And with rockets going at multiples of walking speed. No need to drag c into the mess

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Change your experiment. Just before launch, give each of the twins in the rockets an injection that will keep them knocked out for 1 minute. When they wake up they're in a rocket.

Yes, this is fine as I said I didn't care if you use BT/acceleration or 'instant inertial speed' to get to non-accelerated motion.

Each individual twin in his individual rocket can consider his rocket to be at rest, and look out the window and see 9 moving rockets and one moving planet. Each twin in the rocket will see the planet moving away with a different speed.

Yes, this is what you are taught. The Focus has always been on 'turn around time' and time dilation and the ages of the twins compared to one another and ALL the Maths that go into determining that!!!

BUT, for that to be "real", the 'assumption' that either observer can be considered to be 'at rest' or 'in motion' MUST be 'real' also!

So explain how ALL the 'Earth Rest Frame" observers, constantly verifying that the Earth is traveling the same speed it always has going around our Sun, and our Earth/Sun going around the Milky Way, that earths speed is "Suddenly Altered" to travel at ALL those different speeds that those "At Rest" Rocket observers "Supposedly Think" they are seeing...

Me thinks that ALL those Rocket observers are seeing "Invisible Pink Monkeys"

If ANY traveling Rocket Observer is NOT observing 'Confirmation' that the Earth is traveling around the Sun at it's normal speed, THEN traveing Rocket observers cannot see "Reality"......period!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Nothing is "suddenly altered". Just the inertial frame of reference has changed. Do you know what an inertial frame of reference is? Don't you see that there is no privileged inertial frame of reference??

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

What turn around time? What time dilation? What comparing? This is the first time you mention them in this thread.

Again? The word "speed" can only make sense if you choose something to measure it against. Usually in every day life, driving, flying, walking, we choose to use the Earth to measure our speeds against. But there is no law that we must use the Earth to measure against (in other words, use it as a reference).

The rocket pilots all see different speeds for Earth, but they must say what that speed is measured against, what they use as reference. In their case, each pilot will use his rocket to measure against. But since every pilot measures against his own rocket, their measurements will not be the same.

"The" speed of the Earth has not changed, only the speed of the earth as measured against a different, from the Earth's POV moving, point of reference. And that speed only makes sense if you know that it's measured from that point's POV. From the Earth POV the Earth is still stationary. Using the common reference for speed that we usually do.

I know we can explain this again and again until protons decay if you simply keep denying. And even in those rare situations where it is almost possible that one or other explanation might have a slight chance of working, you change the scenario in a significant way. Go back to the start of the thread and start answering every question, one by one. Maybe, just maybe, one of them might trigger understanding.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

I am reminded of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object....

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

RussT and MDT-1 should get together. They can spend an evening debating why no one else can see the obvious truth.

Doesn't matter what you think, you need to answer the challenges. Please do so.

The Earth's velocity isn't changed (apart from rotating around its axis, revolving around the sun and the sun revolving around the galaxy's center, but we're ignoring those effects at the moment), no one's claiming it has.
What we're saying is that people in rockets at different speeds, looking back, will see the earth receding at different rates.

Have you actually ever been in a car or a train, while it was moving?
And looked out the window?
And seen how things look like they move from in front of you to behind you?
And how they look like they're moving at different speeds depending on how fast the train/car is moving?

That looking like it's moving when you feel you don't is the relative velocity we're talking about, and there's no contradiction anywhere in having it look like it's moving at different velocities when the person looking is moving at different velocities relative to what he's looking at.

This has nothing to do with Special Relativity, it's just plain Newtonian Mechanics.

BTW, note that you have never experienced an inertial frame, since it requires no acceleration/gravity and no rotation. Standing on the ground you have gravity so it isn't an inertial frame.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Until we get some sort of common understanding about what relative velocity is the rest of the challenges are meaningless since they require a common language to answer in a way that is meaningful for all involved and we currently don't have that.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Ah. I remebered this, finally:

And a person watching the ship sail by when the ball is dropped will see it fall in an arc.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Can't we just merge this thread with MDT-1's thread on velocity.

