Great video, and ironically I only found it because Piet Venter mentioned it on Quora (I see you guys have met). And I've already borrowed your quote - very useful, thank you!
@@BlueMoonshine Looking forward to it. FWIW - I made a relativity disproof debunking video a couple of years ago. I;m thinking of making another, but these things take so much time! th-cam.com/video/MmJgnRY1uMM/w-d-xo.html
The conclusion in this ‘rigorous’ video is WRONG - it is clearly NOT tutorial so should be taken down because:- The ‘Prof’ absolutely refuses to accept that he has made an obvious mistake at 16:10 mins onwards in his supposedly rigorous video - accusing me of being a "liar", "senile", "psychiatric" ....... He switches the vailid interpretation of dt from:- a time-dilated remote observation of the object rocket frame - viewed from the perspective of the Lab frame stay-home twin to:- mistakenly, an elapsed time on the Lab frame twin’s local clock - viewed from the perspective of the object rocket frame That switch of interpretation does occur after integrating dt to t and dt’ to t’ but that is merely a summation of many dt and dt' - that does not justify the reversed interpretation - the Lorentz factor (gamma) is still reciprocal, even after integration.
That's a very good tutorial, well explained! Of course, as usual, there are some crackpots anti-relativists who will claim that it is wrong, but they don't have a single argument to support their claims.
Just a small point. You do need GR to define what an inertial reference frame is. Inertial frames are the free falling frames. Technically it is not necessary because you can mathematically define it. But the conceptual step of finally understanding what an inertial frame is would not have been possible without arriving at GR first. I thought I would make the distinction between strictly necessary and conceptually necessary without the benefit of hindsight.
Well, since the original twin paradox is about how motion affects time, and since the situation that is considered happens far from any massive object, gravitational effects are totally irrelevant. It is then sufficient to define an inertial frame as one in which Newton's 1st law holds true.
@@BlueMoonshine Newton's law is not valid in Relativity because it is outside the Theory so we cannot invoke it. We have to define an inertial frame in terms of the metric in the manifold as this is the only concept that is defined. Acceleration is then seen as a geodesic deviation. Force is then defined as anything that induces a geodesic deviation. The notion of geodesic is well defined in SR (in hindsight) which is why we don't need GR. Conceptually however there is no way we would have reached the notion of geodesics in spacetime without GR.
@zemm9003 You are mistaken! Newton's 1st law is just Galileo's law of inertia, and is intimately related to the principle of Relativity, the 1st postulate of Special Relativity. Also, even though Newton's 2nd law is not invoked in the resolution of the Twin Paradox, its original form as stated by Newton himself as F=dP/dt still holds true in Special Relativity. It is only the 3rd law that breaks down.
@@BlueMoonshine there are only two postulates in SR. Spacetime is a 4D Pesudo-Riemannian flat manifold with a metric of signature (+---) whose points are called events. Inertial frames are the preferred frames and they are the ones where the metric is given by a diagonal matrix. This is extremely simple and self contained. However to get here we need a lot of conceptual advances such as Minkowski's awesome work and GR.
@@zemm9003 Your comments don't make any sense. You are basically saying that special relativity needs general relativity in order to exist, and that's insane since general relativity is built on special relativity. Also, you claiming that Newton's first law is not valid in special relativity is ... WOW... Please, get informed before making such comments. Finally, if I'm not mistaken, @BlueMoonshine (a.k.a Dr. Rousseau) is a university professor and has been teaching special and general relativity for 20 years. I think that he knows that there are only two postulates in special relativity (I read the your discussion with him several times, and I don't see where he would have said that this is not true). I'm also sure that he knows pretty well about the Minkowski metric and its matrix representation, and he surely knows that the points of spacetime are called events.
I said: Professor Val Rousseau assumed that time dilation was a valid law for the relativistic traveling twin. and Professor Rousseau said that that was a lie. Let’s check if that is a lie. Did he use Lorentz Transformation to calculate the elapsed time for the traveling twin? If he did, that included time dilation based on Relative Velocity (as prescribed in Relativity). In other words, Lorentz Transformation contains Time Dilation, Lenght Contraction, etc. That is the Fallacy in his reasoning. When he realized that the non-inertial sections could be neglected, he should stop doing math and start thinking. - which he didn’t.
> "Did you use Lorentz Transformation to calculate the elapsed time for the traveling twin?" I used the equations for accelerated frames that I derived rigorously. The Lorentz transformation is valid for inertial frames. Accelerated frames have at any time instantaneous co-moving inertial frames. Since this co-moving frames are inertial, the Lorentz transformation can safely be used in order to go from one of these inertial frames to another one. By integrating over time, the correct equations for accelerated frames can be obtained. > "When you realize that the non-inertial sections can be neglected" The non-inertial sections **CANNOT** be neglected, and I didn’t neglect them. As I already mentioned, I rigorously derived the equations for accelerated frames. If you want to claim that my equations are wrong, you have to point out a mistake in my equation, which so far you haven’t done!
What if both twins experienced no proper acceleration? Like the space between them just expanded and then returned to the prior state while the both of them experience no proper acceleration
This doesn't happen in Special Relativity. Space-time can oscillate in General Relativity due to gravitational waves, but this is another story which requires tensor calculus.
It would be great if it was clear what is going on. The twin paradox is "solved" by the fact that different spacetime paths connecting common pairs of events need not be of equal length (just like two arbitrary lines connecting common points). The video seems to imply that the acceleration had something to do with the time discrepancy. This is will only fuel the anti-relativists.
Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference.
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference” During the coasting phase of 60 seconds, SR applies and the twin paradox cannot be resolved! The spaceship twin observes the earth twin’s clock as running slower and vice versa! So you have NOT resolved the twin paradox in your video?
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference” During the coasting phase SR applies, so each twin observes the other twin’s clock to be running slower! Hence the twin paradox cannot be resolved, as your TH-cam video claims!
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference” During the coasting phase SR applies, so each twin observes the other twin’s clock to be running slower! Hence the twin paradox cannot be resolved, as your TH-cam video claims!
EXISTENTIAL MISTAKE At about minute 15.5 onwards it is stated that dt = γdt' and correctly, that the proper time is dt' in the local traveller frame and that dt' is the "dilated when viewed FROM the stay-home lab remote frame". γ is greater than 1 and is then integrated and applied at about minute 16.5 but in REVERSE ie. as viewed FROM the traveller frame. That CRUCIAL statement is clearly INCORRECT because spacetime is always contracted (less time) in the observed remote frame. That is a basic EXISTENTIAL MISTAKE in this tutorial video.
WRONG! You are the "existential mistake"! You just agreed that dt = γdt' is correct. As shown, γ=cosh(αt’/c). Therefore t = int(cosh(αt’/c)dt', which is precisely what is shown in the video. Nothing has been applied in REVERSE. As usual, you are LYING. Try again, loser!
@IraClarke-t9c So, you are fleeing now that I proved you wrong (once again)? Here is a more detailed explanation why you are wrong: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-IraClarke.php
The first thing to notice is the idiotic decomposition of parallel and perpendicular motion. The Einstein paradox is still a paradox for a unidimensional trip... In other words, there is no need to make it "fancy" by adding perpendicular motion. It makes it more difficult to spot the fallacy in the reasoning. So, redo it as a unidimensional trip. Are you copying my postings? I presented this earlier than your video, just in case you don't know. On 12:24 you have the time elapsed during acceleration. It is easy to see that for alpha (acceleration going to infinite) the elapsed time (aging due to the accelerated section) is zero. If you calculate a large but physical acceleration, one can restrict the aging to a single day. In other words, Accelerate to relativistic speeds in a single day and coast the rest. So, one can separate the contribution of the non-inertial sections to a differential aging of a few days. You are left to two inertial sections (time dilation doesn't care for the sign of v) that can be made as long as one wishes. During those inertial sections, the laws of nature are indistinguishable (aging are the same). That is why the paradox is not lifted. It can only be lifted if the laws of nature are distinct for the two inertial frames and that requires the laws of nature to be written on the Absolute Referential Frame.
There is no perpendicular motion in the problem discussed in this video tutorial. You obviously didn't watch it, so you have absolutely no clue what it is about.
The fallacy in this video is using Einstein's equations to prove Einstein's theory. In other words, Professor Val Rousseau assumed that time dilation was a valid law for the relativistic traveling twin. That is circular reasoning. You cannot prove a theory using the theory hypotheses. What you should use is the Postulate: "All inertial frames are indistinguishable." Once you FINALLY understand that the non-inertial sections of the trip cannot explain the total aging, then you realize that the aging differential has to come from the two inertial sections of the trip!!! This is the same as saying the aging on any inertial frame is the same. We know experimentally (from particle physics) that it isn't. Hence, the postulate is wrong. That is how you deal with checking the Twin Paradox. You don't blindly calculate time dilation for the twin using relativity. If you could, there wouldn't be any twin paradox (because you are using the equations self-consistently). I hope Professor Val Rousseau now understands why the Twin Paradox proves Einstein's Relativity is wrong and doesn't describe Reality.
"The fallacy in this video is using Einstein's equations to prove Einstein's theory." Unfortunately for you, I rigorously derived Einstein's equations as well in this video tutorial: th-cam.com/video/6N2mH3-khUg/w-d-xo.html I CHALLENGE YOU to point out a single mistake in that tutorial (tell which equation is supposedly wrong, at what time in the video). You can't? Then you lost the argument (as usual)!
Looking at your profile reveals that you are Marco Pereira. If I remember well, you are the crackpot who talks about himself at the third person on Quora, right?
