics was discovered by Lorentz, Poincaré and others, and accounts for observations. I talk about the physical interpretation of these equations, and I show that Einstein's interpretation does not work. You are trapped in the idea that the accuracy of SR's mathematical equations necessarily validate Einstein's interpretation. There is no doubt that Lorentz's interpretation works because it uses classical kinematics, but Einstein's interpretation uses a anomalous kinematics that must be proven consistent with the physical world.

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

You know it's funny to declare GR cannot solve the twin paradox when it's in nearly every textbook on GR. Acceleration is easily handled in both SR and GR. It's simply a type of boost called rapidity. You can alternately use instantaneous velocities. 

So really it's a poor defense for a theory Long shown inaccurate specifically the Lorentz ether theory. Particularly since it ties into Lorentz invariance which current tests is something of order of 1 part in 10^(18) for any deviation on the constancy of c. That is rather conclusive for any potential of any ether based theory being viable. Yes I've read lots of attempts to salvage LET over the years including professional written articles and examinations none of have ever born out though. I even have copies of those various models. Though it would take time to search for them.

 

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_5#GR_section_removal

The GR section of the twin paradox has been removed from Wikipedia because it is invalid.

On the other hand, at the end of the article you have a section which explains that the paradox disappears if we assume a privileged frame of reference as in Lorentz theory :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#No_twin_paradox_in_an_absolute_frame_of_reference

Edited April 19 by externo

[externo]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

If an object is accelerating the Doppler shift will change, as the relative velocity changes. 

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

If you want to invoke an ether, you must come up with some independent evidence of it. 

Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The Doppler effect was present before the acceleration, so acceleration does not produce it.

Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, it’s symmetric, and does not rely on acceleration.

The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The Earth will experience a Doppler effect if the space twin sends a signal. 

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.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The fact that he experiences it instantly just means photons were en route, and the relative velocity has changed.

What do you mean by “en route”

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Einstein’s theory works just fine with accelerations. There’s a Mössbauer experiment (late 50s or early 60s, IIRC) with a centrifuge that confirms it.

What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Relativity doesn’t discuss a “jump into the future” - that’s your misinterpretation of the result. Relativity gives you clock results, and you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks.

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.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Time isn’t physical, so “no physical jump” is not a revelation since it’s not part of relativity.

If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

Edited April 19 by externo

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, externo said:

You are talking about mathematics, this mathematics was discovered by Lorentz, Poincaré and others, and accounts for observations. I talk about the physical interpretation of these equations, and I show that Einstein's interpretation does not work. You are trapped in the idea that the accuracy of SR's mathematical equations necessarily validate Einstein's interpretation. There is no doubt that Lorentz's interpretation works because it uses classical kinematics, but Einstein's interpretation uses a anomalous kinematics that must be proven consistent with the physical world.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_5#GR_section_removal

The GR section of the twin paradox has been removed from Wikipedia because it is invalid.

On the other hand, at the end of the article you have a section which explains that the paradox disappears if we assume a privileged frame of reference as in Lorentz theory :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#No_twin_paradox_in_an_absolute_frame_of_reference

Wiki isn't written by a physicist. It has zero authority in the physics. 

 Any discussion involving physics to have any use whatsoever must always include the math. It's rather useless to discuss interpretations of any physics theory without knowing what those mathematics actually describes. 

Edited April 19 by Mordred

[swansont]

Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.

[externo]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.

I fixed everything before your message.

[Mordred]

36 minutes ago, externo said:

 

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.

It would really help if one understands a physics theory correctly before you try to interpret a theory. It's rather pointless otherwise. 

Anyone that understands relativity by knowing what the mathematics of the theory states. Simultaneaty is of little use in this case as it's coordinate dependent. This is due to time not being constant.

For example an observer looks at his watch. However that's simply his coordinate time. The other observer does the same for coordinate time. Due to time dilation regardless of whether it's due to gravity or inertia his clock will appear to run normal. However once you compare clocks then the difference is noticed. 

 The two clocks are no longer simultaneous welcome to relativity and it's time dilation 

 

 

Edited April 19 by Mordred

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, externo said:

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves.