The same misconception about relative velocity seems to be discussed.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I'm not sure they are the same. I think MDT-1 understands the idea of relative velocity. But [s]he clings the the idea of an absolute velocity and so can't accept any conclusions of SR.

I'm not quite sure what RussT doesn't get...

RussT misconceptions about cosmology, twin paradox, etc have very little to do with his basic misunderstandings about what relative speed is. Both of us explained relative speed vs. separation speed to him long ago in this thread. You made a very nice table. To no avail.

This mix of misconceptions would be explosive

RussT,
Consider the following. I am in a car of a train. The doors are closed. I am just standing there. Now I run towards the door at the back of the carriage, building up to a speed of 10 km/h relative to my original position in the carriage. Just before I hit the door, someone flings it open and I rush through it. Once through, however, I find myself falling vertically relative to the outside world and land at rest relative to the outside world. I turn and see the train moving away from me at 10 km/h.

What is at rest? What is moving? Isn't it arbitrary?

I still think the misunderstanding is an honest one and it's specific enough that it may be alleviated, at which point the thread will have served one of the actual purposes of ATM, which is education.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Exactly. All speeds are measured relative to something else, it is the only way in which the whole concept of speed has any meaning at all.

Observers in the rockets do see the earth still orbiting the sun, but now this whole earth/sun system is moving relative to them.

One way of looking at it, is that an inertial frame is one in which physics is really easy, because you don't have to add a lot of strange terms to explain what things are doing.

If you take a ball and hold it up in front of you, it'll stay there until you give it a push, when you do it'll keep going in a straight line until it hits a wall. Simple, easy to explain. No Acceleration. No Gravity.

It you take two balls, hold them up in front of you and let go, they'll stay there and not move around each other. No Rotation.

When you're there, the simplest way to write your physical description of the world is by saying you're at rest, everything else is measured from your point of view.

This description is true for any inertial frame no matter how their speed is compared to each other.


For millennia physicist assumed one of these frames where privileged by being really at rest in the universe because that's common sense, and tried very hard to figure out how to determine how fast we're really going in terms of that frame.
Long story short, they've all failed to find any way to measure an absolute velocity, but on the way to that failure a couple of things were realized through measurements that have results that are not common sense at all, but the sign of a true physicist is that if measurements contradict his idea about how the world works he doesn't assume something's wrong with the world but rather with his idea.

One of those things measured is that the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame, regardless of how it's moving. This is not something assumed or believed, this is something measured to the most exacting precision anyone's been able to measure it.
Showing this to be wrong, with an experiment that others can repeat and get the same result from, is an instant Nobel prize and a pedestal next to, and slightly higher than, Einstein's and is something many people have spent a lot of time trying and failing to do.

Special Relativity is what you get when you start with this information and try to find the consequences about how things look for different people.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

This 'may' be considered A-okay in the orginal SR where Einstein started with an "Empty Universe", so when the 'other observer' was suddenly considered to be 'at rest', there was no 'mass/gravity' to consider/be pulled against....BUT...

And that itty bitty Rocket, regardless of it's speed away from the earth does NOT have the power/ability/force to 'physically alter' the earths speed(s) through space, since those are ultimately controlled by the earth/sun rotational speed and the Sun/Milky Way rotational speed, and the Local Groups speed toward the Virgo Cluster and the Virgo Clusters speed toward the Great Attractor.

SO, that is NOT a valid reference frame from which to see any "Reality" when you suddenly 'stop' that traveling Rocket and then try to say what that "Observer" is seeing.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

One of those things measured is that the speed of light is constant in any inertial frame

The only thing I will say about this for now is...

