Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

It seems a shame for me to argue on the side as all these acclaimed physicists, but that is what I must do.

It just proves that human nature does not change. The acclaimed physicists in Galileo's time also refused to understand the logic that the world cannot be the the unique stationary centre of the universe. You are still doing exactly the same by still claiming that the world can be uniquely stationary when it comes to the ageing of two twins: One remaining on the "stationary world", while the other leaves and returns on a spaceship.

Thus, you and these acclaimed modern day theoretical physicists are still stuck in the 1600's; since you cannot understand that even before Einstein appeared on the scene, it has been accepted that it is impossible to do any physical measurement within a uniformly moving inertial reference frame that will differ from the same measurement in another uniformly moving reference frame; so that one can conclude afterwards that one inertial reference frame is stationary and the other one not; or differ from one another in any other way. These measurements include the measurement of time. That is the "Principle of Relativity" as already stated by Galileo 400 hundred years ago, and which you are, just like the Vatican physicists, violating with your illogical arguments.

After Maxwell's equations and the acceptance that light consists of waves moving within an ether, it gave a measurement which, if an ether exitsts, could be used to distinguish whether a reference is moving while another refrence frame is not moving. This is exactly what Michelson-Morley tried to do and failed to do. Einstein expanded Galileo's "Principle of Realtivity" to include light speed. Read again: "..the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”). This does NOT invalidate Galileo's "Principle of Relativity" but widens it. A measurement of time rate within two inertial reference frames moving with a speed v relative to one another, must thus give the same answer or else the "Principle of Relativity" is not valid.

I agree that light will be observed to have the same velocity in all inertial frames. You conclude from that, that clocks must run at the same speed.

Correct: Since the "Principle of Relativity" clearly states that it is impossible to make the same measurement within two inertial reference frames which will give a different answer within one reference frame from the answer obtained in the other reference frame. If the time rates measured within the two reference frames are different then you must conclude that one inertial reference frame is uniquely stationary and the other one is moving. This violates the "Principle of Relativity"

Specifically, since it is the only way we can define "same speed", let us compare a clock at origin of our home FOR with a clock on a rocket moving away from origin at 0.99c for 10s "home" time and then back at 0.99c for 10s "home" time.

You claim the clocks must read the same elapsed time when the rocket returns.

That is correct.

I claim the stationary wrt "home" clock will read a time 7X longer than the rocket-based clock.

So you now do have the same physical measurement within the two inertial refrence frames which give different results and thus violate Galileo's AND Einstein's insights?. I will rather believe the latter two acclaimed physicists than Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Kip Thorne and what have you!

Here is a nicely argued "standard"explanation:

Length contraction
Synchronising clocks
Time dilation

I have read this and the logic is wrong since it violates Galileo's and Einstein's "Principle of Relativity".

All nicely consistent.

Consistent? How can it be consistent when it violates the PRIME postulate on which Galileo's Inertia and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity are based. Really!!!!! Any derivation from a theory which violates the postulate on which the theory is based must be wrong!

If you want the REALLY consistent derivations which do not violate the "Principle of Relativity", then read my manuscript on my website.

[tomclarke]

It seems a shame for me to argue on the side as all these acclaimed physicists, but that is what I must do.

It just proves that human nature does not change. The acclaimed physicists in Galileo's time also refused to understand the logic that the world cannot be the the unique stationary centre of the universe. You are still doing exactly the same by still claiming that the world can be uniquely stationary when it comes to the ageing of two twins: One remaining on the "stationary world", while the other leaves and returns on a spaceship.

Not at all. The links I posted (too lazy to do it myself) show each twin can consistently observe the other twin as aging slower.

The only time this leads to inconsistency is when the two clocks are brought together. But in that case, if only one twin is in an inertial FOR, his view prevails (the other twin would need more complex deduction due to change of FOR). If neither twin stays inertial then obviously the premise does not apply.

Thus, you and these acclaimed modern day theoretical physicists are still stuck in the 1600's; since you cannot understand that even before Einstein appeared on the scene, it has been accepted that it is impossible to do any physical measurement within a uniformly moving inertial reference frame that will differ from the same measurement in another uniformly moving reference frame; so that one can conclude afterwards that one inertial reference frame is stationary and the other one not; or differ from one another in any other way.

That is true. the measurements we consider are all relative measurements based on establishing simulataneity between different FORs using light. There is no privileged frame, no measurement in one frame inconsistent with a measurement in another.

