Thread: Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

1. ...Except that you have that precisely backward - the younger twin (or, if you'd rather, the one who looks younger and lives longer) would be the one who was traveling at relativistic speeds.

2. Originally Posted by Flipper
...Except that you have that precisely backward - the younger twin (or, if you'd rather, the one who looks younger and lives longer) would be the one who was traveling at relativistic speeds.
Try understanding - we do not accept the theory this conclusion is based upon. So either stump up with some evidence or quit insisting upon what you cannot demonstrate.

3. It looked like you were trying to give an alternative explanation for the standard answer used to satisfy the Twin Paradox. You're saying that that's not the case?

The standard physical resolution to the paradox is that the twin who was accelerated to relativistic speeds will, when reunited with his twin, be physically younger and by the same amount of time as measured on his clock. This outcome is the logical consequence of moving between two inertial frames of reference, and so works around the apparent paradox caused by relativity's requirement for non-privileged reference frames. I say "relativity's requirement", but it appears to be a universal requirement, unless you're willing to allow that the laws of physics may vary across the universe.

So let's say that the trip started when the twins were born, and that the time the trip took was measured to have taken 10 years from earth, but the clock on the fast-travelling space ship measured 5 years. You're saying that when the twins are reunited, the travelling twin's clock will appear to have run five years slower (i.e. only five years have elapsed), but that travelling twin himself will appear to be five years older than his brother? (i.e. he will look 15)?

If that's not what you're saying, please clarify.

Also, what happens in Stripean physics when the rate of acceleration to relativistic speeds is a gentle constant (say, 1g perhaps?). In a year of constant acceleration, you'll end up traveling at 87% of the speed of light. When you decelerate, you can calculate a trajectory that will use pseudo forces to compensate for the change in apparent gravity during deceleration. The upshot is that the traveler on this ship experiences constant acceleration that's equivalent to earth's gravity. Presumably, it is your view that both the space ship clock and the traveler's own age will remain synchronized with the time recorded by a clock on earth?

4. Originally Posted by Flipper
Also, what happens in Stripean physics when the rate of acceleration to relativistic speeds is a gentle constant (say, 1g perhaps?). In a year of constant acceleration, you'll end up traveling at 87% of the speed of light. When you decelerate, you can calculate a trajectory that will use pseudo forces to compensate for the change in apparent gravity during deceleration. The upshot is that the traveler on this ship experiences constant acceleration that's equivalent to earth's gravity. Presumably, it is your view that both the space ship clock and the traveler's own age will remain synchronized with the time recorded by a clock on earth?
What, you want Stripean physics to be self-consistent?

In his posts so far, he seems to think that the clock on the traveling spaceship will fall behind compared to the one that stays on the Earth, but he thinks the rate of aging of a person is not affected by relativity. He had said that the traveler who's subject to more gravity would be the one who ages more, but because gravity is stressful on his body.

Your example of a traveler who experiences only 1 g of gravity is a good one. The forces are the same, but the traveler would age less than the one who stays on Earth.

Stripe, what do you say about that one?

5. Originally Posted by Flipper
It looked like you were trying to give an alternative explanation for the standard answer used to satisfy the Twin Paradox. You're saying that that's not the case?
If Einstein was wrong, there is no twins paradox.

So let's say that the trip started when the twins were born, and that the time the trip took was measured to have taken 10 years from earth, but the clock on the fast-travelling space ship measured 5 years. You're saying that when the twins are reunited, the travelling twin's clock will appear to have run five years slower (i.e. only five years have elapsed), but that travelling twin himself will appear to be five years older than his brother? (i.e. he will look 15)?
The clocks will differ according to relativity, but the only difference between the twins will be the adverse effects of having endured abnormal gravitational environments. There will be no difference in the amount of time each has experienced.

Also, what happens in Stripean physics when the rate of acceleration to relativistic speeds is a gentle constant (say, 1g perhaps?). In a year of constant acceleration, you'll end up traveling at 87% of the speed of light. When you decelerate, you can calculate a trajectory that will use pseudo forces to compensate for the change in apparent gravity during deceleration. The upshot is that the traveler on this ship experiences constant acceleration that's equivalent to earth's gravity. Presumably, it is your view that both the space ship clock and the traveler's own age will remain synchronized with the time recorded by a clock on earth?
Relativity theory can very accurately predict what effect gravity has on clocks. I am willing to accept whatever relativity predicts for the time on a clock after whatever conditions are experienced. What we do not accept is that gravity had any effect upon time. Time is an abstract noun, not a physical entity. You might as well try to convince us that speed affects love.

