Recent content by rqr

JeeseM, One problem is that your math analysis was based entirely on Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, a definition which did not yet exist in my given proposal for absolute synchronization. Additionally, all of Einstein's values are incorrect; e.g., in his time...

Jeese, Jesse, youse guys are making this much too complicated! ;-) The rod is merely given a wee little starting shove at the start of its wee little journey toward the clocks, and after this wee little acceleration period, it continues to travel inertially forever and ever, amen...

2 JesseM: I am not really worried about other frames' opinions or views. All I am worried about here is whether or not the sliding rod will absolutely synchronize clocks in the single given frame. What do you say? YES _______ or NO_______ Thanks! (And please remember...

Note: My reply's (3) relatively brief sections are in order of increasing importance (to me) quoting JesseM: "Yes it would be, because each frame would have a different numerical value for v (which is presumably their velocity relative to a preferred frame whose SR definition of...

2 jessem JesseM concluded his analogy with the following: "... I'd say there's no single true answer to the question of which twin is accumulating proper time faster (or 'aging faster') before they reunite at a single point in space." Absolutely synchronous clocks could tell us the truth...

JesseM, you misread the cited site. It said that only speed affects clock rates, not accelerations. This is readily apparent from the following single sentence from the cite: "(The clock rate won't be affected by circular motion at constant speed.)" (This is constant acceleration...

Primary Goals of Thread: (1) Eliminate all unnecessary concepts (2) Focus solely on the physics Tom and Bill are floating in space (that is, they are moving inertially). Let Bill meet Tom as they pass each other. They notice that they are both about the same age. After Bill and Tom...

2 jessem Quote: [JesseM wrote:] >But you are assuming that one or the other must >be correct. Four-dimensionalism would say this >is a false assumption--don't you understand that? >You're free to disagree with four-dimensionalism, >but this is a philosophical belief, and you admit...

Originally Posted by rqr >>There can be no x, t, and v. No clocks, remember? >>You cannot use any math, including any that contains >>the standard variables x, t, and v. Originally Posted by JesseM: >This is a truly bizarre argument-- Not for a test of special relativity theory...

to JesseM once more Quoting JesseM re the Three-people case: >There is no "objective differential aging" here because any claims >about aging depend on your choice of simultaneity, which is totally >arbitrary. No, there is no "choice of simultaneity" involved. There are only these two...

to JesseM I repeat my prior question: In other words, the objective age difference that you agreed to (by having a turnaround twin) _cannot_ be explained by acceleration, so how would you explain it? Your reply relied on coordinate systems, but there are none in the given experiment...

(to JesseM again)

(to JesseM again) JesseM, experiment disagrees with your claim that there's no objective differential aging. For example, take a look at the following "pro-SR" web site: http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm (This site is based on experimental results of course.) At the very...