Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

When you say I don't understand it - of course you may be right.

But I am not sure that you understand enough to know whether or not I understand it.

Bravo Tom Clarke. It is nice to agree with you on this issue.

You see the issue about acceleration is not because acceleration (as in GR) does something different. That is outside SR. It is because the SR coordinate transformation becomes invalid

It becomes invalid for a constant speed but the clocks can still be synchronised whether the speed is constant or not. The main issue is that the speed of light is a constant relative to ANY moving body, whther it is accelerating or not accelerating.

In this situation you cannot use notions of simultaneity between the two frames to "tie" the two time coordinates together

This is nonsense: When two clocks accelerate past one another you can still synchronise them; which means that there is simultaneaty between the clocks at that instant, and it means that the two clocks will then keep the same time afterwards, no matter which path they follow RELATIVE to one another.

Now, what I have just said does not require great insight to understand, is clearly true,

What you have just said is only true for transformed position and time coordinates. If you could suddenly switch of the relative motions so that you do not need to transform coordinates from one reference frame to the other, you will find that the time at any and all clocks which were moving relative to one another before switching off the motion, are exactly the same. This is why your arguments are all wrong.

But I am pretty comfortable that because I have a precise mathematical decsription of what goes on in an SR (flat spacetime) universe, and I understand the maths, I can resolve any apparent paradox which has physical consequences.

Mathematics does NOT determine physics and if you derive from your mathematics a physics that is clearly absurd, then your understanding of your mathematics, or your mathematics itself, must be wrong.

If as you claim, there is not a corresponding time tp on the "moving" clock when there is a time t on the "stationary" clock; and if you want to argue that at these two times, the clocks are at different distances from one another, then you are clearly lost in Alice's Wonderland.

Philosophy is only relevant in areas where science has not got a good solution.

I do not think it is even relevant in such cases. It can be fun though, just like mathematics can be fun without relating to reality.

[tomclarke]

Johan, I have shown you the mistake, above.

You have not. If it is a mistake then the same mistake was made when they integrated over the flight paths of the flying clocks.

No. An inertial observer can have his observed time dilation of a non-inertial frame integrated.

Your argument requires the non-inertial observer coordinates to remain unchanged by the change in FOR. That is incorrect.

[johanfprins]

No. An inertial observer can have his observed time dilation of a non-inertial frame integrated.

Have I disagreed with this anywhere? (insert: I just noticed that you also used the term "non-inertial" here> Please define this) But you must remember that you are then integrating transformed coordinates NOT the actual coordinates within the inertial reference frame. When you integrate to find the path that a body is following within an inertial refrence frame, you are not integrating over the transformed coordinates but over the actual coordinates of the inertial reference frame.

Your argument requires the non-inertial observer coordinates to remain unchanged by the change in FOR.

What do you mean by "non-inertial coordinates"? I think you are confused.

The position and time coordinates within a single inertial reference frame do INDEED stay the same (in fact they stay Newtonian) whether this reference frame moves with a constant speed or is being accelerated relative to another reference frame: This is so since these coordinates have not been transformed from another passing inertial reference frame. Thus, the time at every position referenced to the origin of an (a specific) inertial reference frame is always exactly the same within this self-same inertial reference frame. If you do not know that an event is a transformed event from another passing reference frame you will not know that there is any time-transformation involved. To know the latter you must be present simultaneously within both the passing inertial reference frames. This is physically impossible.

[GIThruster]

When you say I don't understand it - of course you may be right.

But I am not sure that you understand enough to know whether or not I understand it.

Well, I am assuming you don't understand SR better than Einstein, who did not solve the Twins Paradox. There are a handful of physicists on the planet who might understand SR better than Einstein did, just by virtue of their place in time--so many years after Al himself--but none of them are posting in this forum.

PS - Zeno's paradox is a good example. It has a clear resolution in the maths that describes the continuum, and convergent series. That a sequence of increasing numbers can converge is a deep mathematical property which is counter-intuitive but provably correct for real numbers. And real numbers map well to space when considering Zeno's paradox (let's ignore quantum stuff here).

That is quite subtle maths. And you can be sure the philosophers who still debate Zeno either have never understood the axiomatic math (most likely) or have some dislike of math solutions to philosophical problems.

