Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false

[swansont]

1 hour ago, externo said:

No, the paradox can be explained without math within the framework of Lorentz theory, because there is no paradox in this theory.

You can calculate the age without math? That’s a pretty neat trick.

1 hour ago, externo said:

I claim that the postulate of invariance of the speed of light of SR is not consistent with physical reality, therefore that the only possible interpretation of the equations is that of Lorentz.

How is not consistent? There must be some incorrect prediction SR makes for one to deduce that.

[externo]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can calculate the age without math? That’s a pretty neat trick.

How is not consistent? There must be some incorrect prediction SR makes for one to deduce that.

Not calculated without math, explained only.

Einstein's SR predicts that the Earth ages abruptly at the moment the traveler turns back, but this does not happen when we study what happens. During the outward journey, the traveler receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less, and then on the return journey he still receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less. These signals do not contain the abrupt aging of the Earth at the time of the turn-around. So there is no abrupt aging of the earth. This simply means that these signals are falsely interpreted as a lesser aging of the Earth by the traveler, i.e. that his estimates are made with false measuring standards, as Lorentz's theory says, and that in reality, the traveler ages less during the entire journey. 

Edited April 20 by externo

[swansont]

3 hours ago, externo said:

Einstein's SR predicts that the Earth ages abruptly at the moment the traveler turns back,

Nope. That’s your caricature of the theory, but isn’t what it says.

3 hours ago, externo said:

but this does not happen when we study what happens. During the outward journey, the traveler receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less, and then on the return journey he still receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less. These signals do not contain the abrupt aging of the Earth at the time of the turn-around.

I know that Janus has posted gifs of the signals that demonstrate what’s going on. They might clear up your misconception if you can find them.

3 hours ago, externo said:

So there is no abrupt aging of the earth.

“Aging” suggests there is some frame where we know the truth about the earth, and that’s not part of relativity, where there is no preferred frame.

3 hours ago, externo said:

This simply means that these signals are falsely interpreted as a lesser aging of the Earth by the traveler, i.e. that his estimates are made with false measuring standards, as Lorentz's theory says, and that in reality, the traveler ages less during the entire journey.

This brings to mind what I said about disentangling what one observes and what the theory says is going on. i.e. what you see and what you measure are not the same thing

 

edit: I can’t find the animation, but here’s a worked example

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51704-special-relativity-can-you-explain-the-paradox/#comment-563535

 

[KJW]

5 hours ago, externo said:

The Earth being almost immobile in relation to the ether, we can say that it correctly measures the aging of the traveler

According to Wikipedia, the peculiar velocity of the Sun relative to the comoving cosmic rest frame is 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s towards the constellation Leo. That doesn't seem "almost immobile" to me.

 

 

[MSC]

Wikipedia is being cited far too much in this thread.

[KJW]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:39 PM, 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 blueshifted light from the traveling twin to reach it at the speed of light.

This is correct. I have used this to explain the asymmetry in the twin paradox. This asymmetry is often explained by the fact that only the travelling twin accelerates, whereas the above explains precisely how the fact that only the travelling twin accelerates manifests the asymmetry. Indeed, one can calculate the twin paradox result from the Doppler effect observed by each of the twins, which naturally agrees with the result obtained by calculating the proper time for each of the twins.

Unlike velocity, which is only relative, acceleration is absolute. In the twin paradox, only the travelling twin accelerates. Not only that, the travelling twin knows that they accelerated, while the stay-at-home twin knows that they did not accelerate, and both the travelling twin and the stay-at-home twin knows that only the travelling twin accelerated. Thus, both the travelling twin and the stay-at-home twin observe the Doppler effect change from redshift to blueshift when they observe the travelling twin accelerate.

 

.

[KJW]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:39 AM, externo said:

Einstein's theory does not work in accelerations

Accelerated objects can be described perfectly well in special relativity. But accelerated frames of reference are outside the scope of standard special relativity. That's because accelerated frames of reference involve some of the mathematics of general relativity (though not the mathematics of spacetime curvature).