Not for light, whose speed is invariant

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium.

That’s not evidence. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one.

c is invariant

22 minutes ago, externo said:

The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical.

The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical.

 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

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.

No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip.

What waves do you have, other than the light?

22 minutes ago, externo said:

What do you mean by “en route”

“on the way”

The signal being sent was already on the way. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation.

I don’t think you are representing Einstein’s interpretation faithfully, and in any event it doesn’t matter. The equations tell us what happens, and that’s what’s important. 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

Here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Relativity_of_simultaneity

you can see that there is a "simultaneity jump"

You didn’t say simultaneity jump, you said “jump into the future”

Future and past are not part of the discussion

22 minutes ago, externo said:

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.

Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality.

Even within a given frame, you have to account for the time delay from a finite speed of light. You see a signal from a distant clock, but you have to account for the fact that it took a time of L/c to get to you. That still applies in multiple frames.

 

22 minutes ago, externo said:

If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

Can you hand me a chunk of space-time?

[externo]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

It would really help if one understands a physics theory correctly before you try to interpret a theory. It's rather pointless otherwise. 

Anyone that understands relativity by knowing what the mathematics of the theory states. Simultaneaty is of little use in this case as it's coordinate dependent. This is due to time not being constant.

For example an observer looks at his watch. However that's simply his coordinate time. The other observer does the same for coordinate time. Due to time dilation regardless of whether it's due to gravity or inertia his clock will appear to run normal. However once you compare clocks then the difference is noticed. 

 The two clocks are no longer simultaneous welcome to relativity and it's time dilation 

You are confusing time dilation and simultaneity. 

The change in simultaneity is the origin of length contraction and is a perspective effect. Time dilation is an absolute effect and comes from the decrease in the average speed of light relative to an objet in motion.

Edited April 19 by externo

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, externo said:

You are confusing time dilation and simultaneity. 

The change in simultaneity is the origin of length contraction and is a perspective effect. Time dilation is an absolute effect and comes from the decrease in the average speed of light relative to an objet in motion.

Speed of light is invariant. It does not decrease for an object in motion.

Time dilation is a relative effect for inertial frames.

[externo]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Not for light, whose speed is invariant

How do you know that the speed of light is invariant? This is a  eisteinian postulat, not a physical reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Quote

The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector.
The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame is the basis of his special theory of relativity, although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.

So this convention has nothing to do with experimentally verifiable predictions. I have demonstrated that this convention leads to a physical contradiction.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not evidence. 

This has been proven, for example, walking droplets in oil baths obey Lorentz transformations while moving. Lorentz transformations are proof that matter consists of moving standing waves of ether.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

c is invariant

C is invariant, but the speed of light relative to moving objects is not. In the absence of gravitation the speed of light is invariant with respect to ether or space

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical.

The Doppler effect comes from relative speed and is generated during the acceleration period. If you don't accelerate you can't move.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip.

So you say yourself that the space twin change is velocity and produces a Doppler effect, so if it is the one moving it is not the Earth that is moving and there is no physical symmetry.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What waves do you have, other than the light?

 

Matter waves, gravitaional waves, any ether waves.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality.

What you say there is Einstein's interpretation. In this interpretation the lengths contract because the simultaneity physically changes. If simultaneity does not change physically there is no possible length contraction of. But an object which accelerates has no influence on outer space, it therefore cannot change the simultaneity of outer space, it can only change its own simultaneity, that is to say it physically transforms itself because the speed of light changes relative to him and he has to adapt. So the outer space has not changed in simultaneity so there is a simultaneity of the outer space and it is a privileged frame of reference.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you hand me a chunk of space-time?

No, so there is no spacetime in the Minkowski sense. But there is quaternionic spacetime where time is the scalar dimension of space as Hamilton thought when creating quaternions.

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

Einstein's interpretation is based on a literal interpretation of the equations and on the physical existence of Minkowski space-time or block universe. But time is not a vector dimension.

Edited April 19 by externo