6. Originally Posted by Stripe
The clocks will differ according to relativity, but the only difference between the twins will be the adverse effects of having endured abnormal gravitational environments. There will be no difference in the amount of time each has experienced.
So the chemical reactions that metabolism is based on, are not affected by relativity in the same way that an atomic clock would be. In Stripean physics, what if we then built a clock based on the same chemical reactions that occur during metabolism? Since metabolism isn't affected by relativity in Stripean physics, then our new clock would measure this "real" time and not be slowed down by relativity.

You agree?

By the way, in the example that Flipper proposed, the gravitational environment that the traveling twin endured would be exactly the same as the gravity experienced by the stationary twin on Earth. You can't explain away any differences by stress from being heavier. Don't know how you missed it, since that was the whole point of his example.

7. Originally Posted by Frayed Knot
So the chemical reactions that metabolism is based on, are not affected by relativity in the same way that an atomic clock would be. In Stripean physics, what if we then built a clock based on the same chemical reactions that occur during metabolism? Since metabolism isn't affected by relativity in Stripean physics, then our new clock would measure this "real" time and not be slowed down by relativity.
Correct. One way to falsify Einstein's idea is to show that different types of clocks are affected to different degrees by gravity.

By the way, in the example that Flipper proposed, the gravitational environment that the traveling twin endured would be exactly the same as the gravity experienced by the stationary twin on Earth. You can't explain away any differences by stress from being heavier. Don't know how you missed it, since that was the whole point of his example.
I'm not trying to explain anything away. If velocity is the only thing affecting the clock then velocity affects clock and this can be accurately predicted by relativity. But there is no way you can send one twin on a trip like you describe at not alter his gravitational environment.

8. Originally Posted by Stripe
Correct. One way to falsify Einstein's idea is to show that different types of clocks are affected to different degrees by gravity.
Get to it, my man - a Nobel Prize awaits!

If velocity is the only thing affecting the clock then velocity affects clock and this can be accurately predicted by relativity. But there is no way you can send one twin on a trip like you describe at not alter his gravitational environment.
You could have a spaceship that accelerates at 1g, thus duplicating the Earth's gravity. It could accelerate away for 1/4 of the trip, then turn around and accelerate back towards home for half the trip, then turn around and accelerate away (thus decelerate) for the last 1/4, putting the traveling twin back at Earth, having experienced his normal weight the whole trip. If Einstein is right, then the traveling twin would have aged less. I agree with this, Flipper agrees with this, and it seems from his OP, Bob Enyart agrees. You seem to be the only one who disagrees.

9. Originally Posted by Frayed Knot
Get to it, my man - a Nobel Prize awaits!
What is wrong with you people?

You could have a spaceship that accelerates at 1g, thus duplicating the Earth's gravity. It could accelerate away for 1/4 of the trip, then turn around and accelerate back towards home for half the trip, then turn around and accelerate away (thus decelerate) for the last 1/4, putting the traveling twin back at Earth, having experienced his normal weight the whole trip.
You can't launch a spaceship at 1g. Escape velocity is 11km/s. You don't need the rocket to reach that speed, but you will need to accelerate it. And you cannot do that without changing the gravitational environment for any passengers.
If Einstein is right, then the traveling twin would have aged less.
And if he is not right then there is no paradox.
I agree with this, Flipper agrees with this, and it seems from his OP, Bob Enyart agrees. You seem to be the only one who disagrees.
Would this be the ubiquitous appeal to popularity that seems to follow atheists around like a bad smell, or are you trying to emotionally manipulate me? Who cares who disagrees! Show me why what I say is unreasonable and quit with the nonsense!

10. Originally Posted by Stripe
You can't launch a spaceship at 1g. Escape velocity is 11km/s. You don't need the rocket to reach that speed, but you will need to accelerate it. And you cannot do that without changing the gravitational environment for any passengers.
But you would need to change it only briefly and minimally. You could accelerate at 0.01g, making the force on the rocket 1.01g, for a couple of hours, then dial it back to 1.00g for the rest of the trip. Do you think that the stress from an extra 0.01g for a few hours would affect a person's apparent age, so much so that there would be what looks like a decade of difference between him and the twin that stayed at home?