Standard special relativity limits itself to the Minkowskian metric. The Minkowskian metric is invariant to Lorentz transformations, and inertial trajectories in spacetime transform to inertial trajectories under Lorentz transformations. Thus, all inertial trajectories in Minkowskian spacetime are on equal footing in that they all observe the same spacetime metric. The invariance of the Minkowskian metric to Lorentz transformations implies that it is not possible to measure one's velocity relative to Minkowskian spacetime, and that only velocities relative to other objects can be measured, which is made possible because symmetry to Lorentz transformations is broken.

In the case of an accelerated frame of reference, the transformation from an inertial frame of reference to the accelerated frame of reference is not a Lorentz transformation, it is a transformation under which the Minkowskian metric is not invariant. That is, the metric of an accelerated frame of reference is not a Minkowskian metric. Thus, an observer in an accelerated frame of reference can distinguish between being in an accelerated frame of reference and being in an inertial frame of reference.

Even though velocity is only relative, acceleration is absolute because one can measure one's current velocity relative to one's past velocity. Thus, absolute acceleration does not imply absolute velocity.

 

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, externo said:

The ether is detectable during acceleration

Really? Please provide references to peer-reviewed experiments that unambiguously (ie not just in your “interpretation”) detect the ether. What is it made of? What are its equations of motion?

14 hours ago, externo said:

Einstein's SR is not capable of processing accelerations, otherwise explain to me what happens during an acceleration according to Einstein. The speed of light remains constant and time changes its simultaneity, is that the explanation?

You really need to stop repeating things that have already been shown to be wrong. You’re not doing yourself any favours.

What exactly do you want explained? One of the frames measures acceleration (using a local accelerometer), and the frames are related by the transformations given in my link, instead of Lorentz transformations.

14 hours ago, externo said:

This article also explains some problems with SR:

This concerns the rotation of rigid objects at relativistic speeds - it’s been known for a long time that this involves a metric that isn’t Minkowski, so that’s hardly a “problem with SR”, but falls outside its scope.

14 hours ago, externo said:

They say that the traveling twin has traveled the greatest spatial distance and the shortest temporal distance.

No. These integrals concern total accumulated proper time; this is an invariant quantity that’s not relative to anything. I deliberately did not use relative quantities, but invariant line integrals.

What the equations say is that (in this sign convention) it is always the inertial clock that accumulates the most proper time between a given pair of events in spacetime. IOW, any clock that doesn’t trace out a geodesic between these events will record less proper time in comparison - and we know of course that there’s only one such geodesic for any given pair of events in Minkowski spacetime.

Therefore, there’s no paradox, and nothing needs resolving. It’s simply that, if you choose two different paths, you can’t in general expect them to be of equal lengths. 

14 hours ago, externo said:

When exactly does he get younger in relation to Earth?

The dilation between clocks is an integral measure - it concerns a comparison between total geometric lengths of world lines, so one must take into account the entire journey. Thus in general you can’t reduce this to a single instant. The most we can say is that the accumulated times begin to diverge the instant the travelling clock ceases to be at rest relative to the Earth-bound clock. Also, he never gets “younger” - he just ages less.

So again - SR very much does resolve this, contrary to your claim.

PS. I remind you again to bear in mind what the twin scenario is fundamentally about - it’s a comparison between total accumulated proper times on two clocks that connect the same two events along different paths. And this is precisely what I mathematically described, not more and not less. 

Edited April 21 by Markus Hanke

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Accelerated objects can be described perfectly well in special relativity. But accelerated frames of reference are outside the scope of standard special relativity. That's because accelerated frames of reference involve some of the mathematics of general relativity (though not the mathematics of spacetime curvature).

Standard special relativity limits itself to the Minkowskian metric. The Minkowskian metric is invariant to Lorentz transformations, and inertial trajectories in spacetime transform to inertial trajectories under Lorentz transformations. Thus, all inertial trajectories in Minkowskian spacetime are on equal footing in that they all observe the same spacetime metric. The invariance of the Minkowskian metric to Lorentz transformations implies that it is not possible to measure one's velocity relative to Minkowskian spacetime, and that only velocities relative to other objects can be measured, which is made possible because symmetry to Lorentz transformations is broken.

