Twins Paradox Paper

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />There is no such thing as time slippage. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Back to basics for some conceptual reality:
The faster you go, the slower time moves and the more massive you become to the observer at your point of departure.

If you were on a craft departing back at Earth and accelerating towards the speed of light you would observe the reverse. Earth, the solar system and galaxy would appear increasingly smaller and spin ever faster.

As this occurs you and all in your craft appear as normal. Your watch runs at normal time, however one second on your watch may take 1000 years to pass on Earth!

BTW, you can't reach the speed of light. Not because it's impossible, but because something else happens before you get there..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Lotto Cheatah</i>
[brBTW, you can't reach the speed of light. Not because it's impossible, but because something else happens before you get there..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Before one can understand the "something else", one needs a base understanding of the structure of time.

Cheatah's Law: "All that exists is either a sphere or a multiple of sphere's". Time exists, so this includes time.

We can conceptually disect a sphere; take a thin-section, so-to-speak. When we do so we find we have a circle.

Webster says (smart man, that Webster!) that a circle ends where it begins, and so it is with time.

Concept established. Back to the accelerating craft. A consequence of gaining mass via acceleration is that you also gain gravity. You can't reach the speed of light because at that point your mass (and gravity) would be infinite!

At a point prior to reaching the speed of light you would vanish into a black hole of your own making [relative to the observer's viewpoint]. At the same instant you pass through that spot in Webster's circle where the end and beginning of time meet.

For those wanting to explore this scenario further, bear in mind that
1. you are still relativisticly tethered to your depart point in a much older universe, and
2. The universe here is much smaller; more compact and the force of gravity is stronger. Time moves much slower here. Because of this your speed is &gt;c.

I am sorry that there is no such thing as time slippage. This is not in any textbooks I am aware of. Also since there is no distant simultaniety there can not be time slippage because there is no criterion whereby the concept can be established. This seems to be a made up concept that exists to justify the obscure explaination that is used to make ti seem that the concept is valid physics. So until it can be defined physically, it is not a physically phenomenon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />I am sorry that there is no such thing as time slippage. This is not in any textbooks I am aware of. Also since there is no distant simultaniety there can not be time slippage because there is no criterion whereby the concept can be established. This seems to be a made up concept that exists to justify the obscure explaination that is used to make ti seem that the concept is valid physics. So until it can be defined physically, it is not a physically phenomenon.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Time slippage" is my name (not from the literature) for the second term in the Lorentz time transformation, vx/c^2. The name accurately describes its physical function, which is to cause time everywhere in a moving frame viewed by a fixed observer to be different (past, present, future).

I am surprised you are not able to look at the argument in my paper and see this function. Just substitute observer time = 0 in the Lorentz time equation, and you instantly see that "other-frame-time" is a function of x, and is negative in one direction and positive in the other, to infinity. And that is all at a single instant of time in our frame.

If you don't see that at a glance, try to say why. OTOH, if you do, then you must appreciate that your anti-SR arguments are based on rejecting that aspect of SR.

Even if they do not use the words "time slippage", every knowledgable relativist recognizes that "there is no remote simultaneity" in SR. So although we now have good reason for rejecting SR on experimental grounds, any claimed logical paradoxes are easily resolved at the math level by time slippage and the asynchronicity of time when looking into another frame. These paradoxes were never resolvable at the physical level because, among other problems, they defy the causality principle. But the theory is nonetheless <i>internally</i> consistent. -|Tom|-

Sure, if I assumed an apple is also a muffin then a theory
arguing that an apple is an apple is a muffin is an apple is
internally consistent.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Sure, if I assumed an apple is also a muffin then a theory
arguing that an apple is an apple is a muffin is an apple is
internally consistent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At last, you are beginning to understand! [] -|Tom|-