@@AndreaKarlis You are an idiot. :) Of course, I can talk about myself in the third person. When I do that, I emphasize who created the idea or argument and make sure idiots like yourself realize that I have more education than you do. Show some respect. It is just the correct way to present my contribution.
@@TheNewPhysics "It is just the correct way to present my contribution." Not a single real physicist has ever published his own research by talking about himself using the third person.
@@TheNewPhysics I see that you pretend to have studied nuclear physics, laser engineering, finance, molecular biophysics, that you have a PhD in physics, one in chemistry, that you are a professor of finance, a professor of molecular biophysics, a CEO at QuantSapiens... And yet, there is absolutely no trace on the net of you having held any of these positions. Also, none of the universities I have contacted know about you. This strongly suggests that you are an imposter and a liar. You don't have any degrees in science, at most you are just a freshman dropout!
This is nonsense. If you think that SR doesnt lead to a paradox, then you dont understand the theory at all. The correct paradox must have both twins doing the exact same thing, to correctly illustrate where the paradox is found. No earth twin, and no acceleration and no turn around, both twins do the exact same thing. just in opposite directions. SR then claims that each twin will see the other as younger, which of course is impossible. They both cant be younger that the other, and that is the paradox. UNSOLVED. Its unsolved because the theory is nonsense. Your experiments all need a critical review if you think that they support this nonsense.
You are just proving that you don't understand anything about proper time. This is the most common mistake made by freshmen who discover the SR for the first time, and which is clearly explained in this tutorial about the Lorentz transformation: th-cam.com/video/CkD1SwGasZE/w-d-xo.html For information, SR is the most well-tested theory of all times, it has been tested for nearly 120 years on a DAILY basis, and the "Twin Paradox" has been tested as well by using atomic clocks. The result is that the clock that traveled shows a lag, indicating that it is younger than the stay at home clock, exactly as predicted by SR.
In the scientific community, the ratio of anti-relativists to pro-relativists is something like 1:1000 or even smaller. All great physicists like Einstein, Lorentz, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Fermi, Feynman, Bohr, Planck, Curie, and many others supported Relativity. Experiments made everyday confirm the theory to an astounding accuracy. And you, who come out of nowhere and who has read nothing more than "physics for dummies", you think that you are more intelligent than these people? Seriously? Tell us again who is delusional!
I copy this comment up the top tier because it is the key issue clincher here. >>>> Oh dear ''You CLEARLY don't understand physics and math!'' What a disappointing very very UNTRUE statement given all the explanations that I have patiently presented to you on Quora - you haven't disputed any except by quoting irrelevant mantra at me! The turnaround time at zero speed can take any length of time you like - it makes no difference to the reciprocal LAG between the remote and local perfect sync'd clocks. That is down to the constant x/c propagation delay alone - nothing else. Perfect clocks (impervious to gravitational redshift) can't 'remember' how they got there or anticipate future travel plans. What physics and maths don't I understand?
None of your comments makes any sense. I gave you on Quora a trivial derivation of the Lorentz factor that only requires you to apply 8th grade math. All that is needed is to calculate the hypotenuse of a tirangle with a base of vt'/2 and and height L0. Then you fled by saying that light doesn't follow an oblique path. Well, tell us what path it follows if it starts from the origin (0,0) on the bottom mirror, and hits the upper mirror after it moved to coordinate (x,y), with x=vt'/2 and y=L0? Do you claim it is vertical? Horizontal? Curved?
@@BlueMoonshine « ’’None of you comments makes any sense. ’’» They are based on practical commonsense logical physics - not frames of reference that lose the crucial sign of v/c! « ‘’I gave you on Quora a trivial derivation of the Lorentz factor that only requires you to apply 8th grade math. ‘’ » I seem to remember doing that in 6th grade around 1954 still at primary school ie. 3,4 ,5 triangles.
@@IraClarke-t9c "I seem to remember doing that in 6th grade around 1954 still at primary school ie. 3,4 ,5 triangles." If you remember it so well, why don't you do it again? Now is time for you to apply what you learn in 6th grade!
@@BlueMoonshine Why do you imagine that in the light clock imaginary thought experiment, (its imaginary because the concept is impossible) there is any possibility for light to move in two different paths, one shorter than the other? ) just because two observers look at it from different vantage points? Where is the physics behind that weird belief? There is no reason to use pytagoras theorum here. So then you dont get to dream up the lorentz gamma factor.
I cannot locate your impossible challenge comment sent today 5 Sept - re-stating my crack pot status. It is impossible because, for me or the train carrying your vertical laser, to travel at even 0.001% of c RELATIVE speed is impossible. And you do not state whether there is ‘ether’ or not - without a moving ‘ether’ the laser beam propagates vertically - WITH an ether moving relative the train, the laser doesn’t propagate vertically - it’s that SIMPLE. The presence or not of an ‘ether’ canot depend on some arbitrary moving observer(s) - maybe light years distant. EG. Throw a pebble at a low angle into a pond, the ripples are still circular and propagate at the same speed irrespective of the horizontal speed of the pebble. For a boat, the bow-wave moves outwards at an angle depending on the relative speed of the boat and water. The water is in effect, the equivalent of an ‘ether’. For you et al « It’s better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt »
Ok, here is a real experiment that you can do. Take a vertical tube with a laser at the bottom and a photodiode at the top. Add some electronics so that a 10000 Watts sound is produced as long as the photodiode detects the laser beam. That apparatus is on the ground, you turn on the laser. You will hear sound that confirms that the photodiode is hit by the laser beam, right? RIGHT? Now put the apparatus in a train that is moving. You are inside the train that moves at constant speed. In the train you and the apparatus are at rest. If you turn on the laser, you will hear the 10000 Watts sound, right? RIGHT? If you claim that you won't, then you are directly contradicting the 1st postulate that says that laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. That 1st postulate is not specific to Relativity, it is also the postulate of classical mechanics. So if you are claiming that it is wrong, then it is not only Relativity that you are attacking, it is the entire physics since Galileo's time! So, do you admit that you will hear that 10000 Watts sound? You will, right? RIGHT? Now, someone on the ground is watching the train passing by. Are you claiming that he won't hear that 10000 watts sounds? Surely he will hear a frequency shift because of Doppler effect, but he will still hear it. If you claim that he won't, then you are even more of a crack pot than I thought, because you are literally claiming that objects that make sounds magically become quiet when they move. So, the person on the ground hears the sound, right? RIGHT? This implies that the laser beam is still hitting the photodiode. But everything is in a tube, so that the laser beam cannot get out of that tube. That tube is moving to the right, so the photons in it, while moving up, must necessarily also move to the right. And now you realize how much of a crack pot you are!
@JohnRobertson-t4w Yes, he is a coward who always tries to flee from the proof that he's wrong. He is obsessed with his "gravitational redshift" that has nothing to do with proof of the Lorentz transformation nor with the resolution of the twin paradox.
He definitely did not prove anything at all - he lost both his own challenge and my counter challenge. At the mid-journey turnaround in his video, the relative velocity is zero and gamma is unity (nothing else applies at the turnaround event). The twins are in the same frame and the simple inevitable propagation delay cannot be Lorentz scaled by past or future travel history. There is a reciprocal virtual lag r/c between the local and remote clocks.
@@IraClarke-t9c You CLEARLY don't understand physics and math! The INSTANTANEOUS Lorentz factor is surely equal to 1 at the mid-journey. So what? It simply means that this part of the journey (which lasts 0 seconds) doesn't contribute to the age difference. But at the return of the traveler to Earth, what matters is the age difference due to the TOTAL journey, which means that you need to integrate the Lorentz factor on all parts of the journey where it is non-zero (and which is precisely what I did).
Let's work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity.❤❤ And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the airplane fixing speed 200, 300, 400 m/s., we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements are impossible on the satellite due to weightlessness.
The change in the Earth's velocity from one season to another one is much bigger than the speed of an airplane, and yet the Michelson Morley experiment didn't show any difference. I don't see what difference it would make if the experiment is carried out in an airplane.
Later COMMENT It is very noticeable that:- a) you have been very quiet for the past week - no derogatory ‘accolades’ coming my way such as « liar » b) but you have not taken down your invalid ‘rigorous’ TH-cam video about solving the twins paradox c) even though the asymmetry that you exploit within it, only applies to the gravitational redshift term - that is of course, caused by acceleration d) but that specific asymmetry does NOT apply to the changing value of relative reciprocal radial velocity v or to \delta v e) because \delta v is reciprocal, that reciprocity also must apply to the Lorentz factor \delta \gamma - hence completely and irrefurably invalidating your ‘proof’ f) yet you are still advertising your invalid video - knowing it to be wrong g) so obviously, its not me who is a « liar » and not me needing to « see a psychiatrist etc.» h) no apology to me et al has been forthcoming re your (prbobably genuine) mistake - exacerbated by your inability to admit it and by issuing very derogatory ‘accolades’ i) seriously, I suggest that, as a way out for you, you join us ‘anti-relativists’, because we are definitely (obvious in hindsight) correct in stating that the Lorentz scale factor is a great big scam j) caused by numerous Einstein mistakes - notably including irrefutable loss of crucial information in (v/c)^2 *eg*. caused by using ‘ frames of reference’ - where the crucial direction of propagation is hidden. When the sign of v is reversed in the reciprocal ‘reverse’ case (ie. when source and observer locations are interchanged), then the signs of both $c and v must be reversed. NB you already a have access to my other fully logical reasonings (if you bother to read, study and understand) - they are very simple.