In the case of an accelerated frame of reference, the transformation from an inertial frame of reference to the accelerated frame of reference is not a Lorentz transformation, it is a transformation under which the Minkowskian metric is not invariant. That is, the metric of an accelerated frame of reference is not a Minkowskian metric. Thus, an observer in an accelerated frame of reference can distinguish between being in an accelerated frame of reference and being in an inertial frame of reference.

Even though velocity is only relative, acceleration is absolute because one can measure one's current velocity relative to one's past velocity. Thus, absolute acceleration does not imply absolute velocity.

 

nicely covered +1, well described 

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[externo]

10 hours ago, KJW said:

This is correct. I have used this to explain the asymmetry in the twin paradox. This asymmetry is often explained by the fact that only the travelling twin accelerates, whereas the above explains precisely how the fact that only the travelling twin accelerates manifests the asymmetry. Indeed, one can calculate the twin paradox result from the Doppler effect observed by each of the twins, which naturally agrees with the result obtained by calculating the proper time for each of the twins.

Unlike velocity, which is only relative, acceleration is absolute. In the twin paradox, only the travelling twin accelerates. Not only that, the travelling twin knows that they accelerated, while the stay-at-home twin knows that they did not accelerate, and both the travelling twin and the stay-at-home twin knows that only the travelling twin accelerated. Thus, both the travelling twin and the stay-at-home twin observe the Doppler effect change from redshift to blueshift when they observe the travelling twin accelerate.

 

.

The acceleration is absolute, therefore the change in speed is absolute (Langevin said this). When the twin accelerates it creates a dyssimetry between the frames of reference, but how could this dyssimetry disappear as if by magic after the acceleration? Dyssimetry is always present, even during inertial journeys, that's what Lorentz says. Besides, you can make the acceleration as short as you want, it has no importance in itself, what matters is the consequent change in velocity. Think about it, if the accelerating twin sees the redshift it's because the speed of light is changing relative to him.

8 hours ago, KJW said:

Accelerated objects can be described perfectly well in special relativity. But accelerated frames of reference are outside the scope of standard special relativity. That's because accelerated frames of reference involve some of the mathematics of general relativity (though not the mathematics of spacetime curvature).

Standard special relativity limits itself to the Minkowskian metric. The Minkowskian metric is invariant to Lorentz transformations, and inertial trajectories in spacetime transform to inertial trajectories under Lorentz transformations. Thus, all inertial trajectories in Minkowskian spacetime are on equal footing in that they all observe the same spacetime metric. The invariance of the Minkowskian metric to Lorentz transformations implies that it is not possible to measure one's velocity relative to Minkowskian spacetime, and that only velocities relative to other objects can be measured, which is made possible because symmetry to Lorentz transformations is broken.

In the case of an accelerated frame of reference, the transformation from an inertial frame of reference to the accelerated frame of reference is not a Lorentz transformation, it is a transformation under which the Minkowskian metric is not invariant. That is, the metric of an accelerated frame of reference is not a Minkowskian metric. Thus, an observer in an accelerated frame of reference can distinguish between being in an accelerated frame of reference and being in an inertial frame of reference.

Even though velocity is only relative, acceleration is absolute because one can measure one's current velocity relative to one's past velocity. Thus, absolute acceleration does not imply absolute velocity.

 

During an acceleration there is a change in simultaneity. Do you think this change is physical or just mathematical? At the time of the U-turn, the Earth suddenly ages for the traveler. Do you think this aging is physical or mathematical?

Do you think Minkowski spacetime is physical or only mathematical?

Do you think the metric of an accelerated frame of reference is physical or only mathematical?

Acceleration is nothing more than a change in velocity, so if it is absolute then the change in velocity is absolute.

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

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Really? Please provide references to peer-reviewed experiments that unambiguously (ie not just in your “interpretation”) detect the ether. What is it made of? What are its equations of motion?