These measurements include the measurement of time. That is the "Principle of Relativity" as already stated by Galileo 400 hundred years ago, and which you are, just like the Vatican physicists, violating with your illogical arguments.

And here is nub of your case, and your problem. You view time as an absolute which must have some existence independent of observation made (on clocks, for example) that give it a physical basis.

The three links I posted show how observations on clocks in different frames neccessitate time dilation between frames. You object to this because you have some philosophical wish to view time as in some way privileged. In Minkowski terms what you ask could only be true were there a privileged FOR.

After Maxwell's equations and the acceptance that light consists of waves moving within an ether, it gave a measurement which, if an ether exitsts, could be used to distinguish whether a reference is moving while another refrence frame is not moving. This is exactly what Michelson-Morley tried to do and failed to do. Einstein expanded Galileo's "Principle of Realtivity" to include light speed. Read again: "..the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”). This does NOT invalidate Galileo's "Principle of Relativity" but widens it. A measurement of time rate within two inertial reference frames moving with a speed v relative to one another, must thus give the same answer or else the "Principle of Relativity" is not valid.

And just to make the point again. This measurement giving the "same answer" must be tied to a physical setup involving observations of clocks in the two frames and synchronising respective times. See my link above.

I agree that light will be observed to have the same velocity in all inertial frames. You conclude from that, that clocks must run at the same speed.

Correct: Since the "Principle of Relativity" clearly states that it is impossible to make the same measurement within two inertial reference frames which will give a different answer within one reference frame from the answer obtained in the other reference frame. If the time rates measured within the two reference frames are different then you must conclude that one inertial reference frame is uniquely stationary and the other one is moving. This violates the "Principle of Relativity"

My three links above address exactly this point in detail and show that this conclusion is incorrect.

Specifically, since it is the only way we can define "same speed", let us compare a clock at origin of our home FOR with a clock on a rocket moving away from origin at 0.99c for 10s "home" time and then back at 0.99c for 10s "home" time.

You claim the clocks must read the same elapsed time when the rocket returns.

That is correct.

I claim the stationary wrt "home" clock will read a time 7X longer than the rocket-based clock.

So you now do have the same physical measurement within the two inertial refrence frames which give different results and thus violate Galileo's AND Einstein's insights?.

Consider the example. The rocket is not in an inertial FOR since it changes velocity. If it did not, as above, the case would be symmetrical and there would indeed be no difference in observations.

I will rather believe the latter two acclaimed physicists than Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Kip Thorne and what have you!

Here is a nicely argued "standard"explanation:

Length contraction
Synchronising clocks
Time dilation

I have read this and the logic is wrong since it violates Galileo's and Einstein's "Principle of Relativity".

All nicely consistent.

Consistent? How can it be consistent when it violates the PRIME postulate on which Galileo's Inertia and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity are based. Really!!!!! Any derivation from a theory which violates the postulate on which the theory is based must be wrong!

The specific objections (possible violations) you mention above have been addressed in my comments.

If you want the REALLY consistent derivations which do not violate the "Principle of Relativity", then read my manuscript on my website.

I would be glad to do so except that thus far in our debate I see no inconsistency in the standard view.

Best wishes, Tom

[johanfprins]

Not at all. The links I posted (too lazy to do it myself) show each twin can consistently observe the other twin as aging slower.

This is physics nonsense; since the twins CANNOT observe each other when they are very far from each other. All each twin (say twin 1) can conclude is that the relativistically-transformed time from the clock of the other twin (twin 2) into the FOR of twin 1, is slower than the time being kept by the clock of twin 1. This transformed time IS NOT the same as the actual time on the clock of twin 2. Exactly the same transformed time is observed by twin 2 from the clock of twin 1 into the FOR of twin 2. Thus, since the transformed time from twin 2 to twin 1 is exactly the same as the transformed time from twin 1 to twin 2; the actual times being kept by the clock of twin 1 within its FOR is EXACTLY the same as the actual time being kept by the clock of twin 2 within his/her FOR. And this must be so since it is mandated that it must be so by the “Principle of Relativity”.

The only time this leads to inconsistency is when the two clocks are brought together.

Nonsense: When they are brought together one compares the actual times on the two clocks which have all along been identical on the two clocks: So where is the inconsistency?

But in that case, if only one twin is in an inertial FOR, his view prevails (the other twin would need more complex deduction due to change of FOR).