I'm still waiting for you to point to a single mistake in my tutorial. State which equation is wrong, and give a proof of why it is supposedly wrong. Simply stating that it is wrong and vomiting equations about gravitation, Dopper effect, and redshift which you don't even understand is not a proof. Also, several people replied to your comments, and you totally ignored them. So, you are the one who is being "quiet" and expressing your cowardice by fleeing.
yes, @IraClarke-t9c, why are so "quiet" when comes the time to give a real proof? why don't you dare to answer @BlueMoonshine's questions? because you know you're wrong?
@@BlueMoonshine The whole video is based on the FALLACY that acceleration makes the Lorentz scale factor ASYMMETRIC. That comes into effect at about 12.5 minutes onwards where it is asserted that the stay-home Lab twin does not experience acceleration. Agreed that twin does NOT experience the applied FORCE, and the other twin does, but that force makes absolutely no differenece to the Lorentz maths ie. to the RELATIVE changing velocity that both twins observe RECIPROCALLY. The only asymmetry comes from gravitational redshift as a result of the FORCED acceleration and that is NOT relevant to any part of this video. . You are well aware of that as FACT - I have raised in different ways many times - yet t’is you who persisted daily in calling me a ‘liar’, ‘see a psychitrist’ or ‘get checked for senility’ etc. Knowing the FALLACY and still advertising this tutorial video says far more about your honesty etc. You are still making a fool of yourself - stop digging and join the ‘anti-relativists’ - I have provided all the evidence that you need (and far more) against impossible Lorentz scaling.
@@IraClarke-t9c "he whole video is based on the FALLACY that acceleration makes the Lorentz scale factor ASYMMETRIC." Can you point out where in the video it says that "the Lorentz scale factor is asymmetric"? Tell us at what time this happens!
@@JohnRobertson-t4w PLEASE observe for yourself before criticising. I have been answering this extremely DEROGATORY novice prof. for several weeks - both here and on Quora - he STATES that his Equation 1 for gamma is ASYMMETRIC. That is simply an irrefutable WRONG FACT and he knows it now. That is because RELATIVE velocity is symmetric BY DEFINITION - whether changing or not ie. in gamma. There is also no absolute zero speed according to the invalid Einstein 2nd postulate (NB The postulate is invalid because it defies causality when starlight is up to 13 billion years old). . The Lorentz maths does not/cannot take into account which twin ‘feels the force’. NB ASYMMETRIC gravitational redshift is EXCLUDED in this derivation/proof. There is a valid replacement hypothesis - based on evidence from LIGO experiments - proposing a ‘gravitational interstellar ether’ - without paradoxes. It applies even near to the surface of rotating masses including Earth and so explains the Michelson-Morley null result, stellar abberation, Sagnac effect etc.
The conclusion in this ‘rigorous’ video is WRONG - it is clearly NOT tutorial so should be taken down because:- The ‘Prof’ absolutely refuses to accept that he has made an obvious mistake at 16:10 mins onwards in his supposedly rigorous video - accusing me of being a "liar", "senile", "psychiatric" ....... He switches the vailid interpretation of dt from:- a time-dilated remote observation of the object rocket frame - viewed from the perspective of the Lab frame stay-home twin to:- mistakenly, an elapsed time on the Lab frame twin’s local clock - viewed from the perspective of the object rocket frame That switch of interpretation does occur after integrating dt to t and dt’ to t’ but that is merely a summation of many dt and dt' - that does not justify the reversed interpretation - the Lorentz factor (gamma) is still reciprocal, even after integration. There are also other mistakes eg. during the inertial cruise segment, he does not apply the irrefutable reciprocity.
There is no mistake in this tutorial. I already explained it to you multiple times. Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides and understand what I say, or you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, but you have been proven WRONG for years! Go see a psychiatrist!
@ Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides = YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND what everyone accepts is true - that the Lorentz factor gamma is reciprocal - FACT! Reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration (or re-labelling) - FACT - at 16:10-> mins! OR you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, = YOU ARE BLATANTLY OBSTINATELY LYING because you would love Relativity to be correct - your vested interests prevail over your students interests. but you have been proven WRONG for years! = YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG - YOU (et al) ARE INCAPABLE OF REFUTING MY MANY UPVOTED ASSERTIONS eg. my unanswered challenge to you:- 1. How can the loss of the sign of v/c in gamma possibly fulfill the 2nd postulate? 2. How can that 2nd postulate not defy causality (eg. for 13 billion year old starlight)? 3. How can Pythagorus possibly apply when vectors r, r’, ct, ct’ and vt are all co-linear distances, aligned along the linear propagation path. Go see a psychiatrist! = SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
@@IraClarke-t9c I don't see any mistake in Dr. Rousseau's tutorial. You are clearly the one who don't understand anything. I see that you are using a lot of expressions that either have no meaning, or for which you don't understand the actual meaning. Like "reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration". There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this? I also saw on Quora that you claim that a laser beam will suddenly decide to come out of alignment with its mirrors, just because a moving observer decides to look at it. My question is: What does the beam do if the other observer who is at at rest with respect to the mirror look at it at the same time? Isn't such a claim insane? Perhaps you should consider the advice that was given to you: Go see a psychiatrist!
@ “There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this?” It is perfectly easy to understand what you say but it is WRONG - simply BECAUSE gamma is reciprocal in the inertial case AND even when it changes incrementally. Gamma is just a scalar number - it is not intelligent at all - so please explain, in your vastly superior wisdom, just how it ‘knows’ whether the emitter or the observer actually changed speed by dv? NB If rocket twin is the observer then his/her local clock appears to run at normal local ‘proper’ clock rate and stay-home twin appears to age slower - t is increased by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally. In the reciprocal case, the stay-home twin is observer, so his/her own local clock runs at normal ‘proper’ rate (by definition). It is unaffected by the antics of the rocket twin - accelerating or not - and hence his/her “ELAPSED” time cannot change by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally - asserting otherwise is “insane”. The gamma factor is always reciprocal - it always applies to the REMOTELY observed (twin’s) clock - even on the accelerating rocket. That invalidates the conclusion in the video. The fundamental physical reason is that the finite propagation delay is irrefutably reciprocal - so the observer ‘sees’ an earlier version of the remote clock. But also gamma, as a supposed INVERSE factor, is invalid and SUPERFLUOUS - because independent Doppler red- and blue-shift scale factors, AND their separate INVERSE factors, are perfectly adequate - with no twins paradox, unexplained contraction of spacetime and speed limit etc. Regarding the mirror clock - re-read what I said - you have reversed my logic - the mirror clock ‘proof’ of gamma is all “insane” nonsense because remote observers cannot affect the speed of light within the clock. Even if pulses bounce off a few particles between the mirrors, light is scattered at the prevailing speed of propagation one-way towards each observer whatever direction etc. The sawtooth pattern only exists if there is a ‘stationary’ reference ether and the clock is moving relative to that. Each observer cannot exude a separate ether (Universe wide?).
@@IraClarke-t9c Man, Special Relativity is not only about the gamma factor. The fact that the gamma factor takes the same value in two inertial frames does not imply that the entire problem is symmetrical. As Dr. Rousseau told you many times, you need to understand the difference between PROPER time and COORDINATE time, and you need to define clearly which events you are trying to describe. So far, you have failed to do this, which is the sole reason why you don't understand anything.
FALLACY in the video: the Lorentz transformation is bi-directional symmetrically - even if the relative velocity v is increasing or decreasing and the contraction effects both ways are integrated. . Gravitational time dilation is a separate affect that applies to accelerated imperfect clocks sensitive to applied force - not v. That is real logical scientific thinking surely - unlike .....
Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years. While the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical, the situation described is not. In addition, you are showcasing the facts that: 1) You are incapable of defining the events that you are trying to describe, while it is well-known that this is a crucial part of solving any Relativity problem. 2) You are incapable of identifying which times are proper times and which ones are not. 3) You are incapable of identifying which lengths are proper lengths and which ones are not. In addition, gravitation has absolutely nothing to do in this problem which is about motion only. Conclusion: You are just a puppet.
Ira, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "the Lorentz transformation is bi-directional symmetrically - even if the relative velocity is increasing or decreasing". I might be misunderstanding what point you are making, but as it stands, that seems completely incorrect. The Lorentz transformation allows us to relate two different coordinate systems whose spatial origins are moving at a CONSTANT velocity relative to one another. If the relative velocity is changing, then the Lorentz transformation does not apply. Now, what does work is the formula for proper time: tau = integral of square-root(1-(v*v)/(c*c)) dt This formula works even if v is changing with time. But the Lorentz transformation does not.
@@stevendaryl30161 If you don't know Ira Clarke yet, you should take a look at my webpage here: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php You will quickly realize that he is a crackpot.
@@stevendaryl30161 Surely, there is no reason why the integral of the full Lorentz transformation should not work eg. as in the Minkowski incrememental form, and if δx’/δt’ = c = δx/δt as per the 2nd postulate (eg. as in relativistic Doppler). The integral for the temporal incremental variable t’ becomes of γ δt ± (δx/c)(v/c) = γ(1±v/c)δt with an incrementally variable γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²). The integral for the spatial incremental variable x’ becomes of γ δx ± vδt) = γ(1±v/c)δx where δt denotes the ‘proper’ incremental time. That is reciprocal. . If we match up corresponding v in the outward and inward journeys then we have γ²(1-v/c)(1+v/c)δt = δt ie. Einstein’s justification for the unitary Lorentz scaling. But that only applies to the two-way journey. The scale factors for separate one-way inverse (unitary) transforms are given by 1/ (1±v/c) - NOT by γ. Disruptively, that simple fact invalidates the Lorentz spacetime transform (and Lorentz invariance) - both inertial and non-inertial.
"Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years." . LOL - from a 'professional' novice relativist who hasn't yet even learnt the difference between an inverse (or reverse) transform and the inherent symmetry of a reciprocal transform! And worse, he absulutely refuses to understand that there is such an issue in spacetime. . FYI in signal processing, the combination transform of inverse and forward transforms yields an identity transformation. It used to recover estimates of input parameters (or frame coordinates here) given observed data from a sensor system or array of sensors. NB It does have the virtual effect of reversing relative effect of time delays. Lorentz scaling cannot do that. . " While the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical, the situation described is not." . What stubborn illogical nonsense! If that is true then obviously, the Lorentz transform is NOT the correct TOOL for the task. Where is the rigor in that? . A reciprocal scenario is defined when the roles of the input location and observer location are interchanged. In that case, both the direction of propagation AND the direction of relative velocity are changed such that the sign of v/c is NOT changed. . Consequently, the reciprocal forward transforms are symmetrical and hence identical and hence, in this twins paradox case, whatever applies to one twin MUST apply to the other. . That simple fundamental fact ie. that the problem really is symmetrical, absolutely destroys the claim for RIGOR in the tutorial video in question here. . But also the premise (first equation) is defined by the Lorentz scale factor gamma and that is fundamentally WRONG. . It canot apply because gamma squared is derived for a INVALID problem where the outward 1+(v/c) transform and inward 1-(v/c) transform are combined. That defies the basic rule of simultaneous equations because the two transforms are obviously not symmetrical or identical. . Applying gamma SQUARED as a scale factor does normalise the combination transform to an identity transformation - but that cannot reverse the duration of the (two-way) journey even though t =>t' => t. Also gamma canot apply symmetrically to either individual (assymmetric) segment of the return journey. . That also destroys the claimed RIGOR of the tutorial but also has disruptive consequences in modern theoretical physics, astrophysics and particle physics - affecting the modelling of dark matter etc. and even the derivation of the rather famous E squared equation. . SURELY THAT VIDEO AND THE EINSTEIN MIRROR CLOCK VIDEO CANNOT BE USED AS A TUTORIAL TEACHING AIDS OR REMAIN ON TH-cam?" Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years."⁶
😂😂😂 You're sure you don't know John Mandlbaur? You should meet him, you would be excellent friends. Can you send me your picture, so that I can dedicate a webpage to you? Like this one: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-MandlbaurInsanity.php
19:30 traveller travelling at 0.95 speed of light can't change direction ! its reasonable to bend the space to manuover like it taking U turn from Blackhole. Thus we do not have to consider manuover. Another Approach is to do retardation after agreed acceleration reached --> stop--> change and start acceleration in negative direction --> start retardation once same acceleration reached in negative direction. This profile adds four sequence of operations, however that would be more practical. Moreover, 95% speed of light is not possible with rocket load - [imagine what weight it would have to carry to launch ] . however, if you can only perform 0.01% C of some reasonable value of acceleration and show its trivial effect, that would also back up your theory and bring your calculation within the periphery of experimental limits. Your efforts are admirable.
Why couldn't he change direction? For him, he is at rest in his own inertial frame (engine off). He can surely use side thrusters to make a 180° turnaround while coasting!
@@BlueMoonshine Yes from his Frame of reference - but from his Twin's reference He will be travelling at almost the speed of light and the side thruster will make the U-turn - even then he would need to start the journey of retardation from the max speed point i.e. 95%C to the point of no relative motion - then coming back to twin. so distance traveled will be more in the return journey. so the equation is nonsymmetric. I am still skeptical about this thought.
All of them - because the 1st equation ukis invalid ie. the Lorentz scale factor premise itself. At turnaround the twins are in the same frame. Perfect clocks, insensitive to acceleration, would appear to lag each other by the propagation delay.
1. Accusing ME does not alter the fact that the 'Prof' is WRONG - his interpretation of his maths even defies the (invalid) Einstein 2nd postulate ie. regarding the same speed of EM for both twins as observers - reciprocally! Think about why for yourself - why that still applies in the non-inertial case - if you can! If that postulate doesn't apply then the 'Prof' has proved that General Relativity is wrong! What have you ever achieved in physics? 2. There is no twins ageing effect in 'relativistic Doppler'! 3. Classical Doppler and relativistic Doppler are textbook stuff - read all about 'em for yourself. Doppler factors are directly derived from physical propagation delays. Doppler systems do work everyday and were part of my career, - based on designing and evaluating Doppler radars. I even designed constructed an experimental non-coherent Doppler system - did you know that that is even possible?. 4. Doppler effects are observed by the JWST and Hubble telescope for ultrafast receding stars. It is clear that c must apply to EM within those galaxies - to satisfy the Galileo-Einstein in 1st postulate. .
I tried to stay polite, but you insist on being stupid! I already told you NUMEROUS TIMES that the Doppler effect has NOTHING to do with this problem. You are clearly incapable of dealing with calculus, so I CHALLENGE you to point out a single mistake in the resolution of the following simplified textbook problem, which requires no more than 8th grade math: Alice remains on Earth, Bob leaves from Earth at a CONSTANT speed of 0.6c and goes to a planet located at 1 ly (light year) which is AT REST with respect to the Earth. As soon as Bob arrives to the planet, he instantly switches direction and comes back to Earth at the same constant speed. To prove that there is no paradox, let us analyze the situation from Alice's frame, then from Bob's frame. Let us start with something that, so far, you have failed to do, namely define CLEARLY the events that we want to describe: E1="Bob leaves from Earth" E2="Bob arrives to the planet" Also, I'll let you check that the Lorentz factor that corresponds to the speed 0.6c is 1.25. 1) FROM ALICE'S POINT OF VIEW In Alice's frame, Bob's outbound trip has a length of 1 ly and is performed at speed 0.6c, thus the time for his outbound trip is (1 ly)/(0.6c)=1.667 years. By symmetry, Bob's inbound trip takes the same amount of time, so the total time for the round trip that Alice observes is 3.333 years. Now, events E1 and E2 are separated by 1 ly in Alice's frame, by definition, so the time that Alice observes for the inbound trip is not a proper time. However, for Bob, event E1 and E2 both happens at his own location. Thus the time that he observes is a proper time. Alice concludes that the time that she observed is equal to Bob's proper time dilated by the Lorentz factor. Therefore, she conclude that Bob's outbound trip proper time is the time that she observed divided by the Lorentz factor, namely (1.667 years)/1.25=1.333 years. By symmetry, the inbound trip time is the same, so the she concludes that Bob observes a roundtrip time of 2.666 years. So, Alice's conclusion is that the roundtrip lasts 3.333 years for her and 2.666 years for Bob. 2) FROM BOB'S POINT OF VIEW The distance between the Earth and the planet is a proper distance, by definition. In Bob's frame, the distance to the planet is contracted and equal to (1 ly)/1.25=0.8 ly. In his frame, during the outbound trip, it is the planet that is approaching at speed 0.6c. Thus the time that he observes is (0.8 ly)/(0.6c)=1.333 years. By symmetry, his inbound trip time is the same, so he concludes that his round trip time is 2.666 years. Now, Bob knows that his outbound trip time is a proper time because event E1 and E2 happen at his own location. Thus he knows that Alice will observe a dilated time equal to (1.333 years)*1.25=1.666 years. Since his inbound trip time is symmetrical, he concludes that Alice observes a roundtrip time of 3.333 years. So, Bob's conclusion is the same as Alice's, namely the roundtrip lasts 2.666 years for him and 3.333 years for Alice. Tell me where the paradox is? I CHALLENGE TO POINT OUT A SINGLE MISTAKE!
You are a real piece of sh-it! @BlueMoonshine proved you wrong in a reply to another of your comments, and he challenged you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that he proposed. Instead of answering, you are now starting a new thread full of non-sense, and totally ignoring his reply. There are no other words to describe you: You are a piece of sh-it!
Not a miniscule shred of evidence backs up your crude "sh-it" insults - whoever/whatever you really are!! See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense.
@@IraClarke-t9c "See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense." Where is your answer? So far, all you have done is trying to involve some completely irrelevant gravitation, Doppler effect, and the non-existent "2nd order Lorentz factor". Once again, I challenge you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that I described above. But as usual, you are fleeing.
But light has no acceleration. And this is all dependent on the speed of light. So all this talk about acceleration doesn't apply. So why talk about acceleration? This is all wrong.
Great video, and ironically I only found it because Piet Venter mentioned it on Quora (I see you guys have met). And I've already borrowed your quote - very useful, thank you!
Thank you for sharing it!
I'm about to make a similar tutorial for the triplet paradox.
@@BlueMoonshine Looking forward to it.
FWIW - I made a relativity disproof debunking video a couple of years ago. I;m thinking of making another, but these things take so much time!
th-cam.com/video/MmJgnRY1uMM/w-d-xo.html
It's very good, nicely done! I will definitely give the link when I find someone who mentions this apparent paradox.
The conclusion in this ‘rigorous’ video is WRONG - it is clearly NOT tutorial so should be taken down because:-
The ‘Prof’ absolutely refuses to accept that he has made an obvious mistake at 16:10 mins onwards in his supposedly rigorous video - accusing me of being a "liar", "senile", "psychiatric" .......
He switches the vailid interpretation of dt
from:-
a time-dilated remote observation of the object rocket frame - viewed from the perspective of the Lab frame stay-home twin
to:-
mistakenly, an elapsed time on the Lab frame twin’s local clock - viewed from the perspective of the object rocket frame
That switch of interpretation does occur after integrating dt to t and dt’ to t’ but that is merely a summation of many dt and dt' - that does not justify the reversed interpretation - the Lorentz factor (gamma) is still reciprocal, even after integration.