I can't speak for other's opinions of mathematical solutions, but I can claim to be very familiar with the solution to Zeno you're speaking of. I went a hundred rounds with a quantum theorist at PSU on the issue. IMHO, the mathematical solution fails, because it treats the concept of infinity as a number, when in fact it is not. (It fails the identity theorem A=A.) IMHO, the solution to the paradox is to refuse the premise that space is infinitely divisible. Zeno's paradox is excellent support for quantum loop theory, because that theory posits that space and time have a smallest possible unit, just as matter and energy.

In any event, I hope it's obvious I'm not claiming to understand SR well enough to solve the Twins Paradox. I think I've been plain I have a favorite solution, but I think the matter is far from settled.

[GIThruster]

The Twins Paradox is an exclusively Special Relativity issue.
If you don't have a deep and abiding understanding of SR, you don't understand the Paradox.

You just admitted above that you do not understand physics at all. So why do you then think that you can take part in this discussion?

I've admitted no such thing. I had three years of formal physics training and twenty-five years studying relativity. I can't claim to do the math as I've never tried, but that doesn't alter the fact I can tell when someone is trying to correct Einstein who doesn't understand the fantastic value in the empirical evidence. The matter of the clocks is settled. If what you are saying about them were true, GPS would not work at all. How much more evidence do you need?

[GIThruster]

It can also be pigheaded to dogmatically refuse to even consider the possibility that Einstein could have made a mistake that have not been picked up for 100 years.

See this is the heart of the issue for all these pages, Johan . .delusions of grandeur which you've demonstrated in several different areas. You have this overblown ego that tells you you're always right, the rest of the world is wrong, they've always been wrong and waiting just for you to come enlighten them. Doesn't matter to you that you have no training in relativity. Doesn't matter to you that you bungle high school physics like understanding what an inertial frame of reference is. This is the heart of the matter, Johan--you make high school mistakes and then whine like a child when people don't feel the need to analyze your posts and treat you as if you had earned peer review. Truly crazy.

And just to sum up Johan, this trouble you demonstrate is precisely why I have over the last couple years pressed you to get physical evidence for your supposed super-conductor, rather than try to propagate your theory. In science, the proof is in the pudding.

You've written your books. You've posted hundreds of times. You've ensured that if your theory is correct, you will get credit for it. What you have not done, is provide evidence for it. You've maligned the world. You have a thousand excuses for why you have no evidence--its everyone else's fault! "They're all against me!" the paranoid cried, while he refused to demonstrate he was worth listening to. You whine that you can't find an investor, when in fact I found you three. You killed those deals with your psychotic rants.

Trouble is, you can only bluff just so much. You post obviously false factoids and misrepresentations of history, like this nonsense that Einstein believed accelerating frames are inertial; and expect to bluff your way though. You have excuses why the three times people supposedly tested your material you never heard back. You have excuses for everything Johan. The things you don't have, are credibility and evidence.

You're a blowhard pretender, wasting people's time with appeals to the kinder natures of those around you, who never delivers.

[GIThruster]

Too much easy to pretend to tell the others that they are wrong and refuse to show how, why and where they are wrong.

But I did show where Johan was wrong. He doesn't even understand that accelerating frames are not inertial frames. He claimed that Einstein believed accelerating frames are inertial, which is absolutely preposterous.

How much more evidence do you need? You think I have some sort of moral obligation to analyze every cryptic sentence from a man who thinks he understands what all the world does not, while he makes high school physics errors and bluffs about his knowledge of the topic?

Sorry, but I don't think I owe more to the topic than I've contributed--which ought to be quite enough.

[johanfprins]

I've admitted no such thing. I had three years of formal physics training and twenty-five years studying relativity. I can't claim to do the math as I've never tried

After studying relativity for 25 years, and after having had a formal course in physics for 3 years, you are not able to do the mathematics!? This is the best self-acknowledgement of stupidity that I have EVER come across in my life!

, but that doesn't alter the fact I can tell when someone is trying to correct Einstein

Any fool can see that I differ from Einstein on length contraction. I cannot differ from him on the twin paradox since he was not the person who first argued this scenario.

who doesn't understand the fantastic value in the empirical evidence.

To understand the fantastic value of empirical evidence you must interpret the evidence correctly. You have admitted just now that you are too stupid to do this since you cannot even do High School algebra. So how are you as a “philosopher” able to understand REAL “experimental philosophy”. You obviously do not have a clue.

he matter of the clocks is settled.