Inertia comes from the ether. When we accelerate the ether manifests itself as inertia.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What exactly do you want explained? One of the frames measures acceleration (using a local accelerometer), and the frames are related by the transformations given in my link, instead of Lorentz transformations

 

If the speed of light remains constant during an acceleration it is because there is a change in simultaneity. So haven't you understood how relativity works? Instead of the speed of light changing, it is simultaneity changing and the speed of light remaining constant. So if you believe in Einstein's interpretation you believe that there is a physical change in simultaneity.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This concerns the rotation of rigid objects at relativistic speeds - it’s been known for a long time that this involves a metric that isn’t Minkowski, so that’s hardly a “problem with SR”, but falls outside its scope.

The article clearly establishes that there are physical discontinuities in Minkowski space and  to correct them you need Selleri synchronization, which corresponds to choosing a reference frame of rest and sticking to it.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No. These integrals concern total accumulated proper time; this is an invariant quantity that’s not relative to anything. I deliberately did not use relative quantities, but invariant line integrals.

What the equations say is that (in this sign convention) it is always the inertial clock that accumulates the most proper time between a given pair of events in spacetime. IOW, any clock that doesn’t trace out a geodesic between these events will record less proper time in comparison - and we know of course that there’s only one such geodesic for any given pair of events in Minkowski spacetime.

Therefore, there’s no paradox, and nothing needs resolving. It’s simply that, if you choose two different paths, you can’t in general expect them to be of equal lengths.  

You are confusing the map and the territory. You talk about paths in Minkowski spacetime as if it had a physical reality. Swanson himself claimed that time is not physical and that there is no chunk of space-time. The equations state that the traveling twin ages less, we agree on this, but this does not constitute a physical explanation.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The dilation between clocks is an integral measure - it concerns a comparison between total geometric lengths of world lines, so one must take into account the entire journey. Thus in general you can’t reduce this to a single instant. The most we can say is that the accumulated times begin to diverge the instant the travelling clock ceases to be at rest relative to the Earth-bound clock. Also, he never gets “younger” - he just ages less.

So again - SR very much does resolve this, contrary to your claim.

Also, he never gets “younger” - he just ages less.

TRUE ! You see that the twin ages less over the duration of the entiere journey, which is Lorentz's interpretation. As soon as it leaves the Earth's frame of reference it begins to age less, so its perception of symmetry during the inertial journey is false. He believes that the Earth is aging less than him when in reality it is the opposite. That's all I'm saying. This is not consistent with Einstein's interpretation that the traveler ages less during interial travels.

Edited April 21 by externo

[externo]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Nope. That’s your caricature of the theory, but isn’t what it says.

There are two possibilities, either the Earth is aging suddenly, or it's just an artifact, but then that's Lorentz's explanation. You are mixing the interpretations of Einstein and Lorentz. Einstein's interpretation is literal and during the half-turn the Earth really ages in relation to the traveler, Einstein tried to explain this by a gravitational field produced by acceleration. If you do not accept this idea it is because you accept Lorentz. The problem is that mainstream physics has mixed everything up; it claims on the one hand that the change in simultaneity is not physical but on the other hand that space is relative. It's necessary to choose. For space to be relative, the change in simultaneity must be physical, otherwise we remain in the same simultaneity all the time and space is absolute.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

edit: I can’t find the animation, but here’s a worked example

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51704-special-relativity-can-you-explain-the-paradox/#comment-563535

 

Analysis of the Doppler effect shows that there is no symmetry during the journey. When the twin turns around he perceives the redshift immediately because his acceleration is absolute and he changes speed relative to light. Lorentz transformations are misleading because they are symmetrical when reality is not. The symmetry of the Doppler effect is explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Relativistic_longitudinal_Doppler_effect

Quote

Identical expressions for relativistic Doppler shift are obtained when performing the analysis in the reference frame of the receiver with a moving source. This matches up with the expectations of the principle of relativity, which dictates that the result cannot depend on which object is considered to be the one at rest. In contrast, the classic nonrelativistic Doppler effect is dependent on whether it is the source or the receiver that is stationary with respect to the medium.

The principle of relativity of the Doppler effect is explained by physical reasons which make it impossible to distinguish motion in relation to the medium. When we add time dilation to the classic Doppler effect it becomes symmetrical,but that does not mean that there is no longer any motion in the classical sense, only that we cannot distinguish it.