Einstein's orginal for this is...The Speed of Light is Constant "c" at *186,282.397 mps "In Vacua"


* I choose to use this for the same reason I choose to use 1000 million = 1 billion rather than 1 million million = 1 billion

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

If I go bald early, it's your fault! I say: "the" speed has not changed. You say (paraphrased): But you CAN'T change "the" speed!

I give up. For now. Maybe.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

And then Northern Boy switches from just earth moving and says...



That relavistic Rocket just got "Stronger" and instead of just 'lifting' the stay at home twin off the planet, OR moving the Earth, is now taking the whole solar system with it...

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

RussT, HenrikOlsen just gave you a very good pointer as to whats wrong in this picture. I'm pretty sure I have the answer to this since it fits with what I've been hypothesizing all along, that lights frequencies are the key to understanding...

But not sure yet on an experiment to prove it. I dont know why or if I should but I'm going to see if I can put you on the right track...

Why SR is wrong....
The problem goes back to pre Einsteins SR and Poncare's theory of true and local times. His ideas proposed a true time frame of reference and an apparent time for moving observers.

There were also compatibility problems in that Newtonian Galilean Transformation was (invariant) and Maxwells Electromagnetism was (not invariant).

SO ....However it wasnt until a last minute attempt at salvaging the Aether theory by the team of Lorentz-Fitzgerald and their contraction hypothesis that I believe the true nature was revealed. And that is that its a "LUMINIFEROUS AETHER" and that everything is affected by travel through the aether.

One more attempt at salvaging was Fizeau's 1851 confirmation of Fresnels predictions that " A medium with a refraction index n moving with a velocity v would INCREASE THE SPEED OF LIGHT traveling through the medium in the same direction. According to SNELLS LAW Movement adds a fraction of the velocity to the light. Dragging the Aether along with a portion of the mediums velocity.

c
n +(1-1
n (squared) v. ( I dont know how to use scientific characters on my keyboard..

However this was also discarded in error because it proposed that there was a SEPARATE AETHER FOR EACH OF LIGHTS FREQUENCIES. which is what I believe is exactly the case?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

This bolded part is the entire key to this whole thing!!!!!

And makes this part....no one's claiming it has absolutely "False".

You can't "Ignore it" at all... ever....other wise you are just still in Einstein's "SR Empty Universe"

And then, in the very next line he says...

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

You definitely shouldn't have...

local time and lightspeed variance connection.

There is NO light speed "variance"!!! In Vacua!!!

I am covering only a few issues here! If I would have wanted to post about all that other stuff, I would have!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I cant figure it out either, why its not as obvious to others as it is to us?.. The problem is I'm afraid the MANY competing theories that have been taught to be the truth, whether they are or aren't. Its like if you can invent an equation that ties on to an existing theory and get a valid sum it must be right? I dont want to make too much of an ATM statement out of it but I think a lot of wrong turns have been made, and its going to be really hard to rethink a lot of it. About the only way I see to actually prove the theory is an experiment that overturns or at least modifies one or more of the incorrect theories? Like this one, or proving Hoyle was right etc..? One good bit of advice I got was that you dont get to start off changing everything but rather change one thing first, then it helps to prove the next one. Check out what I'm saying about a LUMINIFEROUS AETHER and look at the history from Poincar'e!! Prior to Einsteins SR. Thats I think another wrong turn?

Pardon my interruption.... I'll keep my big mouth shut..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Of course the rocket does not change physically alter the earth's speed through space. The travelling rocket is not stopped. From the point of view of the twin on the rocket, a non-accelerating rocket seems to be standing still. This is the definition of an intertial frame of reference. The observer on the rocket observes the earth in respect to his/her inertial frame of reference.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

The speed of light in a vacuum is such because there are no collisions with other particles, slowing it down.
Whether you move toward the light source or away from it, it always is c.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

And using slangs example of 'sleeping' and travel time of 1 minute, how many galaxy clusters is the twin that took off at .99999999999999c 'causing' to move, relative to him, when he is 'suddenly' "At Rest"???

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!