"In all, Relativity is logically the opposite of relativity and symmetry."
Congratulations. Now that you know the logical foundation of relativity, perhaps you can understand how it physically applies. Hint: all physics is local.
"Did you really not understand the meaning of 'a concrete item in the real world'?"
What meaning? What do you mean by 'concrete' and 'real?'
" ... a faster clock only burns/ages quicker, so it falls into the past faster. "
And Aristotle thought heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Learn the real stuff, John.
Tom,
It is still a measure of ACTION!!!!!!!
Regards,
John M
Tom,
The twin in the faster frame ages quicker than her sister. Remember? Or are inconvenient details always to be ignored?
Regards,
John M
"It is still a measure of ACTION!!!!!!!"
And the measure is ZERO!!!!!!
John, the twins age relative to one another. The twin paradox is not a true paradox -- simply a thought-experiment consequence of the theory of special relativity.
From their own inertial frames, each twin perceives the other to be younger. If the traveling twin were to change frames and venture home, the leaving of the one inertial frame to rejoin her twin changes the uniform motion of the symmetric relation to an asymmetric relation that leaves the traveling twin younger than the stay at home twin, at the point of origin.
You may be scandalized; however, the result is true, and borne out experimentally, with atomic clocks.
John,
Get it right; Each twin is older than each other as all frames must be fully equivalent ('acceleration' is agreed to have nothing to do with anything).
Inconvenient details aren't ignored, they're scrupulously swept under the carpet, which is now clearly recognisable as the Rocky Mountains.
Then again, if each sister sees regular light signals from the others clocks Doppler shifted as they move apart or back together, we have the exact equivalent of time dilation and contraction from a real optical effect omitted from the present incomplete interpretation plaguing SR.
And don't forget, if you need a ladder longer than the one that only just fits in your barn just pull it out more quickly, or move the barn but not the ladder!
And if you made a mistake yesterday don't worry, you can correct it as long as the Earth turns as tomorrow will become yesterday.
But as you say, we're only human. How would we cope with facing paradoxes?!
Best wishes
Peter
John,
And of the propaganda of atomic clocks, Hafele said in his 1971 NY lecture; "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything" and "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing."[/i Also, he said that, for a useful test, the drift rate of any clock would have had to have been constant over the whole period of the test.
But that rang alarm bells at the 'Though Police' HQ! So to get the 'definitive' 1972 Atomic Clocks round the world' paper actually published he and Keating had to 'massage' the finding to effectively say the opposite. Normal story then, like Shapiro, Laithwaite and so many others.
Best wishes
Peter
" ... if each sister sees regular light signals from the others clocks Doppler shifted as they move apart or back together, we have the exact equivalent of time dilation and contraction from a real optical effect ..."
No we don't.
The twins moving apart each perceive the other as being younger -- time dilation and length contraction are only manifest in the direction of motion. The traveling twin who leaves this symmetrical frame and returns to the origin finds that she actually has aged less than the stay at home twin; the asymmetry is a real physical effect, not an optical illusion.
There is no paradox, and no superfluous interpretation changes either the mathematics or physics of special relativity.
Tom,
Of course they see each other as younger, does light not takes time to travel, and as they're moving further apart between each tick does each not also see's the other apparently ageing more slowly!?
In optical science it's only "apparent" Tom. It doesn't change the rate 'time' passes! or even clocks tick, only the rate their emissions arrive at! Christian Doppler found the effect centuries before. I suggest it's time to use objective science not trust old beliefs unquestioningly; Just like the Sun orbiting the Earth. Blinkers off, it's about time to take the next step. Back to the postulates and reality.
Best wishes
Peter
John, HTH.
If even Feynman's genius for making physical explanations simple can't penetrate your personal beliefs, I can't imagine what would.
You don't need optics. Proper time is trivial.
Peter,
Let's just make this as simple as possible. As you say, it's hiding under our noses.
Take two basic spring loaded clocks, with equal force in both springs, but one ticks faster and so uses its store of energy faster. Eventually it will stop, while the other clock keeps ticking.
Another example would be that it is said the average lifespan of a healthy mammal is about a billion heartbeats, so those with a faster heartrate live shorter lives.
Keep in mind all of these are basic actions and as such are their own clocks. If we want a very accurate clock, we find something where each oscillation is as equal as possible to every other oscillation, with minimal irregularities, because even the separate oscillations are their own actions.
Now if we were to take this very accurate clock and put it in different physical circumstance, such that its rate of oscillation changes, all it really means is its rate of oscillation changes. No different than if adrenalin were to cause your heart rate to speed up.
All these actions are physically present as they occur. The energy manifesting them is not elsewhere. There is no set universal clockrate. In Julian Barbour's winning essay in the nature of time contest, he argued the only universal measure would be the path of least action between different configuration states of the universe. So this would require everyone of those actions to follow as efficient a path as possible and since there is no privileged observer frame for the universe, might be difficult to actually calculate, since events can appear in different sequence and at different rates from different frames.
Of course the necessity of least action, in the context of individual clocks, irrespective of Tom's mind games, is that the energy carries over as efficiently as possible from one oscillation to the next, making timekeeping fairly regular.
The larger point being that time arises from this activity and there is no and no need for an underlaying dimension of time. Duration does not transcend the state of the present, but is that present during and between the creation and dissolution of particular events.
Tom,
"an asymmetric relation that leaves the traveling twin younger than the stay at home twin, at the point of origin."
My point exactly. The younger twin was in the slower frame.
Regards,
John M
Tom,
The efficiency of the path is not so much the issue. It's the fact that by transferring the energy into that object, your action of throwing imparts its energy onto that object and so the event of your throwing ceases to physically exist, as the object travels its route.
The principle of least action is a tool for calculating actual time, not proof of blocktime.
Regards,
John M
"The efficiency of the path is not so much the issue"
Actually, it is the whole issue. It has nothing to do with blocktime, which is your issue of mixing things all together in your head.
Johh, two spring powered clocks with equal potential energy tick at the same rate. Man, are you ever confused.
Tom,
That really is dumb, if I may be so blunt. They will tick at whatever rate they are manufactured to tick at. By your logic, all cars would move at speeds depending on how much fuel they have in the tank.
Regards,
John M
Tom,
Then explain how the path of least action implies/requires/assumes all events exist in some time dimension. I suppose it is just my naive realism to assume the creation of one event is a function of the energy released by the dissolution of prior events. Usually referred to as causation.
Regards,
John M
Tom,
Let's make this really super simple for you and use two sand dials, with the same amount of sand, but different sized holes. Does that make more sense?
Regards,
John M
Tom,
re: atomic clocks; which are analogous to nuclear thermo-electric generating systems used on deep space probes. What have you found ( if any from NASA ) on the rate of decay due to SR and GR effects. jrc
