Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Revisited

If you send me a copy, I will give it a fair and careful evaluation just as I have given to all the papers and textbooks that I have studied. If you have to see all of the details of the study I have conducted you can request a copy of the papers using my eMail address.
Advocates of special relativity as it now stands have failed to take into account the numerous criticisms by experts that have been developed during the last 100 years. If one studies these carefully is becomes clear that the theory has major flaws that are not clearly and correctly accounted for. This is the cause of all the paradoxes and persistent confusion. The theory is full of mathematical errors and confused reasoning. This is the main reason for the continued arguments and the failure to understand why the theory is false.

A Novice's Quite Uninformed And Speculative MUSING, No Doubt Containing Many Errors:

For calculations under Special Relativity, it is not assumed that all frames are equivalent, but that all INERTIAL frames are equivalent.

Assuming no favored field of inertial reference, would relative speed among space travelers crossing in opposite directions cause either space traveler to perceive or experience a different rate for the passing of time than the rate perceived by the other space traveler, where each spaceship were merely in inertial orbit, without expending any of its own fuel or energy?

Suppose neither spaceship is experiencing any acceleration (other than natural acceleration at g, from being within its own inertial orbit). The traveler in each spaceship is in zero gravity. There is no change in the zero gravity of either traveler as they pass. No cell in the body of either traveler experiences any significant change in momentum in relation to either spaceship.

So, how could either traveler’s body know or experience that it were the one moving “faster,” rather than its twin --- unless there were some signal?

Such a signal may be imparted were one of the twins to expend energy, thus to experience a lurch of some kind, on account of changing momentum. However, absent an expenditure of rocket fuel, there may be no signal --- under Special Relativity.

In such a case, for either of the travelers in any way to be moving “faster” than the other, such could only be in relation to some wider, deeper, inertial system of significance, which encompasses both of their inertial systems --- such as under General Relativity.

For that, there may be a signal in respect of General Relativity, if each traveler’s inertial frame, in fact, is not equivalent. But, calculating which traveler’s inertial system may be orbiting faster in relation to a third and encompassing inertial system may require knowledge and computing skill beyond the on-board capabilities of both travelers.

Even so, each particle and cell of each traveler’s body somehow (perhaps in respect of how it were polarized or calibrated) may be signaled to “know” or experience that it, in fact, is traveling faster than the other traveler --- in relation to a deeper, necessarily favored, field of inertial reference.

Were such our situation, each traveler’s body would merely be continuing to respect how time is experienced to pass in its own inertial frame of reference (in respect of however each traveler’s “relative center of gravity” may change during such traveling).

Absent any expenditure of fuel or energy on behalf of either traveler, each traveler would continue to age at a different rate only in respect that time in each traveler’s inertial frame would be experienced as changing at a different rate.

Absent some expenditure of fuel or energy, any aging in the organization of mass of each traveler’s body must be in respect only of General Relativity, because any otherwise additional effects of Special Relativity would reciprocally cancel out.

Were fuel or energy expended, Special Relativity would become a factor. In such a case, for calculating relative time changes attributable to Special Relativity, it may be correct to assume no favored field of inertial reference.

However, such a calculation would be incomplete, insofar as it failed to account for the entire difference in rate of aging, where each traveler’s inertial orbit, in fact, did respect a significant, different, favored field of inertial reference.

Were such our case, then, to account for the entire change in relative aging, calculations would have to be added, based on General Relativity.

Special Relativity tells how to calculate relative changes in age when there are jumps in frames of inertial reference. Because Special Relativity assumes all frames of inertial reference are equivalent, it does not support a change in age rate, absent a break in such equivalence (such as were one traveler to jump an inertial frame while the other did not).

Differential aging under Special Relativity reciprocally cancels out, absent an asymmetrical expenditure of fuel or energy (such as for take-off, landing, or turnaround). Expending fuel or energy causes acceleration (such as: negative or positive acceleration, change in speed, or acceleration of acceleration).

Each acceleration effects a coordinate change in a traveler’s position within his inertial field of reference. Acceleration jumps one’s frame of inertial reference.

A skilled calculator, given sufficient data, could perhaps subsume calculations of changes in age rates under Special Relativity under a more encompassing, coordinating calculation in respect of General Relativity. (Although a traveler, by expending energy, may jump an inertial frame, he may not very well jump gravity --- except, perhaps, at very small levels of frame-dragging.)

Under an encompassing General Relativity, must it be INCORRECT TO ASSUME THERE REALLY IS NO FAVORED FIELD OF INERTIAL REFERENCE that is significant to the aging of cells for each traveler’s body (or organization of atoms for each material body) --- regardless of whether such favored field may be beyond mortal calculation?

Every change in rate of aging entails jumping of an inertial frame. Such jumping may occur upon: an accelerating expenditure of energy; a relatively long trip between inertial frames; or an invasion by another inertial frame (as by a large moon whipping near one’s planet (for example, our moon, by its orbit, ties to the pull of our tidal waters).