This is why the returning twin can consider that it is the Earth which ages less than him: the indications of the Doppler effect do not allow him to decide who is moving in relation to the medium.

Einstein says it is always the observed object which moves and undergoes time dilation (thus the constancy of light relative to the observer), but this is a arbitrary idea. Lorentz respects classic kinematics and supposes that it can be both.

Edited April 21 by externo

[swansont]

1 hour ago, externo said:

There are two possibilities, either the Earth is aging suddenly, or it's just an artifact, but then that's Lorentz's explanation. You are mixing the interpretations of Einstein and Lorentz. Einstein's interpretation is literal and during the half-turn the Earth really ages in relation to the traveler, Einstein tried to explain this by a gravitational field produced by acceleration. If you do not accept this idea it is because you accept Lorentz. The problem is that mainstream physics has mixed everything up; it claims on the one hand that the change in simultaneity is not physical but on the other hand that space is relative. It's necessary to choose. For space to be relative, the change in simultaneity must be physical, otherwise we remain in the same simultaneity all the time and space is absolute.

Your demonstrated understanding of relativity is insufficient for you to properly assess this. People who understand it better have tried to correct you.

Case in point:

1 hour ago, externo said:

Analysis of the Doppler effect shows that there is no symmetry during the journey. When the twin turns around he perceives the redshift immediately because his acceleration is absolute and he changes speed relative to light.

Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. 

(though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, externo said:

There are two possibilities, either the Earth is aging suddenly, or it's just an artifact, but then that's Lorentz's 

We need to get you over this misunderstanding. No faraway observer causes a distant object to suddenly change the rate it ages. That doesn't happen in any form of relativity.

 

No matter who else is observing observer A on Earth Observer A clock will run the same rate.  Observer B who examines his clock will see his clock running normally regardless of other observers.

It is only when you compare clock A and Clock B that you notice the two do not run the same. 

 This applies to light clocks as well. If an observer watches a series of pulses between A and B. The speed of light remains constant. The wavelength of each pulse (redshift/blueshift) will vary.

It's no different than a cop using a speed radar. If you have two cops monitoring each other with a speed radar they will both get the same readings.

The total redshift from A to B will be identical to the total redshift from B to A. That's due to directional symmetry. It doesn't matter if the redshift is caused by motion or gravitational. That directional symmetry still applies.

If either A or B accelerates the resulting redshift change in the pulses sent during the time the acceleration occurred with have a variation in its redshift . This will be noticed by both observers monitoring the others emitter signal. So both observers monitors the signal sent to the. Will see the same difference on both signals. 

Thr redshifted signals are not sufficient alone to determine who is aging. As both observers will still see the same redshift variations at either end.

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[externo]

53 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We need to get you over this misunderstanding. No faraway observer causes a distant object to suddenly change the rate it ages. That doesn't happen in any form of relativity.

 

No matter who else is observing observer A on Earth Observer A clock will run the same rate.  Observer B who examines his clock will see his clock running normally regardless of other observers.

It is only when you compare clock A and Clock B that you notice the two do not run the same. 

 This applies to light clocks as well. If an observer watches a series of pulses between A and B. The speed of light remains constant. The wavelength of each pulse (redshift/blueshift) will vary.

It's no different than a cop using a speed radar. If you have two cops monitoring each other with a speed radar they will both get the same readings.

The total redshift from A to B will be identical to the total redshift from B to A. That's due to directional symmetry. It doesn't matter if the redshift is caused by motion or gravitational. That directional symmetry still applies.

If either A or B accelerates the resulting redshift change in the pulses sent during the time the acceleration occurred with have a variation in its redshift . This will be noticed by both observers monitoring the others emitter signal. So both observers monitors the signal sent to the. Will see the same difference on both signals. 

Thr redshifted signals are not sufficient alone to determine who is aging. As both observers will still see the same redshift variations at either end.