When they are brought together both twins are in the same FOR and since their clocks have all along kept the same time as demanded by the "Principle of Relativity" they must show the same time when they are brought together.

If neither twin stays inertial then obviously the premise does not apply.

Both stays inertial all the time since as proved in my manuscript, acceleration does not violate the "Principle of Relativity": Einstein also concluded that an accelerating reference frame is still an inertial reference frame for which the “Principle of Relativity” stays valid. Thus during the whole trip of the two twins their clocks keep time at the same rate since they both remain inertial. The only condition under which the two clocks will keep time at different rates is when they experience different forces within a gravity-field. This difference is not caused by the difference in accelerations but by the difference in the intensities of the gravity field that the two clocks experience.

That is true. the measurements we consider are all relative measurements based on establishing simulataneity between different FORs using light. There is no privileged frame, no measurement in one frame inconsistent with a measurement in another.

No what you are doing is to conclude that the observation of two non-simultaneous events which are simultaneous within a passing reference frame means that they are also simultaneous within the passing inertial reference frame. Similarly you are assuming that the transformed time into your reference frame from a passing clock means that the passing clock is also keeping slower time within its own inertial reference frame. Can you not see that you are grossly contradicting yourself?

And here is nub of your case, and your problem. You view time as an absolute which must have some existence independent of observation made (on clocks, for example) that give it a physical basis.

Now here is the nub of YOUR problem since you just cannot or rather WILL not acknowledge, that when the transformed time from FOR1 to FOR2 is the same as the transformed time from FOR2 to FOR 1, then the actual clock rates within FOR1 and FOR2 MUST BE IDENTICAL.

The three links I posted show how observations on clocks in different frames neccessitate time dilation between frames.

Time dilation of the transformed time, NOT of the actual time within the reference frame from which you are transforming the time.

You object to this because you have some philosophical wish to view time as in some way privileged.

There is no “philosophical wish” involved, just plain common sense which demands that clocks within all inertial reference frames MUST keep the same time within their respective inertial reference frames or else the “Principle of Relativity”, on which Special Relativity is solidly based, is violated.

In Minkowski terms what you ask could only be true were there a privileged FOR.

Your interpretation of Minkowski’s construction is wrong! Stop falling back on Minkowski’s interpretation: If any deduction, made by invoking Minkowski, violates the “Principle of Relativity” then either the deduction is wrong or the Minkowski construct is misleading.

And just to make the point again. This measurement giving the "same answer" must be tied to a physical setup involving observations of clocks in the two frames and synchronising respective times. See my link above.

. If the Theory of Special Relativity is based on the “Principle of Relativity” then the times being kept by two clocks in two different inertial reference frames MUST be the same, or else the theory of Special Relativity is invalid. Thus if your experiment gives a different result you have invalidated Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. In your link above, transformed time is compared to actual time instead of actual time with actual time.

My three links above address exactly this point in detail and show that this conclusion is incorrect.

And as I have pointed out, the results that are obtained in these three links violate the “Principle of Relativity” and thus either the logic used, by this deluded professor at my alma mater, is wrong, or the whole theory of Special Relativity must be wrong. I believe that Einstein’s postulate when he extended the “Principle of Relativity” to also include electrodynamics is one of the most brilliant insights ever, and therefore any derivation using Minkowski space or any other logic that violates the “Principle of Relativity”, as is being done in the three references you quoted, MUST be wrong!

Consider the example. The rocket is not in an inertial FOR since it changes velocity.

Really? So Einstein was wrong when he claimed that an accelerating reference frame is still an inertial reference frame. I do not think sooo!

and i If it did not, as above, the case would be symmetrical and there would indeed be no difference in observations.

It stays symmetrical whether there is acceleration or no acceleration. Let us say that the two twins leave one another in two space ships and relative to the position of twin1 the spaceship of twin 2 follows a large circular orbit to eventually return to twin 1. Relative to the spaceship of twin2 the spaceship of twin 1 follows a large circular orbit to finally meet up with spaceship of twin 2. Which spaceship accelerated to complete the circular path and which one stayed stationary? The fact is that it does not matter which spaceship accelerated and which one not, the respective clocks on the two spaceships will show the same times when they meet up again.

The specific objections (possible violations) you mention above have been addressed in my comments.

Nope, they have not!!

JFP: If you want the REALLY consistent derivations which do not violate the "Principle of Relativity", then read my manuscript on my website.