That's a very good tutorial, well explained! Of course, as usual, there are some crackpots anti-relativists who will claim that it is wrong, but they don't have a single argument to support their claims.
Just a small point. You do need GR to define what an inertial reference frame is. Inertial frames are the free falling frames. Technically it is not necessary because you can mathematically define it. But the conceptual step of finally understanding what an inertial frame is would not have been possible without arriving at GR first. I thought I would make the distinction between strictly necessary and conceptually necessary without the benefit of hindsight.
Well, since the original twin paradox is about how motion affects time, and since the situation that is considered happens far from any massive object, gravitational effects are totally irrelevant. It is then sufficient to define an inertial frame as one in which Newton's 1st law holds true.
@@BlueMoonshine Newton's law is not valid in Relativity because it is outside the Theory so we cannot invoke it. We have to define an inertial frame in terms of the metric in the manifold as this is the only concept that is defined. Acceleration is then seen as a geodesic deviation. Force is then defined as anything that induces a geodesic deviation. The notion of geodesic is well defined in SR (in hindsight) which is why we don't need GR. Conceptually however there is no way we would have reached the notion of geodesics in spacetime without GR.
@zemm9003
You are mistaken! Newton's 1st law is just Galileo's law of inertia, and is intimately related to the principle of Relativity, the 1st postulate of Special Relativity. Also, even though Newton's 2nd law is not invoked in the resolution of the Twin Paradox, its original form as stated by Newton himself as F=dP/dt still holds true in Special Relativity. It is only the 3rd law that breaks down.
@@BlueMoonshine there are only two postulates in SR. Spacetime is a 4D Pesudo-Riemannian flat manifold with a metric of signature (+---) whose points are called events. Inertial frames are the preferred frames and they are the ones where the metric is given by a diagonal matrix. This is extremely simple and self contained. However to get here we need a lot of conceptual advances such as Minkowski's awesome work and GR.
@@zemm9003 Your comments don't make any sense. You are basically saying that special relativity needs general relativity in order to exist, and that's insane since general relativity is built on special relativity. Also, you claiming that Newton's first law is not valid in special relativity is ... WOW... Please, get informed before making such comments. Finally, if I'm not mistaken, @BlueMoonshine (a.k.a Dr. Rousseau) is a university professor and has been teaching special and general relativity for 20 years. I think that he knows that there are only two postulates in special relativity (I read the your discussion with him several times, and I don't see where he would have said that this is not true). I'm also sure that he knows pretty well about the Minkowski metric and its matrix representation, and he surely knows that the points of spacetime are called events.
I said: Professor Val Rousseau assumed that time dilation was a valid law for the relativistic traveling twin.
and Professor Rousseau said that that was a lie.
Let’s check if that is a lie.
Did he use Lorentz Transformation to calculate the elapsed time for the traveling twin?
If he did, that included time dilation based on Relative Velocity (as prescribed in Relativity).
In other words, Lorentz Transformation contains Time Dilation, Lenght Contraction, etc.
That is the Fallacy in his reasoning. When he realized that the non-inertial sections could be neglected, he should stop doing math and start thinking. - which he didn’t.
> "Did you use Lorentz Transformation to calculate the elapsed time for the traveling twin?"
I used the equations for accelerated frames that I derived rigorously. The Lorentz transformation is valid for inertial frames. Accelerated frames have at any time instantaneous co-moving inertial frames. Since this co-moving frames are inertial, the Lorentz transformation can safely be used in order to go from one of these inertial frames to another one. By integrating over time, the correct equations for accelerated frames can be obtained.
> "When you realize that the non-inertial sections can be neglected"
The non-inertial sections **CANNOT** be neglected, and I didn’t neglect them. As I already mentioned, I rigorously derived the equations for accelerated frames. If you want to claim that my equations are wrong, you have to point out a mistake in my equation, which so far you haven’t done!
What if both twins experienced no proper acceleration? Like the space between them just expanded and then returned to the prior state while the both of them experience no proper acceleration
This doesn't happen in Special Relativity. Space-time can oscillate in General Relativity due to gravitational waves, but this is another story which requires tensor calculus.
It would be great if it was clear what is going on. The twin paradox is "solved" by the fact that different spacetime paths connecting common pairs of events need not be of equal length (just like two arbitrary lines connecting common points). The video seems to imply that the acceleration had something to do with the time discrepancy. This is will only fuel the anti-relativists.
Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference.
@@BlueMoonshine I know what you're calculating, but my sense is that viewers will not understand what is going on.
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference”
During the coasting phase of 60 seconds, SR applies and the twin paradox cannot be resolved! The spaceship twin observes the earth twin’s clock as running slower and vice versa!
So you have NOT resolved the twin paradox in your video?
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference”
During the coasting phase SR applies, so each twin observes the other twin’s clock to be running slower! Hence the twin paradox cannot be resolved, as your TH-cam video claims!
“Nowhere in the video do I tell that the age difference is due to the acceleration. The video clearly shows (from both twins point of view) that the coasting phase as well as the acceleration phase each have a contribution in the total age difference”
During the coasting phase SR applies, so each twin observes the other twin’s clock to be running slower! Hence the twin paradox cannot be resolved, as your TH-cam video claims!
EXISTENTIAL MISTAKE At about minute 15.5 onwards it is stated that dt = γdt' and correctly, that the proper time is dt' in the local traveller frame and that dt' is the "dilated when viewed FROM the stay-home lab remote frame". γ is greater than 1 and is then integrated and applied at about minute 16.5 but in REVERSE ie. as viewed FROM the traveller frame. That CRUCIAL statement is clearly INCORRECT because spacetime is always contracted (less time) in the observed remote frame.
That is a basic EXISTENTIAL MISTAKE in this tutorial video.
WRONG! You are the "existential mistake"!
You just agreed that dt = γdt' is correct. As shown, γ=cosh(αt’/c). Therefore t = int(cosh(αt’/c)dt', which is precisely what is shown in the video. Nothing has been applied in REVERSE.
As usual, you are LYING.
Try again, loser!
@IraClarke-t9c
So, you are fleeing now that I proved you wrong (once again)? Here is a more detailed explanation why you are wrong: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-IraClarke.php
@IraClarke-t9c Why do you keep lying?
The first thing to notice is the idiotic decomposition of parallel and perpendicular motion. The Einstein paradox is still a paradox for a unidimensional trip... In other words, there is no need to make it "fancy" by adding perpendicular motion.
It makes it more difficult to spot the fallacy in the reasoning.
So, redo it as a unidimensional trip.
Are you copying my postings? I presented this earlier than your video, just in case you don't know.
On 12:24 you have the time elapsed during acceleration. It is easy to see that for alpha (acceleration going to infinite) the elapsed time (aging due to the accelerated section) is zero. If you calculate a large but physical acceleration, one can restrict the aging to a single day. In other words, Accelerate to relativistic speeds in a single day and coast the rest.
So, one can separate the contribution of the non-inertial sections to a differential aging of a few days.
You are left to two inertial sections (time dilation doesn't care for the sign of v) that can be made as long as one wishes.
During those inertial sections, the laws of nature are indistinguishable (aging are the same).
That is why the paradox is not lifted.
It can only be lifted if the laws of nature are distinct for the two inertial frames and that requires the laws of nature to be written on the Absolute Referential Frame.
There is no perpendicular motion in the problem discussed in this video tutorial. You obviously didn't watch it, so you have absolutely no clue what it is about.
Another proof that you are wrong in this 2nd part on solving the "Triplet Paradox": th-cam.com/video/WAoJ21giXMU/w-d-xo.html
The fallacy in this video is using Einstein's equations to prove Einstein's theory.
In other words, Professor Val Rousseau assumed that time dilation was a valid law for the relativistic traveling twin.
That is circular reasoning. You cannot prove a theory using the theory hypotheses.
What you should use is the Postulate: "All inertial frames are indistinguishable."
Once you FINALLY understand that the non-inertial sections of the trip cannot explain the total aging, then you realize that the aging differential has to come from the two inertial sections of the trip!!!
This is the same as saying the aging on any inertial frame is the same.
We know experimentally (from particle physics) that it isn't.
Hence, the postulate is wrong.
That is how you deal with checking the Twin Paradox.
You don't blindly calculate time dilation for the twin using relativity. If you could, there wouldn't be any twin paradox (because you are using the equations self-consistently).
I hope Professor Val Rousseau now understands why the Twin Paradox proves Einstein's Relativity is wrong and doesn't describe Reality.
"The fallacy in this video is using Einstein's equations to prove Einstein's theory."
Unfortunately for you, I rigorously derived Einstein's equations as well in this video tutorial: th-cam.com/video/6N2mH3-khUg/w-d-xo.html
I CHALLENGE YOU to point out a single mistake in that tutorial (tell which equation is supposedly wrong, at what time in the video). You can't? Then you lost the argument (as usual)!
Looking at your profile reveals that you are Marco Pereira. If I remember well, you are the crackpot who talks about himself at the third person on Quora, right?
@@AndreaKarlis You are an idiot. :) Of course, I can talk about myself in the third person. When I do that, I emphasize who created the idea or argument and make sure idiots like yourself realize that I have more education than you do. Show some respect.
It is just the correct way to present my contribution.
@@TheNewPhysics
"It is just the correct way to present my contribution."
Not a single real physicist has ever published his own research by talking about himself using the third person.