I agree with that. Only, I think Einstein claims that the symmetry is physical and even if he doesn't claim it he doesn't explain anything. On the other hand, Lorentz explains the physics behind this symmetry, we can account for it if we assume a frame of reference with respect to which light is isotropic. So Lorentz explains relativity by a physical theory while Einstein explains nothing. His postulate of the invariance of the speed of light is not a physical postulate it is simply the consequence of the Einstein-Poincaré synchronization, and this synchronization is also a feature of Lorentz's theory, but Lorentz does not establish it as a physical principle, but only as the consequence of synchronization.

Now, my main argument here was that the one who accelerates sees the redshift immediately while the one who doesn't move has to wait for it to propagate to him because it emanates from the one who accelerates. It is at this moment that there is a dyssimetry and that we can understand that it exists in fact a privileged frame of reference.

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

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Case in point:

Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. 

(though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

 

Relativity is not based on the invariance of the speed of light, only Einstein's interpretation is. If you postulate this invariance you cannot account for the redshift so this invariance is not true.

Edited April 21 by externo

[Mordred]

11 minutes ago, externo said:

I agree with that. Only, I think Einstein claims that the symmetry is physical and even if he doesn't claim it he doesn't explain anything. On the other hand, Lorentz explains the physics behind this symmetry

There is no difficulty understanding this symmetry. Neither Einstein nor Lorentz nor anyone that looks at the equations would have difficulty understanding that symmetry. 

This is why I've been telling you to look at the transformation equations. The symmetry relations is included in the very formulas.

It is the Lorentz ether based model that has the difficulty in maintaining that symmetry. The Einstein models has no issue preserving that symmetry.  

I can mathematically show you quite easily those symmetry relations. They will have identically the same reasons as the  symmetry relations of the signals sent between two cops using nothing but Doppler shift. 

 

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, externo said:

I think Einstein claims

Provide links to where Einstein made the claims you are attributing to him.

I don’t think you can, because I think you’re just making this up, i.e. these are your misinterpretations of relativity.

[Mordred]

Let's put this bluntly if you handed me 

Galilean relativity , SR relativity, GR relativity and LET.

I can point out that all the above have the same symmetry relations involving signals sent between A to B and B to A regardless of model.

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, externo said:

Relativity is not based on the invariance of the speed of light, only Einstein's interpretation is. If you postulate this invariance you cannot account for the redshift so this invariance is not true.

Patently wrong. What’s clear is that you don’t understand what’s going on. The redshift and blueshift should be quite obvious from the equations.

The change from one to the other should be, too.

I you move away from me, a signal from either one of us will be redshifted. If we move closer, the signal will be blueshifted. That’s in the equation; it’s from the sign of v.

The signal that has not arrived yet does not “know” if you are moving toward or away from me. But if it’s already on the way, the transit time has already passed. As soon as you change direction, you’ll detect the signal that was just about to arrive.

[Mordred]

Here this applies regardless of model and applies to all those models. There's your symmetry 

\[\vec{A}\rightarrow B= A \leftarrow \vec{B}\]

It doesn't matter what the vector represents that symmetry applies. The goal isn't to eliminate that symmetry but to preserve it. The Gamma factor is the correction to preserve that symmetry. To restore to Galilean relativity and preserve all the physics described by Newtonian physics. 

The same thing occurs with LET it must also do the same in order to have any validity with observational evidence.

That's what the axiom "the laws of physics must be the same regardless of observer" literally describes.

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[externo]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

There is no difficulty understanding this symmetry. Neither Einstein nor Lorentz nor anyone that looks at the equations would have difficulty understanding that symmetry. 

This is why I've been telling you to look at the transformation equations. The symmetry relations is included in the very formulas.

It is the Lorentz ether based model that has the difficulty in maintaining that symmetry. The Einstein models has no issue preserving that symmetry.  

I can mathematically show you quite easily those symmetry relations. They will have identically the same reasons as the  symmetry relations of the signals sent between two cops using nothing but Doppler shift. 

 

Symmetry is included in the equations, but this symmetry is not real; the equations do not get to the bottom of things. Lorentz reveals the hidden truth while Einstein is content to note the symmetry. The ether model explains the apparent symmetry by a real asymmetry, while Einstein claims that the symmetry is physical and therefore that the traveling twin ages less than the Earth during the outward journey.