I would be glad to do so except that thus far in our debate I see no inconsistency in the standard view.

Of course not: You are the Cardinal who does not WANT to see the mountains on the Moon.

Best wishes, Johan

[tomclarke]

I don't always like this comment on comment on comment style of post, but I'm going to have to do it here. In the proces we can perhaps drill down furtehr to the difference in view that we have.

Not at all. The links I posted (too lazy to do it myself) show each twin can consistently observe the other twin as aging slower.

This is physics nonsense; since the twins CANNOT observe each other when they are very far from each other. All each twin (say twin 1) can conclude is that the relativistically-transformed time from the clock of the other twin (twin 2) into the FOR of twin 1, is slower than the time being kept by the clock of twin 1. This transformed time IS NOT the same as the actual time on the clock of twin 2. Exactly the same transformed time is observed by twin 2 from the clock of twin 1 into the FOR of twin 2. Thus, since the transformed time from twin 2 to twin 1 is exactly the same as the transformed time from twin 1 to twin 2; the actual times being kept by the clock of twin 1 within its FOR is EXACTLY the same as the actual time being kept by the clock of twin 2 within his/her FOR. And this must be so since it is mandated that it must be so by the “Principle of Relativity”.

Except that your use of "actual time" is not justified, I would agree. Actual time only esxists physically if you can define it. I think you may wish to do this by returning the twins together. That is teh next section. I maintain that you cannot (physically) compare and therefore define "actual time" in this two FOR no acceleration scenario.

The only time this leads to inconsistency is when the two clocks are brought together.

Nonsense: When they are brought together one compares the actual times on the two clocks which have all along been identical on the two clocks: So where is the inconsistency?

I was addressing your argument that the twins paradox is inconsistent if time dilation is real.

But in that case, if only one twin is in an inertial FOR, his view prevails (the other twin would need more complex deduction due to change of FOR).

When they are brought together both twins are in the same FOR and since their clocks have all along kept the same time as demanded by the "Principle of Relativity" they must show the same time when they are brought together.

We are arguing about whether your view that the standard view is obviously wrong is substantiated. You can't show this by stating your view. As you know I reckon the principle of relativity applies to physical laws, and non-accelerating inertial frames. and so your "actual time" cannot in general be measured.

If neither twin stays inertial then obviously the premise does not apply.

Both stays inertial all the time since as proved in my manuscript, acceleration does not violate the "Principle of Relativity": Einstein also concluded that an accelerating reference frame is still an inertial reference frame for which the “Principle of Relativity” stays valid. Thus during the whole trip of the two twins their clocks keep time at the same rate since they both remain inertial. The only condition under which the two clocks will keep time at different rates is when they experience different forces within a gravity-field. This difference is not caused by the difference in accelerations but by the difference in the intensities of the gravity field that the two clocks experience.

So this is where we disagree. The principle of relativity describes physical measurements. The "speed" of time cannot be determined by a physical measy=urement. That is only possible when you can meaure the difference between two elapsed times. So you are incorrect.

That is true. the measurements we consider are all relative measurements based on establishing simulataneity between different FORs using light. There is no privileged frame, no measurement in one frame inconsistent with a measurement in another.

No what you are doing is to conclude that the observation of two non-simultaneous events which are simultaneous within a passing reference frame means that they are also simultaneous within the passing inertial reference frame. Similarly you are assuming that the transformed time into your reference frame from a passing clock means that the passing clock is also keeping slower time within its own inertial reference frame. Can you not see that you are grossly contradicting yourself?

(1) I am assuming that two coexistent events are simultaneous in all FOR. As is clearly true. This can only be determined if the two twins end up together (perhaps only momentarily).
(2) Any contradiction here comes from your arguing about "slower" or "faster" without specifying how this is measured. That allows you to posit something which in fact does not exist.

And here is nub of your case, and your problem. You view time as an absolute which must have some existence independent of observation made (on clocks, for example) that give it a physical basis.

Now here is the nub of YOUR problem since you just cannot or rather WILL not acknowledge, that when the transformed time from FOR1 to FOR2 is the same as the transformed time from FOR2 to FOR 1, then the actual clock rates within FOR1 and FOR2 MUST BE IDENTICAL.

Indeed no. It is surprising, and the links I posted above elucidate why it is nevertheless not inconsistent.

The three links I posted show how observations on clocks in different frames neccessitate time dilation between frames.