So all other well acclaimed physicists who differ on this are wrong because GIThruster ,who cannot do High School mathematics, knows better? How arrogant can a person be!!

If what you are saying about them were true, GPS would not work at all. How much more evidence do you need?

You see how incredibly stupid you are. You have been unable to realise that my arguments do NOT eliminate the need for the clocks on the GPS satellites to be adjusted: Firstly because of their actual speeding up owing to the decrease in gravity, and secondly owing to the time dilation relative to the coordinates of earth. This DOES not mean that the clocks of two twins moving relative to one another show different times within the reference frames of the two twins.

I will not demean myself to respond to the insults in your last two postings. I think the people who are following this thread have already come to the realisation that you do not have the intelligence to make any worthwhile contribution to this discussion.

[GIThruster]

Any fool can see that I differ from Einstein on length contraction. I cannot differ from him on the twin paradox since he was not the person who first argued this scenario.

More bluffing and more nonsense. Einstein invented the Twins Paradox and published on it in 1905. He made his predictions based upon it that were many years later shown to be correct. You, are obviously incorrect.

BTW, I said I cannot necessarily do the math. I didn't say I never could. I had perfect grades in physics. I left the engineering program I was in and decided to study philosophy because calculus gives me a headache, and it seemed to me that philosophy was more interesting, even if not more financially rewarding. I still maintain however, the highest regard for engineers, engineering, science, and scientists. As a philosopher, I certainly have much more training in scientific theory than most engineers, so I am indeed qualified to speak on certain technical issues, such as how to evaluate evidence.

You see how incredibly stupid you are. You have been unable to realise that my arguments do NOT eliminate the need for the clocks on the GPS satellites to be adjusted

That's bullshit, Johan. When I entered the discussion, you were calling Tom names for believing the clocks would show different times, and demonstrated no knowledge at all that the theory had already been tested and found in Einstein's favor. Your ignorance of the subject is devastatingly near complete, which makes your posturing all that more laughable.

[sparkyy0007]

More bluffing and more nonsense. Einstein invented the Twins Paradox and published on it in 1905.

I have read the paper and this is not true, maybe you could quote the passage.

btw:
The math in the paper is nothing more than algebra with a little first year introductory calculus.
If you want to contribute more than just citing references, you may want to do a little study on your own. Here's a good reference.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

[rcain]

hi Johan,

sorry its been a while getting back to you on our last exchange (a few page back now), but better late than never:

yes, i appreciate what you are saying and that is precisely the reason i referenced the alternative 'causality' (sequence) based approach above - since it does NOT assume clocks (or rulers) of any sort, yet arrives at the same (phenomenological) conclusions.

Before I left South Africa I decided not to spend my days during my visit posting on scientific threads. This was because I have been completely exhausted by trying to teach elementary high school physics to people who attacked me on another forum: The JREF forum. There are people there posting under names, “Ben m”; “Ziggurat”, “Sol Invictus”, “Reality Check” etc. who know less about physics than an ape knows about religion. They just cannot understand that classical electrodynamics which applies for free charges in a vacuum, does not always apply in the same classical manner for charges within a material. At least on this forum I have had intelligent responses, and therefore I have kept on posting back, even to Tom Clarke: At least in his case I know why he thinks like he does since this wrong interpretation of Special Relativity has been drummed into all physics students for more than 100 years.

hmm, i'll have to think about that (relatavistic electrodynamics) - it seems to be widening the discussion rather (certainly more than my small brain can comprehend in a single headful )

Thus, although it is eating up my holiday time, I have glanced at the first manuscript you asked me to rerad, and immediately realised that this is the type of manuscript I hate since it gives more credence to mathematics than physics. In other words, the mathematics is not used as a language to interpret actual REAL physics but “physics” is interpreted to conform to the mathematics. This is not the way to model physics!!! Unfortunately this is what delusional “scientists” like Minkowski, Hilbert, Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac, von Neuman , etc. have advocated for far too long.