@@TheNewPhysics I see that you pretend to have studied nuclear physics, laser engineering, finance, molecular biophysics, that you have a PhD in physics, one in chemistry, that you are a professor of finance, a professor of molecular biophysics, a CEO at QuantSapiens... And yet, there is absolutely no trace on the net of you having held any of these positions. Also, none of the universities I have contacted know about you. This strongly suggests that you are an imposter and a liar. You don't have any degrees in science, at most you are just a freshman dropout!
This is nonsense. If you think that SR doesnt lead to a paradox, then you dont understand the theory at all. The correct paradox must have both twins doing the exact same thing, to correctly illustrate where the paradox is found. No earth twin, and no acceleration and no turn around, both twins do the exact same thing. just in opposite directions. SR then claims that each twin will see the other as younger, which of course is impossible. They both cant be younger that the other, and that is the paradox. UNSOLVED. Its unsolved because the theory is nonsense. Your experiments all need a critical review if you think that they support this nonsense.
You are just proving that you don't understand anything about proper time. This is the most common mistake made by freshmen who discover the SR for the first time, and which is clearly explained in this tutorial about the Lorentz transformation: th-cam.com/video/CkD1SwGasZE/w-d-xo.html
For information, SR is the most well-tested theory of all times, it has been tested for nearly 120 years on a DAILY basis, and the "Twin Paradox" has been tested as well by using atomic clocks. The result is that the clock that traveled shows a lag, indicating that it is younger than the stay at home clock, exactly as predicted by SR.
@everythingisalllies2141
What kind of loser are you? (Select the correct answer)
- The d-u-m-b one?
- The cr4ck p0t one?
- Both answers are correct
In the scientific community, the ratio of anti-relativists to pro-relativists is something like 1:1000 or even smaller. All great physicists like Einstein, Lorentz, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Fermi, Feynman, Bohr, Planck, Curie, and many others supported Relativity. Experiments made everyday confirm the theory to an astounding accuracy. And you, who come out of nowhere and who has read nothing more than "physics for dummies", you think that you are more intelligent than these people? Seriously? Tell us again who is delusional!
another crackpot here.
BTW, there is a webpage dedicated to you. You can find it here: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php
I copy this comment up the top tier because it is the key issue clincher here. >>>> Oh dear ''You CLEARLY don't understand physics and math!'' What a disappointing very very UNTRUE statement given all the explanations that I have patiently presented to you on Quora - you haven't disputed any except by quoting irrelevant mantra at me! The turnaround time at zero speed can take any length of time you like - it makes no difference to the reciprocal LAG between the remote and local perfect sync'd clocks. That is down to the constant x/c propagation delay alone - nothing else. Perfect clocks (impervious to gravitational redshift) can't 'remember' how they got there or anticipate future travel plans. What physics and maths don't I understand?
None of your comments makes any sense. I gave you on Quora a trivial derivation of the Lorentz factor that only requires you to apply 8th grade math. All that is needed is to calculate the hypotenuse of a tirangle with a base of vt'/2 and and height L0. Then you fled by saying that light doesn't follow an oblique path. Well, tell us what path it follows if it starts from the origin (0,0) on the bottom mirror, and hits the upper mirror after it moved to coordinate (x,y), with x=vt'/2 and y=L0? Do you claim it is vertical? Horizontal? Curved?
@@BlueMoonshine « ’’None of you comments makes any sense. ’’» They are based on practical commonsense logical physics - not frames of reference that lose the crucial sign of v/c!
« ‘’I gave you on Quora a trivial derivation of the Lorentz factor that only requires you to apply 8th grade math. ‘’ » I seem to remember doing that in 6th grade around 1954 still at primary school ie. 3,4 ,5 triangles.
@@IraClarke-t9c
"I seem to remember doing that in 6th grade around 1954 still at primary school ie. 3,4 ,5 triangles."
If you remember it so well, why don't you do it again? Now is time for you to apply what you learn in 6th grade!
@@BlueMoonshine Don't waste your time with @IraClarke-t9c, he's just a broken record!
@@BlueMoonshine Why do you imagine that in the light clock imaginary thought experiment, (its imaginary because the concept is impossible) there is any possibility for light to move in two different paths, one shorter than the other? ) just because two observers look at it from different vantage points? Where is the physics behind that weird belief? There is no reason to use pytagoras theorum here. So then you dont get to dream up the lorentz gamma factor.
I cannot locate your impossible challenge comment sent today 5 Sept - re-stating my crack pot status.
It is impossible because, for me or the train carrying your vertical laser, to travel at even 0.001% of c RELATIVE speed is impossible. And you do not state whether there is ‘ether’ or not - without a moving ‘ether’ the laser beam propagates vertically - WITH an ether moving relative the train, the laser doesn’t propagate vertically - it’s that SIMPLE.
The presence or not of an ‘ether’ canot depend on some arbitrary moving observer(s) - maybe light years distant.
EG. Throw a pebble at a low angle into a pond, the ripples are still circular and propagate at the same speed irrespective of the horizontal speed of the pebble. For a boat, the bow-wave moves outwards at an angle depending on the relative speed of the boat and water. The water is in effect, the equivalent of an ‘ether’.
For you et al « It’s better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt »
Ok, here is a real experiment that you can do. Take a vertical tube with a laser at the bottom and a photodiode at the top. Add some electronics so that a 10000 Watts sound is produced as long as the photodiode detects the laser beam. That apparatus is on the ground, you turn on the laser. You will hear sound that confirms that the photodiode is hit by the laser beam, right? RIGHT?
Now put the apparatus in a train that is moving. You are inside the train that moves at constant speed. In the train you and the apparatus are at rest. If you turn on the laser, you will hear the 10000 Watts sound, right? RIGHT? If you claim that you won't, then you are directly contradicting the 1st postulate that says that laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. That 1st postulate is not specific to Relativity, it is also the postulate of classical mechanics. So if you are claiming that it is wrong, then it is not only Relativity that you are attacking, it is the entire physics since Galileo's time! So, do you admit that you will hear that 10000 Watts sound? You will, right? RIGHT?
Now, someone on the ground is watching the train passing by. Are you claiming that he won't hear that 10000 watts sounds? Surely he will hear a frequency shift because of Doppler effect, but he will still hear it. If you claim that he won't, then you are even more of a crack pot than I thought, because you are literally claiming that objects that make sounds magically become quiet when they move. So, the person on the ground hears the sound, right? RIGHT? This implies that the laser beam is still hitting the photodiode. But everything is in a tube, so that the laser beam cannot get out of that tube. That tube is moving to the right, so the photons in it, while moving up, must necessarily also move to the right.
And now you realize how much of a crack pot you are!
I see that you don't dare to reply to @bluemoonshine.
@JohnRobertson-t4w
Yes, he is a coward who always tries to flee from the proof that he's wrong. He is obsessed with his "gravitational redshift" that has nothing to do with proof of the Lorentz transformation nor with the resolution of the twin paradox.
This is really well explained! Thank you! 💗
You're welcome. Please, share the video!
At turnaround they are in the same frame separated only by propagation delay - there cannot be any relativistic scaling en route
@@IraClarke-t9c Your comment doesn't make any sense. Dr. Rousseau proved you wrong anyway!
He definitely did not prove anything at all - he lost both his own challenge and my counter challenge. At the mid-journey turnaround in his video, the relative velocity is zero and gamma is unity (nothing else applies at the turnaround event). The twins are in the same frame and the simple inevitable propagation delay cannot be Lorentz scaled by past or future travel history. There is a reciprocal virtual lag r/c between the local and remote clocks.
@@IraClarke-t9c
You CLEARLY don't understand physics and math!
The INSTANTANEOUS Lorentz factor is surely equal to 1 at the mid-journey. So what? It simply means that this part of the journey (which lasts 0 seconds) doesn't contribute to the age difference. But at the return of the traveler to Earth, what matters is the age difference due to the TOTAL journey, which means that you need to integrate the Lorentz factor on all parts of the journey where it is non-zero (and which is precisely what I did).
Let's work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity.❤❤
And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the airplane fixing speed 200, 300, 400 m/s., we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements are impossible on the satellite due to weightlessness.
The change in the Earth's velocity from one season to another one is much bigger than the speed of an airplane, and yet the Michelson Morley experiment didn't show any difference. I don't see what difference it would make if the experiment is carried out in an airplane.
Later COMMENT
It is very noticeable that:-
a) you have been very quiet for the past week - no derogatory ‘accolades’ coming my way such as « liar »
b) but you have not taken down your invalid
‘rigorous’ TH-cam video about solving the twins paradox
c) even though the asymmetry that you exploit within it, only applies to the gravitational redshift term - that is of course, caused by acceleration
d) but that specific asymmetry does NOT apply to the changing value of relative reciprocal radial velocity v or to \delta v
e) because \delta v is reciprocal, that reciprocity also must apply to the Lorentz factor \delta \gamma - hence completely and irrefurably invalidating your ‘proof’
f) yet you are still advertising your invalid video - knowing it to be wrong
g) so obviously, its not me who is a « liar » and not me needing to « see a psychiatrist etc.»
h) no apology to me et al has been forthcoming re your (prbobably genuine) mistake - exacerbated by your inability to admit it and by issuing very derogatory ‘accolades’
i) seriously, I suggest that, as a way out for you, you join us ‘anti-relativists’, because we are definitely (obvious in hindsight) correct in stating that the Lorentz scale factor is a great big scam
j) caused by numerous Einstein mistakes - notably including irrefutable loss of crucial information in (v/c)^2
*eg*. caused by using ‘ frames of reference’ - where the crucial direction of propagation is hidden. When the sign of v is reversed in the reciprocal ‘reverse’ case (ie. when source and observer locations are interchanged), then the signs of both $c and v must be reversed.