Stripe, you're steadfastly holding to the claim that physics that's been understood and accepted by everyone for nearly a century is grossly wrong. I'm trying to tease out from you what it is that you believe in its place, and you're resisting as much as you can, because you know that you have no ideas of your own, just this belief that accepted physics has to be wrong.

So back to the twins - would a few hours of an extra 0.01g force make that big of a difference?

11. =Frayed Knot;2885943]But it's not just gravity - if your twin brother got onto a spaceship and headed off at great speed in one direction for a few years, then turned around and came back, his clock would show that, for example, only ten years had passed while your clock showed 20 years, and you would have visibly aged by twice as much as him.

If every physical process that exists, including clocks, your rate of aging, chemical reactions, radioactive decay, etc., is affected by relativity, then how is that different from saying that time itself is relative?

You are taking a position of certainty that you're right, but what I'm trying to show is that your position has not been thought out. Very smart people have thought through all the details, and they all agree that time is relative.
Frayed,

Aren't you taking a position of certainty?

Chemical reactions, radioactive decay, clocks, rate of aging are all physical or material. But time is not physical. Laws of logic, for example, are not physical. They are immaterial, universal, and absolute. Could anything physical make them otherwise? No!

Tom

12. =Frayed Knot;2886978]When I jumped into this thread recently, I had not ever gone back and read the first post by Pastor Bob from 2006. I did that today, and Bob, from what I gathered, would agree with what I've said here, about clocks, including our biological clocks (our sense of time passing), would be slowed down by traveling that fast. His disagreement seemed to be just a semantic one, about whether we should measure the passage of time by clocks and our rate of aging, or by the Earth's rotation.

So I guess I could tell you that if you disagree with what I had written, you could take it up with Pastor Bob. Instead, I'll just point out that relativity has been tested again and again and again for nearly 100 years, and every time it's been tested, it's exactly right.
Frayed,

I just re-read it. Bob argues that the two clocks, though different, would not affect the rotation of the earth around the sun by one iota. You mentioned "our sense of time passing." "Time flies when you're having fun." And it goes slower when we are not having fun. But does it really fly or slow down? No!

Tom

13. Originally Posted by Frayed Knot
But you would need to change it only briefly and minimally. You could accelerate at 0.01g, making the force on the rocket 1.01g, for a couple of hours, then dial it back to 1.00g for the rest of the trip. Do you think that the stress from an extra 0.01g for a few hours would affect a person's apparent age, so much so that there would be what looks like a decade of difference between him and the twin that stayed at home?
To whatever distance you wish to travel, the same amount of gravitational disturbance will be felt. Whether that is spread out over a slow burn and launch or (as with practical launches) packed into one massive initial thrust makes no difference to the sum total of gravitational disturbance. I think that, with the twins paradox, the whole thing can be studied as a case of gravity affecting clocks.

Stripe, you're steadfastly holding to the claim that physics that's been understood and accepted by everyone for nearly a century is grossly wrong.
It's happened before. It'll happen again.

And it's not like I'm the only one saying this. There are plenty of vastly more qualified people saying exactly what I'm saying. Where do you think I get my material?

I'm trying to tease out from you what it is that you believe in its place, and you're resisting as much as you can, because you know that you have no ideas of your own, just this belief that accepted physics has to be wrong.
Gravity does not affect time. It affects clocks.

I don't know how much simpler it can get.

It's not that "physics is wrong". It's that the model used to calculate what a clock will read after being subject to abnormal gravitational conditions should not be taken as a description of physical reality.

14. Originally Posted by Stripe
And it's not like I'm the only one saying this. There are plenty of vastly more qualified people saying exactly what I'm saying. Where do you think I get my material?
I for one do not know, but I would appreciate it if you would tell me. Please provide citations to the scientific literature.

15. Originally Posted by Stripe
Gravity does not affect time. It affects clocks.

I don't know how much simpler it can get.
We measure time with clocks. If you were put in an isolated container and asked to determine how much time passes between two events, you would need to “time it” – that is, use a clock. Unknown to you, the container you are in may be freely falling in a strong gravitational field, or it may be floating far from any appreciable sources of gravity. For you, unable to compare with anything outside your container, could you tell if the clocks you have were not measuring time the same as they were at some time earlier?

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)