...that'd be 'mathematicians' then. they will keep comming out with these attractive and numerically consistent theories.(not that your's isn't of course, i'm sure).

would you own theory/intepretation predict the same numerical results from the (reproducable) Hafele–Keating experiment, for example? or perhaps, if i understand your reply to tom a few posts back, you do not have 'such' an emperical theory, but are merely 'unhappy' with the 'apparent contradictions' inherent in 'interpretation' of SR. if so, that is my position also: though i generally 'comprehend' how time dilation asymetry 'falls out' SR derivations - nevertheless, i am still left with an uneasy sense that a glaring contradiction has been 'glossed over'.

i have a particular softspot for von Neuman, Turing and Witgenstein - which i suspect it may irritate you to know. i would at least reference them on the basis of having formulated 'correct' (proven) theories. ideally, perhaps, leave the universe alone from 'theorising; and just let it play out its (relativistic/QM) state-space - as its own 'best model'. of course, what you record of the events unfolding before you, will depend on where you are, when - also a matter of conjecture, unless some other oberver is assumed - reductio ad nauseum.

anyyway, i digress.

Just look at the following from this paper: “Like the early Einstein, most authors of elementary textbooks on special relativity attach undue importance to how clocks should be synchronized. Requiring clocks to be synchronized is unnecessary.” The incontrovertible fact is that in order to compare space coordinates within two Euclidean spaces, one MUST synchronise their origins to coincide at an instant in time: This demands that time must also be synchronised. Thus Shubert starts of from a premise that is unadulterated Voodoo. Why should I even try and read further?

i think what he was saying that 'an instant in time only has any meaning within a singular FOR. Thus for the stationary A and the moving B, there are two distinct 'instants' of time, (that may or may not coincide numericaly), yet both contain a symbol/representation/projection of 'the instant' of time aboard the other ship. that is two events (seen to represent the same 'interval event' by both A and B), are said to 'syncronise' the elements of the experiment (and assume only a relativistic paradigm from the outset).

apart from that, the paper is a (more or less) conventional derivation of Lorentze/Minnkowski for much of it i think, with some 'nice visualisations' and some simplified/reduced axioms.

anyway, it was very miuch the second paper - ( http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/cfe/collo ... ---017.pdf - A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets - Kevin H. Knuth) - rather than the first, that grabbed my attention. the attempt is to 'simplify; any algbera required of relativlity. the notation in this case, i find easier to interpret, less cluttered. (though it still eventually ends up casting to scalars in order to produce the usual recognisable forms when required).

further, the concept of causality to me seems more intuitive and straight forward

Why?

if we are simply considering answering such questions as 'do the twins clocks show the same time' when they 'meet up again'' - yes or no - i'd rather ignore such factors as 'by how much' or 'by how far' - there should be enough information implicit in the formulation of the problem to solve it using a 'simpler' algebra - imprints on a film stip, memory, a cannonical ensemble of (projections of) events.

by admitting fewer measures, and simplifying language, 'Causality' also makes it more evident to me, where any invocations of actual 'Voodoo' might be taking place, and conversely, what may instead be simple symbolic 're-writing' (with/without loss of information, ie.reversable/symetrical, or not, onto, or not).

i would like to end up with an entirely state-space description of SR-like phenomena (albeit, that involves 'quantifying' time also).

...than either space or time in this context, hence the matter of 'interpretation' (as you say), within this type [Just look at the following ?] of derivation also seems more consistent with an 'ordinarily' observable state of the universe - certainly more accessible to a common description of 'experience'.

I disagree. We always need a reference point in space as well as in time. So how the hell can Shubert claim that causality is better understood when you do not even know where you are? As I have stated above it this is Voodoo.

but the point he is making, i believe, is 'where you are' in it's simplest (axiomatic) form can only be written only as a pair of tuples - ('here' from 'there') + ('there' from 'here') = 'now' (ish) - similarly, any agreement on the 'origin' itself (arbitrary 'origins' even) - ie. it is 'sufficient' to synchronise 'position's, but not 'necessary' in order to 'prove' the theory; whereas, getting actual numbers out of a 'real' experiment, it would obviously help to have such convenient landmarks. at least i think that's what he's saying.

also, i do not recall him accounting for 'how causality (itself) is better understood. he is suggesting (amongst other things), that it is not terribly important to know where you are, except relative to your supposed twin. (IIUC). which makes some sense to me. no actual Voodoo i can sniff. (though later down he does, appear to pull a rabit out of the hat somewhat, but i think that may be more todo with my own limited brain power, than with actual Voodoo. something to do with a hidden dimension in the hat (boundary conditions and change of FOR again).

again though, it was the second paper (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/cfe/collo ... ---017.pdf - A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets - Kevin H. Knuth) rather than the first, that dealt more with causality per se, and interested me more.

to quote the paper above:

...Rather than being fundamental, we find that space-time arises as a construct made to make chains of events look simple....