NB you already a have access to my other fully logical reasonings (if you bother to read, study and understand) - they are very simple.
I'm still waiting for you to point to a single mistake in my tutorial. State which equation is wrong, and give a proof of why it is supposedly wrong. Simply stating that it is wrong and vomiting equations about gravitation, Dopper effect, and redshift which you don't even understand is not a proof.
Also, several people replied to your comments, and you totally ignored them. So, you are the one who is being "quiet" and expressing your cowardice by fleeing.
yes, @IraClarke-t9c, why are so "quiet" when comes the time to give a real proof? why don't you dare to answer @BlueMoonshine's questions? because you know you're wrong?
@@BlueMoonshine The whole video is based on the FALLACY that acceleration makes the Lorentz scale factor ASYMMETRIC. That comes into effect at about 12.5 minutes onwards where it is asserted that the stay-home Lab twin does not experience acceleration. Agreed that twin does NOT experience the applied FORCE, and the other twin does, but that force makes absolutely no differenece to the Lorentz maths ie. to the RELATIVE changing velocity that both twins observe RECIPROCALLY. The only asymmetry comes from gravitational redshift as a result of the FORCED acceleration and that is NOT relevant to any part of this video.
.
You are well aware of that as FACT - I have raised in different ways many times - yet t’is you who persisted daily in calling me a ‘liar’, ‘see a psychitrist’ or ‘get checked for senility’ etc. Knowing the FALLACY and still advertising this tutorial video says far more about your honesty etc. You are still making a fool of yourself - stop digging and join the ‘anti-relativists’ - I have provided all the evidence that you need (and far more) against impossible Lorentz scaling.
@@IraClarke-t9c
"he whole video is based on the FALLACY that acceleration makes the Lorentz scale factor ASYMMETRIC."
Can you point out where in the video it says that "the Lorentz scale factor is asymmetric"? Tell us at what time this happens!
@@JohnRobertson-t4w PLEASE observe for yourself before criticising. I have been answering this extremely DEROGATORY novice prof. for several weeks - both here and on Quora - he STATES that his Equation 1 for gamma is ASYMMETRIC.
That is simply an irrefutable WRONG FACT and he knows it now. That is because RELATIVE velocity is symmetric BY DEFINITION - whether changing or not ie. in gamma. There is also no absolute zero speed according to the invalid Einstein 2nd postulate (NB The postulate is invalid because it defies causality when starlight is up to 13 billion years old).
.
The Lorentz maths does not/cannot take into account which twin ‘feels the force’. NB ASYMMETRIC gravitational redshift is EXCLUDED in this derivation/proof.
There is a valid replacement hypothesis - based on evidence from LIGO experiments - proposing a ‘gravitational interstellar ether’ - without paradoxes. It applies even near to the surface of rotating masses including Earth and so explains the Michelson-Morley null result, stellar abberation, Sagnac effect etc.
The conclusion in this ‘rigorous’ video is WRONG - it is clearly NOT tutorial so should be taken down because:-
The ‘Prof’ absolutely refuses to accept that he has made an obvious mistake at 16:10 mins onwards in his supposedly rigorous video - accusing me of being a "liar", "senile", "psychiatric" .......
He switches the vailid interpretation of dt
from:-
a time-dilated remote observation of the object rocket frame - viewed from the perspective of the Lab frame stay-home twin
to:-
mistakenly, an elapsed time on the Lab frame twin’s local clock - viewed from the perspective of the object rocket frame
That switch of interpretation does occur after integrating dt to t and dt’ to t’ but that is merely a summation of many dt and dt' - that does not justify the reversed interpretation - the Lorentz factor (gamma) is still reciprocal, even after integration.
There are also other mistakes eg. during the inertial cruise segment, he does not apply the irrefutable reciprocity.
There is no mistake in this tutorial. I already explained it to you multiple times. Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides and understand what I say, or you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, but you have been proven WRONG for years!
Go see a psychiatrist!
@ Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides = YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND what everyone accepts is true - that the Lorentz factor gamma is reciprocal - FACT!
Reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration (or re-labelling) - FACT - at 16:10-> mins!
OR you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, = YOU ARE BLATANTLY OBSTINATELY LYING because you would love Relativity to be correct - your vested interests prevail over your students interests.
but you have been proven WRONG for years! = YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG - YOU (et al) ARE INCAPABLE OF REFUTING MY MANY UPVOTED ASSERTIONS eg. my unanswered challenge to you:-
1. How can the loss of the sign of v/c in gamma possibly fulfill the 2nd postulate?
2. How can that 2nd postulate not defy causality (eg. for 13 billion year old starlight)?
3. How can Pythagorus possibly apply when vectors r, r’, ct, ct’ and vt are all co-linear distances, aligned along the linear propagation path.
Go see a psychiatrist! = SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
@@IraClarke-t9c I don't see any mistake in Dr. Rousseau's tutorial. You are clearly the one who don't understand anything. I see that you are using a lot of expressions that either have no meaning, or for which you don't understand the actual meaning.
Like "reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration". There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this?
I also saw on Quora that you claim that a laser beam will suddenly decide to come out of alignment with its mirrors, just because a moving observer decides to look at it. My question is: What does the beam do if the other observer who is at at rest with respect to the mirror look at it at the same time? Isn't such a claim insane?
Perhaps you should consider the advice that was given to you: Go see a psychiatrist!
@ “There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this?”
It is perfectly easy to understand what you say but it is WRONG - simply BECAUSE gamma is reciprocal in the inertial case AND even when it changes incrementally. Gamma is just a scalar number - it is not intelligent at all - so please explain, in your vastly superior wisdom, just how it ‘knows’ whether the emitter or the observer actually changed speed by dv?
NB If rocket twin is the observer then his/her local clock appears to run at normal local ‘proper’ clock rate and stay-home twin appears to age slower - t is increased by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally.
In the reciprocal case, the stay-home twin is observer, so his/her own local clock runs at normal ‘proper’ rate (by definition). It is unaffected by the antics of the rocket twin - accelerating or not - and hence his/her “ELAPSED” time cannot change by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally - asserting otherwise is “insane”.
The gamma factor is always reciprocal - it always applies to the REMOTELY observed (twin’s) clock - even on the accelerating rocket. That invalidates the conclusion in the video.
The fundamental physical reason is that the finite propagation delay is irrefutably reciprocal - so the observer ‘sees’ an earlier version of the remote clock. But also gamma, as a supposed INVERSE factor, is invalid and SUPERFLUOUS - because independent Doppler red- and blue-shift scale factors, AND their separate INVERSE factors, are perfectly adequate - with no twins paradox, unexplained contraction of spacetime and speed limit etc.
Regarding the mirror clock - re-read what I said - you have reversed my logic - the mirror clock ‘proof’ of gamma is all “insane” nonsense because remote observers cannot affect the speed of light within the clock. Even if pulses bounce off a few particles between the mirrors, light is scattered at the prevailing speed of propagation one-way towards each observer whatever direction etc. The sawtooth pattern only exists if there is a ‘stationary’ reference ether and the clock is moving relative to that. Each observer cannot exude a separate ether (Universe wide?).
@@IraClarke-t9c
Man, Special Relativity is not only about the gamma factor. The fact that the gamma factor takes the same value in two inertial frames does not imply that the entire problem is symmetrical. As Dr. Rousseau told you many times, you need to understand the difference between PROPER time and COORDINATE time, and you need to define clearly which events you are trying to describe. So far, you have failed to do this, which is the sole reason why you don't understand anything.
FALLACY in the video: the Lorentz transformation is bi-directional symmetrically - even if the relative velocity v is increasing or decreasing and the contraction effects both ways
are integrated.
.
Gravitational time dilation is a separate affect that applies to accelerated imperfect clocks sensitive to applied force - not v. That is real logical scientific thinking surely - unlike .....
Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years.
While the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical, the situation described is not. In addition, you are showcasing the facts that:
1) You are incapable of defining the events that you are trying to describe, while it is well-known that this is a crucial part of solving any Relativity problem.
2) You are incapable of identifying which times are proper times and which ones are not.
3) You are incapable of identifying which lengths are proper lengths and which ones are not.
In addition, gravitation has absolutely nothing to do in this problem which is about motion only.
Conclusion: You are just a puppet.
omg there are so many crackpots!
Ira,
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "the Lorentz transformation is bi-directional symmetrically - even if the relative velocity is increasing or decreasing".
I might be misunderstanding what point you are making, but as it stands, that seems completely incorrect. The Lorentz transformation allows us to relate two different coordinate systems whose spatial origins are moving at a CONSTANT velocity relative to one another. If the relative velocity is changing, then the Lorentz transformation does not apply.
Now, what does work is the formula for proper time:
tau = integral of square-root(1-(v*v)/(c*c)) dt
This formula works even if v is changing with time. But the Lorentz transformation does not.
@@stevendaryl30161
If you don't know Ira Clarke yet, you should take a look at my webpage here: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php
You will quickly realize that he is a crackpot.
@@stevendaryl30161 Surely, there is no reason why the integral of the full Lorentz transformation should not work eg. as in the Minkowski incrememental form, and if δx’/δt’ = c = δx/δt as per the 2nd postulate (eg. as in relativistic Doppler).
The integral for the temporal incremental variable t’ becomes of γ δt ± (δx/c)(v/c) = γ(1±v/c)δt with an incrementally variable γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²).