Time dilation of the transformed time, NOT of the actual time within the reference frame from which you are transforming the time.

As I have argued, your "actual time" concept is not physical. If it were physical you could devise an experiment to compare actual times in all cases, rather than just in certain specific cases.

You object to this because you have some philosophical wish to view time as in some way privileged.

There is no “philosophical wish” involved, just plain common sense which demands that clocks within all inertial reference frames MUST keep the same time within their respective inertial reference frames or else the “Principle of Relativity”, on which Special Relativity is solidly based, is violated.

In Minkowski terms what you ask could only be true were there a privileged FOR.

Your interpretation of Minkowski’s construction is wrong! Stop falling back on Minkowski’s interpretation: If any deduction, made by invoking Minkowski, violates the “Principle of Relativity” then either the deduction is wrong or the Minkowski construct is misleading.

And just to make the point again. This measurement giving the "same answer" must be tied to a physical setup involving observations of clocks in the two frames and synchronising respective times. See my link above.

. If the Theory of Special Relativity is based on the “Principle of Relativity” then the times being kept by two clocks in two different inertial reference frames MUST be the same, or else the theory of Special Relativity is invalid. Thus if your experiment gives a different result you have invalidated Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. In your link above, transformed time is compared to actual time instead of actual time with actual time.

But I can't see the principle of special relativity can apply to anything other than physical laws, as defined by possible physical experiments. Your "actual time" comparison has no possible physical experiment.

My three links above address exactly this point in detail and show that this conclusion is incorrect.

And as I have pointed out, the results that are obtained in these three links violate the “Principle of Relativity” and thus either the logic used, by this deluded professor at my alma mater, is wrong, or the whole theory of Special Relativity must be wrong. I believe that Einstein’s postulate when he extended the “Principle of Relativity” to also include electrodynamics is one of the most brilliant insights ever, and therefore any derivation using Minkowski space or any other logic that violates the “Principle of Relativity”, as is being done in the three references you quoted, MUST be wrong!

Consider the example. The rocket is not in an inertial FOR since it changes velocity.

Really? So Einstein was wrong when he claimed that an accelerating reference frame is still an inertial reference frame. I do not think sooo!

I don't mind whether you call an accelerated FOR inertial. The point is that the acceleration is a physical change which (trivially) alters mechanics etc within the frame. Therefore any equivalence must take account of this difference.

and i If it did not, as above, the case would be symmetrical and there would indeed be no difference in observations.

It stays symmetrical whether there is acceleration or no acceleration. Let us say that the two twins leave one another in two space ships and relative to the position of twin1 the spaceship of twin 2 follows a large circular orbit to eventually return to twin 1. Relative to the spaceship of twin2 the spaceship of twin 1 follows a large circular orbit to finally meet up with spaceship of twin 2. Which spaceship accelerated to complete the circular path and which one stayed stationary? The fact is that it does not matter which spaceship accelerated and which one not, the respective clocks on the two spaceships will show the same times when they meet up again.

That depends on the acceleration of the two craft. If this is equivalent (which it could be if they both go on a circular orbit) the times will be the same. If one has no acceleration and the other accelerates then the accelerating one will have slower clocks.

Best wishes, Tom

[johanfprins]

I don't always like this comment on comment on comment style of post, but I'm going to have to do it here.

Neither do I, but you are forcing it by refusing to read my manuscript. I at least have the decency to read your references like the claptrap that Fowler is teaching his students in the Physics Department at the University of Virginia. He keeps on using “length contraction” which cannot occur at all since the front and tail of a passing rod cannot be seen simultaneously: So how can you define a length between two points if you do not know where the two points are at THE SAME instance in time?

In the proces we can perhaps drill down furtehr to the difference in view that we have.

Well it is becoming tiring: So I am just going to concentrate on your paranormal metaphysical argument that the time on two clocks that move relative to one another cannot be the “actual time” (untransformed time) as is mandated by the “Principle of Relativity”.

The “Principle of Relativity” states that the laws of physics MUST be the same within any inertial reference frame. The rate of a clock which is stationary within a reference frame is determined by the laws of physics within that reference frame, and if ALL the clocks do not keep time at the same actual time rate within their own respective inertial reference frames the laws of physics CANNOT be the same within each and every one of these reference frames. This violates the “Principle of Relativity” and thus demands that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong. If you keep on refusing to see this obvious logic, then it is a waste of time to argue with you. The rest of your post is just a regurgitation of what you want to believe, and is logically incoherent. I have better things to do than to try and convince you that there are mountains on the Moon; especially if you do not WANT to read my logic in my manuscript.