It may not be true to assume there is no favored inertial frame. Instead, it may be that all inertial frames are constantly, discretely, fluxing. It may be that each next, discrete flux succeeds each previous expression of a universal segment of synchronized sequencing.

Were it possible to account for universally discrete fluxing, it may be that General Relativity could be understood in a way that would render Special Relativity superfluous.

Perhaps, QM works because the entire expression of our universe is facilitated with a series of discretely expressed universal-quantum-waves, whose “Higgs Boson” is not a God-particle, but “God.” [I prefer not to presume a universal “nowness,” but I do presume a discretely expressed universal chronology.]

Perhaps, what “ages in time” is only such information as is cumulated with each body of matter, as information comes to each such body from within its inertial frame.

Although information may come and add to a body by electromagnetic radiation from outside such body’s inertial frame, such outside information is not what age’s such body. Rather, such information coming from outside serves to mark how such body has been relatively aged (or “young’d”) --- by its own inertial frame (however jumpy such frame may be).

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox :
“… during the U-turn the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the lifeline of the resting twin.”

COMMENT: During the turnaround (acceleration and deceleration), there is conflated a large amount of time, during which the more stationary twin ages. Thus, to the observation of the more traveling twin, INFORMATION IS SPED UP, CONFLATED, AND/OR LOST about the stationary twin.

***

From Tvanflandern, 9/26/04; metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPI...chTerms=Twin+Paradox :

[NOW-NESS:] “… objections are not applicable to SR (they presume the existence of a universal instant of "now" instead of frame-dependent time), see metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp at this web site.”

“For those interested in understanding nature, SR is now falsified in favor of LR, and the latter has no twin's paradox because it recognizes a preferred frame and a lack of symmetry. See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp at this web site, which was eventually published as “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).”

***

Someone tell me: Why; why not???
See

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dlanorrenrag</i>
<br />Assuming no favored field of inertial reference, would relative speed among space travelers crossing in opposite directions cause either space traveler to perceive or experience a different rate for the passing of time than the rate perceived by the other space traveler, where each spaceship were merely in inertial orbit, without expending any of its own fuel or energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No inertial frame perceives anything happening to its own clocks or time, but each frame perceives time in all other frames as no longer simultaneous. Parts moving away from us are perceived by us as existing in the past relative to our time, and parts of the same frame moving toward us are perceived as existing in the future relative to our time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">how could either traveler’s body know or experience that it were the one moving “faster,” rather than its twin --- unless there were some signal?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nobody is moving "faster". In SR, all motion is relative only. (Recall that I'm no fan of SR. But if you want to understand it, you need to learn what it is claiming.)

Twins end up different ages because each perceives the other as experiencing more time, or less time, than himself. This naturally happens because time in any other frame is not unique and not simultaneous. So someone in another frame existing in what is the future to us will appear to us to have aged more.

In the same way, objects in other frames are not really contracted. But their leading tip is experienced by us as existing at an earlier time in that frame than the object's trailing tip. So from our point of view, it looks contracted.

Unfortunately, your message is too long to comment on in detail. But perhaps these hints will get you started in the right direction. -|Tom|-

It seems to me that elapsed time would seem to slow down for an observer of a craft approaching light speed just as the sound seems to trail further behind an airplane approaching the speed of sound. The speed of sound is dependant on the medium through which it travels, but it does not limit the speed of the projectile. A propeller driven craft cannot break the sound barrier for it uses the medium of sound (air) for propulsion just as thrust/momentum engines cannot push through the barrier of light speed. Chemical burning occurs faster than sound but not faster than light. If gravity moves (its effects felt) faster than light, then a gravity engine could break the light speed barrier.

Regardless of whether you believe in SR, you need to realize that the so-called "twins paradox" was Einstein's idea of a joke. You can't make a round trip without accelerating, therefore you can't apply SR to a round-trip problem. I wasn't there when he told this joke at the end of a lecture, but I can imagine that the one or two people who were paying attention had a good laugh. The rest still haven't discovered that ol' Uncle Al had a sense of humor.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />You can't make a round trip without accelerating, therefore you can't apply SR to a round-trip problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The formal way to apply SR to cases with acceleration is through Lorentz boosts -- essentially tiny velocity steps condensed into a short time span.

The experimental way is to recognize cyclotron results showing that acceleration has no effect on clocks or aging, even at levels as high as 10^19 g (where g is the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, 10 m/s/s).

The logical way to deal with acceleration is to eliminate it. Another twin approaching from the opposite direction can replace the traveling twin as they pass and compare ages, then complete the journey back to Earth instead of the traveler. That way, nobody ever accelerates.

But to really understand the SR message and why acceleration has nothing to do with resolving the twins paradox, see our article on this web site: metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp -|Tom|-