The integral for the spatial incremental variable x’ becomes of γ δx ± vδt) = γ(1±v/c)δx
where δt denotes the ‘proper’ incremental time. That is reciprocal.
.
If we match up corresponding v in the outward and inward journeys then we have γ²(1-v/c)(1+v/c)δt = δt ie. Einstein’s justification for the unitary Lorentz scaling.
But that only applies to the two-way journey. The scale factors for separate one-way inverse (unitary) transforms are given by 1/ (1±v/c) - NOT by γ.
Disruptively, that simple fact invalidates the Lorentz spacetime transform (and Lorentz invariance) - both inertial and non-inertial.
"Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years."
.
LOL - from a 'professional' novice relativist who hasn't yet even learnt the difference between an inverse (or reverse) transform and the inherent symmetry of a reciprocal transform! And worse, he absulutely refuses to understand that there is such an issue in spacetime.
.
FYI in signal processing, the combination transform of inverse and forward transforms yields an identity transformation. It used to recover estimates of input parameters (or frame coordinates here) given observed data from a sensor system or array of sensors. NB It does have the virtual effect of reversing relative effect of time delays. Lorentz scaling cannot do that.
.
" While the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical, the situation described is not."
.
What stubborn illogical nonsense! If that is true then obviously, the Lorentz transform is NOT the correct TOOL for the task. Where is the rigor in that?
.
A reciprocal scenario is defined when the roles of the input location and observer location are interchanged. In that case, both the direction of propagation AND the direction of relative velocity are changed such that the sign of v/c is NOT changed. .
Consequently, the reciprocal forward transforms are symmetrical and hence identical and hence, in this twins paradox case, whatever applies to one twin MUST apply to the other.
.
That simple fundamental fact ie. that the problem really is symmetrical, absolutely destroys the claim for RIGOR in the tutorial video in question here.
.
But also the premise (first equation) is defined by the Lorentz scale factor gamma and that is fundamentally WRONG.
.
It canot apply because gamma squared is derived for a INVALID problem where the outward 1+(v/c) transform and inward 1-(v/c) transform are combined.
That defies the basic rule of simultaneous equations because the two transforms are obviously not symmetrical or identical.
.
Applying gamma SQUARED as a scale factor does normalise the combination transform to an identity transformation - but that cannot reverse the duration of the (two-way) journey even though t =>t' => t.
Also gamma canot apply symmetrically to either individual (assymmetric) segment of the return journey.
.
That also destroys the claimed RIGOR of the tutorial but also has disruptive consequences in modern theoretical physics, astrophysics and particle physics - affecting the modelling of dark matter etc. and even the derivation of the rather famous E squared equation.
.
SURELY THAT VIDEO AND THE EINSTEIN MIRROR CLOCK VIDEO CANNOT BE USED AS A TUTORIAL TEACHING AIDS OR REMAIN ON TH-cam?"
Typical novice mistake. Unforgivable from a guy who pretends he has been working on the subject for 60 years."⁶
😂😂😂
You're sure you don't know John Mandlbaur? You should meet him, you would be excellent friends. Can you send me your picture, so that I can dedicate a webpage to you? Like this one: bluemoonshine.fun/Project-MandlbaurInsanity.php
19:30 traveller travelling at 0.95 speed of light can't change direction ! its reasonable to bend the space to manuover like it taking U turn from Blackhole. Thus we do not have to consider manuover. Another Approach is to do retardation after agreed acceleration reached --> stop--> change and start acceleration in negative direction --> start retardation once same acceleration reached in negative direction. This profile adds four sequence of operations, however that would be more practical. Moreover, 95% speed of light is not possible with rocket load - [imagine what weight it would have to carry to launch ] . however, if you can only perform 0.01% C of some reasonable value of acceleration and show its trivial effect, that would also back up your theory and bring your calculation within the periphery of experimental limits. Your efforts are admirable.
Why couldn't he change direction? For him, he is at rest in his own inertial frame (engine off). He can surely use side thrusters to make a 180° turnaround while coasting!
@@BlueMoonshine Yes from his Frame of reference - but from his Twin's reference He will be travelling at almost the speed of light and the side thruster will make the U-turn - even then he would need to start the journey of retardation from the max speed point i.e. 95%C to the point of no relative motion - then coming back to twin. so distance traveled will be more in the return journey.
so the equation is nonsymmetric. I am still skeptical about this thought.
@@gauravrana9512
Well, did you actually watch the tutorial? I derived all equations rigorously! Which equation are you skeptical about?
@gauravrana9512
No response?
All of them - because the 1st equation ukis invalid ie. the Lorentz scale factor premise itself. At turnaround the twins are in the same frame. Perfect clocks, insensitive to acceleration, would appear to lag each other by the propagation delay.
1. Accusing ME does not alter the fact that the 'Prof' is WRONG - his interpretation of his maths even defies the (invalid) Einstein 2nd postulate ie. regarding the same speed of EM for both twins as observers - reciprocally! Think about why for yourself - why that still applies in the non-inertial case - if you can!
If that postulate doesn't apply then the 'Prof' has proved that General Relativity is wrong!
What have you ever achieved in physics?
2. There is no twins ageing effect in 'relativistic Doppler'!
3. Classical Doppler and relativistic Doppler are textbook stuff - read all about 'em for yourself.
Doppler factors are directly derived from physical propagation delays.
Doppler systems do work everyday and were part of my career, - based on designing and evaluating Doppler radars. I even designed constructed an experimental non-coherent Doppler system - did you know that that is even possible?.
4. Doppler effects are observed by the JWST and Hubble telescope for ultrafast receding stars. It is clear that c must apply to EM within those galaxies - to satisfy the Galileo-Einstein in 1st postulate.
.
I tried to stay polite, but you insist on being stupid! I already told you NUMEROUS TIMES that the Doppler effect has NOTHING to do with this problem. You are clearly incapable of dealing with calculus, so I CHALLENGE you to point out a single mistake in the resolution of the following simplified textbook problem, which requires no more than 8th grade math:
Alice remains on Earth, Bob leaves from Earth at a CONSTANT speed of 0.6c and goes to a planet located at 1 ly (light year) which is AT REST with respect to the Earth. As soon as Bob arrives to the planet, he instantly switches direction and comes back to Earth at the same constant speed. To prove that there is no paradox, let us analyze the situation from Alice's frame, then from Bob's frame.
Let us start with something that, so far, you have failed to do, namely define CLEARLY the events that we want to describe:
E1="Bob leaves from Earth"
E2="Bob arrives to the planet"
Also, I'll let you check that the Lorentz factor that corresponds to the speed 0.6c is 1.25.
1) FROM ALICE'S POINT OF VIEW
In Alice's frame, Bob's outbound trip has a length of 1 ly and is performed at speed 0.6c, thus the time for his outbound trip is (1 ly)/(0.6c)=1.667 years. By symmetry, Bob's inbound trip takes the same amount of time, so the total time for the round trip that Alice observes is 3.333 years.
Now, events E1 and E2 are separated by 1 ly in Alice's frame, by definition, so the time that Alice observes for the inbound trip is not a proper time. However, for Bob, event E1 and E2 both happens at his own location. Thus the time that he observes is a proper time. Alice concludes that the time that she observed is equal to Bob's proper time dilated by the Lorentz factor. Therefore, she conclude that Bob's outbound trip proper time is the time that she observed divided by the Lorentz factor, namely (1.667 years)/1.25=1.333 years. By symmetry, the inbound trip time is the same, so the she concludes that Bob observes a roundtrip time of 2.666 years.
So, Alice's conclusion is that the roundtrip lasts 3.333 years for her and 2.666 years for Bob.
2) FROM BOB'S POINT OF VIEW
The distance between the Earth and the planet is a proper distance, by definition. In Bob's frame, the distance to the planet is contracted and equal to (1 ly)/1.25=0.8 ly. In his frame, during the outbound trip, it is the planet that is approaching at speed 0.6c. Thus the time that he observes is (0.8 ly)/(0.6c)=1.333 years. By symmetry, his inbound trip time is the same, so he concludes that his round trip time is 2.666 years.
Now, Bob knows that his outbound trip time is a proper time because event E1 and E2 happen at his own location. Thus he knows that Alice will observe a dilated time equal to (1.333 years)*1.25=1.666 years. Since his inbound trip time is symmetrical, he concludes that Alice observes a roundtrip time of 3.333 years.
So, Bob's conclusion is the same as Alice's, namely the roundtrip lasts 2.666 years for him and 3.333 years for Alice.
Tell me where the paradox is? I CHALLENGE TO POINT OUT A SINGLE MISTAKE!
You are a real piece of sh-it!
@BlueMoonshine proved you wrong in a reply to another of your comments, and he challenged you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that he proposed. Instead of answering, you are now starting a new thread full of non-sense, and totally ignoring his reply. There are no other words to describe you: You are a piece of sh-it!
Not a miniscule shred of evidence backs up your crude "sh-it" insults - whoever/whatever you really are!!
See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense.
@@IraClarke-t9c
"See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense."
Where is your answer? So far, all you have done is trying to involve some completely irrelevant gravitation, Doppler effect, and the non-existent "2nd order Lorentz factor".
Once again, I challenge you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that I described above.
But as usual, you are fleeing.
@@IraClarke-t9c
I am still waiting for your answer, but I see that you are fleeing like the coward that you are!
But light has no acceleration. And this is all dependent on the speed of light. So all this talk about acceleration doesn't apply. So why talk about acceleration? This is all wrong.
Just because you are incapable of understanding anything doesn't make it wrong!
"But light has no acceleration"
He doesn't tell anywhere in the video that light has an acceleration, d.mb4ss!