Voodoo again.

not to me.

though by the same acount, any cannonical 'abstractions' employed by physics or by mathematics, are by definition Voodo; 'Good Voodo' is Voodo where the numbers match experiment, (within error bars/confidence-intervals) and where the rules of logic and numbers are not broken - ie. it transforms back into real (non-voodo) space, and we are none the wiser - invisible, seamless Voodo; except in the case of SR time-dilation there is (claimed) a very definite residual 'seam' between our 'subjective' accounts of 4d space-time.

at root, for me is the fact there there is 'some' evidence of SR, and there seems no (standing) evidence against it (see here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html and particularly http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... nt_with_SR) - that is 'all significant' readings are 'in accord' with it. ie. it ain't broke (yet). neutrinos and entanglement possibly notwithstanding, as perhaps we will see.

that is not to say that SR is necessarily 'the only' theory capable of yielding the same numbers. already one of SR's tennets - of inviolable/unreachable 'c' in 4d - seems under threat experimentally and theoretically.

And in the case of quantum mechanics it is the interpretation that the intensity of a matter wave is a probability distribution instead of a mass-energy distribution. ...

this seems to me a separate and distinct subject (view) - or are you saying it is 'convolved' in your theory (apropos SR)?

This is exactly where you are wrong. It is more closely related to Einstein’s gravity than Special Relativity is.

what i am saying is that (conventionally) SR does not rely on QM for its derivation, nor GR. that there 'is' a linkage, is the holy grail. (see eg: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8359/1/ ... vised3.pdf -Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist? - M.P. Seevinck - 2010 - according to which SR (and/or QM) are in real need of revision/rethinking already).

i would like to see is how SR stacks up in a (QM-compatible) state-space analysis. i have some more reading to do i think.

however, with reference to your linkage below, between (general) relativity and quantum mechanics, it seems that Bells theorum gets in the way of any attempt to combine them at this level, without that is, declaring quantum gravity (i dont know what further problems that causes) - at least according to th the paper cited above.

by 'matter wave' - i assume you mean (something analageous to) Schrodinger Wave or perhaps DeBroglie wave?

(very interesting paper posted by someone recently on another tread - http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 - The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically - Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph - (Submitted on 14 Nov 2011))

to 'probability distribution instead of a mass-energy distribution' - i think they are (potentially) 'equavalent' in a 'quantized' measurement frame, are they not? finite 'precision' makes sure of it.

Minkowski space is really an interpretation that space and time form an actual physically REAL four-dimensional space-time so that clocks at different positions keep time at different rates. That is wrong:
...
This is well explained within my manuscript.

as i mentioned before, i can't fault your logic, indeed am in sympathy with its 'intuition'. but i neither can i ignore the 'rigor' of (particularly) the causal/sequential models. the fact that several alternative derivations all reach the same/similar conclusions, from different starting assumptions, suggests to me the balance still lies in favor of SR.

It suggests that all these approaches lead to the same wrong interpretation of SR: Not to SR as it should be interpreted.

well, the interpretation may or may not be 'wrong' but as a 'predictor' SR+GR seems to work pretty well. so if any alternative interpretation is proposed, it needs to predict experimental numbers, at least as well - else it is not only Voodoo but 'rubbish Voodoo', no?

albeit experimental evidence of time dilation due to SR alone seems scant/non-existent,

Thank you.

as you say, significant evidence for the same through GR appears conclusive.

Of course it will be since this time dilation has nothing to do with Special Relativity's "length contraction" and "time dilation".

i have subsequently been corrected on the facts of the Hafele--Keating - the results cannot be attributed to GR alone and must account for SR in order to tally - at least within the SR+GR paradigm - as you (and i) have pointed out. that is not to say some other numerically equivalent theory, with different interpretation, could not do the same - is where we are exploring i think.

it seems 'improbable' to me that one is true without the other, since they are so closely derived.