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

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Provide links to where Einstein made the claims you are attributing to him.

I don’t think you can, because I think you’re just making this up, i.e. these are your misinterpretations of relativity.

Einstein claims the symmetry is reality :

Quote

The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of coordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K′ which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K′ systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K′, the physical equivalence of K and K′ seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

 

Edited April 21 by externo

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, externo said:

Einstein claims the symmetry is reality :

Provide a link to where you got that. Did Einstein write it?

[externo]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Let's put this bluntly if you handed me 

Galilean relativity , SR relativity, GR relativity and LET.

I can point out that all the above have the same symmetry relations involving signals sent between A to B and B to A regardless of model.

Same symmetry relations involving signals sent between A to B and B to A but not same underlying reality.

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

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Provide a link to where you got that.

That's what he says in the quote I gave.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Patently wrong. What’s clear is that you don’t understand what’s going on. The redshift and blueshift should be quite obvious from the equations.

The change from one to the other should be, too.

I you move away from me, a signal from either one of us will be redshifted. If we move closer, the signal will be blueshifted. That’s in the equation; it’s from the sign of v.

If the speed of light is constant relative to the person accelerating, how can he perceive a redshift? Redshift is the manifestation of a change in speed between light and the accelerating one.

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

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Here this applies regardless of model and applies to all those models. There's your symmetry 

 

A⃗ →B=A←B⃗ 

 

It doesn't matter what the vector represents that symmetry applies. The goal isn't to eliminate that symmetry but to preserve it. The Gamma factor is the correction to preserve that symmetry. To restore to Galilean relativity and preserve all the physics described by Newtonian physics. 

The same thing occurs with LET it must also do the same in order to have any validity with observational evidence.

That's what the axiom "the laws of physics must be the same regardless of observer" literally describes.

LET explains the physical origin of symmetry, SR explains nothing.
I can provide a non-symmetric formulation of Lorentz transformations which helps to better understand the situation. In this formulation a change of frame of reference is a Euclidean rotation. We then understand geometrically where the symmetry comes from. I'll prepare this.

Edited April 21 by externo

[swansont]

You might note that Einstein is saying there is no symmetry in Lorentz’s formulation, since you have a preferred frame. The symmetry is there in relativity because there isn’t - either frame gives a valid description.

[Mordred]

26 minutes ago, externo said:

Same symmetry relations involving signals sent between A to B and B to A but not same underlying reality.

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

That's what he says in the quote I gave.

If the speed of light is constant relative to the person accelerating, how can he perceive a redshift? Redshift is the manifestation of a change in speed between light and the accelerating one.

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

LET explains the physical origin of symmetry, SR explains nothing.
I can provide a non-symmetric formulation of Lorentz transformations which helps to better understand the situation. In this formulation a change of frame of reference is a Euclidean rotation. We then understand geometrically where the symmetry comes from. I'll prepare this.

You know you really need to define what you consider Real.

Ignoring math when it doesn't agree with your your conjecture and using the term Real doesn't help. You cannot tell me LET doesn't have the same symmetry relations so your Real excuse makes zero sense 

Edited April 21 by Mordred

[externo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You might note that Einstein is saying there is no symmetry in Lorentz’s formulation, since you have a preferred frame. The symmetry is there in relativity because there isn’t - either frame gives a valid description.

Yes, so Einstein removes the ether reference frame so that there is actual physical symmetry. My point is that by removing it we can no longer explain the observed phenomena.

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

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You know you really need to define what you consider Real.

Ignoring math when it doesn't agree with your your conjecture and using the term Real doesn't help. You cannot tell me LET doesn't have the same symmetry relations so your Real excuse makes zero sense 

I will show you another mathematical formulation which agrees with Lorentz's point of view and which is not symmetrical. But I recognize that Lorentz made the mistake of not looking for it himself and of being content with symmetrical equations. There was a tendency, when seeing symmetrical equations, to think that the physical world was like the equations.

Edited April 21 by externo