So best wishes and good bye,
Johan

[kcdodd]

I feel your pain Tom.

[krenshala]

To me, this makes perfect sense. Time dilation is just what happens when you transform a time measurement from another frame of reference into your own. Since the Principle of Relativity states that the measurements are the same regardless of which FOR you measure from, the Twins Paradox is an example of how observation can deviate from what is actually happening.

I'm thinking Johan has the more logical explanation here.

[GIThruster]

Einstein also concluded that an accelerating reference frame is still an inertial reference frame for which the “Principle of Relativity” stays valid. Thus during the whole trip of the two twins their clocks keep time at the same rate since they both remain inertial

I'm sorry Johan, but this is not only completely incorrect, we have experimental results that shows it is incorrect. In the twins paradox, the clocks do indeed keep different time and this has been shown experimentally.

Likewise, you are incorrect that Einstein concluded that an accelerating frame is an inertial frame. He did nothing of the kind. While it is true that one of the twins placed in a high gravity field would age more slowly, just as if he were accelerated, this does not mean that accelerated frames are inertial. They are most certainly not and if you try to do simple physics in a non-inertial frame, you will always get the wrong answers. This is why we have to distinguish between them (inertial and non.)

You seem to be confusing Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) which says inertial and gravitational mass must always be the same, with the notion that we don't draw distinctions between the two. We do. The fact is, there are two ways to alter the rate of time in one of the twins clocks as compared to another--the first is inertial and concerns acceleration, independent of other field sources. The second is gravitational and concerns a field with an independent source. The two are not the same, though they can have the same result.

In short however, your mistake concerning the twins paradox is easily corrected with a minute's worth of reading about the paradox. It is because at first blush, the "principle of relativity" would seem to indicate the twins will experience time identically, but upon further investigation relativity in fact predicts the opposite, that we have the paradox to begin with. Your solution is to assert the former, when in fact we know the latter to be the case. There are several historic solutions to this historic problem which is not technically a "paradox" though it holds that name. One of them is Machian, which I happen to like. Whether you hold to any of these historic solutions however, or none of them, relativity does indeed predict the opposite of what it would at first blush seem to, and that prediction has been confirmed experimentally, so there's no point in arguing the clocks will move at the same rate.

[johanfprins]

To me, this makes perfect sense. Time dilation is just what happens when you transform a time measurement from another frame of reference into your own. Since the Principle of Relativity states that the measurements are the same regardless of which FOR you measure from, the Twins Paradox is an example of how observation can deviate from what is actually happening.

I'm thinking Johan has the more logical explanation here.

Thank you! It is so wonderful to encounter somebody with logic. How can physics laws be "the same" within different inertial refrence frames if a clock in one inertial refrence frame keeps a different time than a clock in another inertial refrence frame. Note also that the Michelson-Morley experiment did not show any shift caused by the acceleration of the earth around the sun. Thus a refrence frame that accelerates IS STILL an inertial reference frame.

[johanfprins]

I'm sorry Johan, but this is not only completely incorrect, we have experimental results that shows it is incorrect. In the twins paradox, the clocks do indeed keep different time and this has been shown experimentally.

I have wasted a lot of time on you on your previous inane posts and therefore I have tried to consistently ignore them. You are just vomiting the accepted dogma, most probably without understanding the physics involved: as this statement proves:

Likewise, you are incorrect that Einstein concluded that an accelerating frame is an inertial frame. He did nothing of the kind.

Please go and read a book on relativity!

[GIThruster]

Johan, you can blather and insult all you like, but facts are facts. Those who undertand relativity have always known that it predicts the clocks run at different rates despite the simple-minded contention that they should not. This is the historic basis for the paradox, your position being the simple-minded one.

Despite your self-agrandizing, you do not understand relativity. The evidence CONFIRMING RELATIVITY's PREDICTION THAT THE CLOCKS MOVE AT DIFFERENT RATES has been around for a long time. Einstein himself predicted the clocks move at different rates. You somehow know what Einstein missed?

And you somehow know all the physical evidence is flawed?

http://scienceray.com/physics/more-evid ... -einstein/

You need to stop with being abusive toward anyone who doesn't write in agreement with you, especially since it's obvious you've never had a single class in relativity.