Can you explain why you conclude that they “are closely derived”? Curvilinear coordinates in Gravitational Physics have NOTHING IN COMMON “length contraction” in Special Relativity (which actually does not occur) NOR with time dilation within Special Relativity (which also does not occur on any clock within any inertial reference frame). That Special Relativity and Gravitation does have a connection is correct, since matter waves are actually light energy moving at a speed less than c. This is the connection, NOT non-existent "length contractions" and "time dilations" in SR.

what i mean is, that Einstein approached one, from having more or less 'successfuly' dealt with the other, by 'admitting' additional degrees of freedom to the model (namely accelerarting and graviational frames). for sure, after that basis is established, GR is a very different animal with different terms (and notation).

'cuviliear coordinates' are just a device.

when you say

since matter waves are actually light energy moving at a speed less than c

- again what do you mean by 'matter waves', and when you say 'are actually' i suspect yu meant to say 'can be rewritten as' (which is not quite the same thing)?

---

your ideas certainly make one think Johan, so thank you for that.

to paraphrase Einstein (or Feynman?): 'if you think you understand it, you probably don't understand it'.

i was chatting to my brother the other evening - he is a professional phycisist, well respected - and i asked him what he made about the whole 'SR denier' debate (if i may refer to it as that). He started by trotting out a conventional Lorentz derivation on the back of a serviette, reminiscing the while, how we had been very pleased with himself as an undergrad having worked it all out from first principles for himself, for the first time, and how he and his mate (also a physics major) had competitively quized each other on the subject as a matter of exam revision, &c. And then he stopped and added, '...but do you know what, there is not a phycisist i've ever met, who has claimed to have 'properly understood SR, ever'. i'm certain he has met a lot pf phycisists.

i was quite shocked. (though i suspect you will be quite pleased to hear of this anecdotal statistic).

i'm sure there are still a few tenured researchers still specialising in SR, though i don't see very much in the way of (further) experiments to 'disprove' it. i did however come across a good compendium here - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... nt_with_SR - (from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html - i think Tom or Betruger has cited it previously). as you can see, nothing major for a few years (2007), and all negative, else successfuly refuted/debunked. are you willing to lay a wager Johan, that you own theory does not end up at the top of thiis list?

for my own part, i do not understand it. i shall go on reading, (and discussing), in the hope that i get lucky and render some final 'enlightnment' on the matter. By Ensteins own edict, if i ever claim to properly understand it, i should just give up all hope and concentrate on dribbling into my soup.

bytheby (and your recent discussions with Tom), an interesting linkage with the Sagnac effect, here - -

....
In another paper published in Galilean Electrodynamics,[14] Wang argued that this effect contradicts the constancy of the speed of light because there is a travel-time difference Δt = 2vΔL / c2 between two counterpropagating light beams in a segment of vacuum or air light path of length ΔL translationally moving at a speed v when the source and the receiver are co-moving with the segment (see Fig. 9 of the paper).
However, Tartaglia and Ruggiero showed that this effect is "due to the closeness of the path followed by light and to the relative motion of the observer with respect to the physical system obliging the beam to bend and come back to the observer" - and it is thus perfectly consistent with special relativity. That is, the endpoints of the experimental ensemble are at rest in the laboratory frame, and the source/receiver is in translational motion, so they are at rest in different inertial frames of references. So in consequence of the fact, that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source/receiver, the distance traveled by the counter-propagating rays becomes longer for one ray and shorter for the other one, and there is no inertial frame, in which the distance is the same for both rays.[15] A negative result would only occur, when all parts of the device were at rest in the same inertial references frame - such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.

also, you say to Teemu above:

This means that v becomes a function of t in equation (1) and a function of tp in equation (2). Also note that both equations do NOT contain the Lorentz factor. Thus, they are in essence Newtonian. Since after the two integrations over the paths d[x(0)] and d[xp(0)] each integration gives the same integrated distance, namely ZERO, and since the speed v(t)=v(tp) at any instance, or else you will have that the one clock is further from the other clock than the other clock is from the first clock (an obvious absurdity), it demands that the time on the two clocks MUST be exactly the same when they come together again. QED.

two point i have an issue with:

1) i do NOT think it necessarily absurd that by (any/some) means of measurement that - |A(A->B->A)| !== |B(B->A->B)| - that to me is 'reasonable' (simple geometry even), given that such measurements (by A and B) can never take the same path (instance) in 4d space-time, so long as they have some relative velocity and non-zero space-time distance (ie.thence Minkowski space demands that the 'longest' path is taken, rather than the 'least' path, when bringing them back together again).
2) also, simple (line) integration looses information, specifically about 'directedness' so i would not 'expect' to see the asymmetry appear out of this step - particularly as you say, because they both sum to zero as they should. the integral of the instantaneous difference however does have a magnitide, once the 'boundary conditions' are overlaid, though there can be no 'direction' or apportionment to either party until one or the other (or both) 'coincide' once more; specifically, either A accelerates to catch up with B, or B accelerates in the other direction to catch up with A - or someotherhow 'communicates' his apparent space-time position to the other party.

it is this last point, wherein the 'phase shift' responsible for residual (and finite) time-dilation 'occurs', iiuc; without it, we are agreed, there is nothing 'asymetric' about Lorentz.

the choice of 'who is forced to gain time' and 'who is forced to loose time', relative to each other, is ultimately only determined, by 'who chooses to catch up with who' - a factor not made clear it seems to me in the original interpretation of SR - excepting by way of 'proper acceleration', etc, as we have discussed, which is actually just a means to an end within the original 'parameter space' we first set out to consider. (a possible anaolgy: one party or the other (or both) is forced to literally 'skid' (their time-line) to a stop (relative to the other), in order to 'share the same FOR (time-line) again - it ts that 'action' that has directedness, hence introduces asymmetry into any description of the 'composit' resultant frame.)

i am very interested to know, however, what sort of 'formula' we will end up with once a) recent netrinos b) entanglement, have been successfuly resolved with SR (+GR). i have a feeling it we may all be 'astonished' by a new grand-theory very soon.

[johanfprins]

More bluffing and more nonsense. Einstein invented the Twins Paradox and published on it in 1905.

I have read the paper and this is not true, maybe you could quote the passage.

btw:
The math in the paper is nothing more than algebra with a little first year introductory calculus.
If you want to contribute more than just citing references, you may want to do a little study on your own. Here's a good reference.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

Thank you. It is becoming clear to all and sundry that GIThruster is just a troling nuisnace who has no knowledge and even less intelligence. I have ignored him before and will now do it again no matter what he posts.

[GIThruster]

More bluffing and more nonsense. Einstein invented the Twins Paradox and published on it in 1905.

I have read the paper and this is not true, maybe you could quote the passage.

btw:
The math in the paper is nothing more than algebra with a little first year introductory calculus.
If you want to contribute more than just citing references, you may want to do a little study on your own. Here's a good reference.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

Section 4, from the original 1905 paper (but with the equation correction that later followed as described in the Editor's Notes: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[DeltaV]

Also, the GPS satellites have built-in corrections for the effect; if you turn off the correction (which has been done) they start giving the wrong answers.

They have their signals corrected for time dilation more than a THOUSAND times the necessary nano-second resolution in order to function as they do, thus they could not POSSIBLY function if they did not account for the time dilation in the Twins Paradox.

but no real physicist would doubt the evidence is conclusive the clocks move at different rates--at least not since the advent of GPS.

If Einstein weren't correct, none of our GPS stuff would work at all.

The matter of the clocks is settled. If what you are saying about them were true, GPS would not work at all. How much more evidence do you need?

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

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti
GPS Joint Program Offlce
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 09245, USA

In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics;
we show how large or small the differences are, and how and for what applications those difference are large
enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics.

Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget, as
the OCS software is currently configured.

(OCS = Operational Control System)

As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result.
In short, there are no "missing relativity terms." They cancel out.

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

You're a blowhard pretender, wasting people's time

More bluffing and more nonsense.

Your ignorance of the subject is devastatingly near complete, which makes your posturing all that more laughable.

[GIThruster]

You quote "Section 4 from the original" and point me to an interpretation!??

Here's the original translation with variables correction.
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/200-06/specrel.pdf

Your translation seems to be identical to mine. They're the same paper. Section 4 is the historic beginning of the Twin's Paradox. How you could have read it and posted the paradox is not there, is hard to understand.

The point is, that Johan has been arguing that Einstein is wrong, without even understanding the topic he's discussing. He's then insulting people like Tom, for believing the clocks will move at different rates, not knowing that in fact, the evidence is in and they do. Next he's saying he never said those things, then he's saying Einstein didn't frame the Paradox. One piece of misinformation after the next, after the next. It's all rubbish. Johan, sadly does not have a clue as to what he's pretending to teach.