[johanfprins]

Johan, you can blather and insult all you like, but facts are facts. Those who undertand relativity have always known that it predicts the clocks run at different rates despite the simple-minded contention that they should not. This is the historic basis for the paradox, your position being the simple-minded one.

A simple-minded question: Are the laws of physics THE SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames? YES or NO?

[GIThruster]

A simple-minded question: just how many subjects are you the world's most expert authority despite you've no training in them?

Obviously the answer to your question is "yes". It is somewhere between that answer, and your obviously wrong conclusion that Einstein was wrong, that your reasoning is hopelessly flawed, and the fact you have precisely NO formal training in relativity really is fact enough, that you need to stop trying to teach relativity to others and thereby, lead them hopelessly astray.

Since you don't understand enough even to ask the correct questions, I suggest you study the historic answers to the Twins Paradox. You are obviously ignorant on the topic. Here's an example of one successful solution to the trouble--it is not the only solution that works:

The Twin Paradox of Einstein is an interesting thought experiment involving two twins (who are nearly exactly the same age), one of whom sets out on a journey into space and back. Because of the time dilation effect of relativity, the twin who left experiences a slowing down of time and will actually be much younger than the twin that stayed behind. The reason that this is considered a paradox is that Special Relativity seems to imply that either one can be considered at rest, with the other moving. It does, and it doesn't.

The confusion arises not because there are two equally valid inertial rest frames, but (here's the tricky part) because there are three. A lot of explanations of the twin paradox have claimed that it is necessary to include a treatment of accelerations, or involve General Relativity. Not so.

The three inertial frames are 1) at-home twin 2) the going-away twin and 3) the coming-back twin. It doesn't make any difference that the last two are physically the same twin--they still define different inertial frames.

OK, let's see: Ann stays at home and Bob rockets away at 3/5 light speed. Time dilation is 80%. Bob lets 4 years pass. Bob returns at 3/5 light speed, again taking 4 years. Ann thinks 10 years have passed, and Ann and Bob agree that Bob is two years younger.

Important question: what is the relative speed of the two Bob frames? On first glance, it would appear that one is going 3/5c in one direction and 3/5c in the other direction, so that the difference between the two frames is 6/5c! Faster than light? No, special relativity does not add speeds this way. The actual difference is only 15/17c, fast but not faster than light. Why is this important? We'll see.

Now, since special relativity lets us use either rest frame, we assume Bob is the at-home twin. Ann speeds away at 3/5c. No problem so far. But after 4 years of waiting, Bob must change his inertial frame. If we allow Ann to return, we've only restated the problem with the names switched. In the first version, Ann stayed in an inertial frame, and she must stay in an inertial frame in this version. Bob zooms off after Ann at 15/17 light speed (now we know why it was important), and of course catches up. It takes him 4 years, and he has seen 8 years since Ann left. Ann has aged 10 years. Same result. No paradox.

http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

[tomclarke]

Johan, you can blather and insult all you like, but facts are facts. Those who undertand relativity have always known that it predicts the clocks run at different rates despite the simple-minded contention that they should not. This is the historic basis for the paradox, your position being the simple-minded one.

Despite your self-agrandizing, you do not understand relativity. The evidence CONFIRMING RELATIVITY's PREDICTION THAT THE CLOCKS MOVE AT DIFFERENT RATES has been around for a long time. Einstein himself predicted the clocks move at different rates. You somehow know what Einstein missed?

And you somehow know all the physical evidence is flawed?

http://scienceray.com/physics/more-evid ... -einstein/

You need to stop with being abusive toward anyone who doesn't write in agreement with you, especially since it's obvious you've never had a single class in relativity.

The experimental evidence is conclusive, of course.

I thought maybe going through Johan's misconceptions in detail, with reasons, would help. But alas not.

SR, and Minkowski space-time, is a beautiful theory, and not entirely intuitive. Johan takes following (incorrect) intuition to extreme lengths!

[Teemu]

Have you maybe published papers based on this wrong Minkowski interpretation; and now refuse to admit that your publications might be wrong?

Of course this could be a factor. However, based on your site's front page, the same "seeing what you want to see" could also be a factor the other way around:

This surprisingly dogmatic response challenged Johan to re-examine the accepted interpretations of modern physics on which the mainstream model of superconduction is based.

Since other scientists didn't accept your superconductor discovery and theories related to that, you had a great incentive to see them to be wrong in other things also, which would further validate them as being blind and wrong and you being right.