# Confused in basic SR

JesseM
Jesse - what do you think of this:

An observer A, travelling into space in a rocketship, accelerates during a period T1 until he attains a speed v relative to the frame G of the fixed stars. He then falls freely towards some distant celestial object, where he reverses his motion during a period T2, and returns freely to earth with the same speed as before. Finally he decelerates during a period T3 and lands. If for example v = square root of 3 times c over 2, A's clocks will have gone at half-rate compared with those of G during his free motion.
I'd say the person writing the quote is working from within G's rest frame, which is certainly the most natural frame to use when analyzing this sort of the problem, although this should have been stated more clearly.
yogi said:
Jesse from your post 46: "He doesn't see that, what he sees is explained on the doppler shift explanation of the twin paradox page."

Yes he does if you draw the lines of simultaneity
They aren't "the" lines of simultaneity, they are just what you get if you stitch together the lines of simultaneity from two different inertial frames, as I said in my last post. But this doesn't uniquely define the "perspective" of the accelerating twin--in basic SR you're only allowed to use purely inertial frames, and once you bring in non-inertial coordinate systems you're free to use any smooth coordinate sytem you want, you could draw the lines of simultaneity as wavy lines and it'd be just as valid.
yogi said:
Actually, I don't think it is available for free on line, but there are several almost complete excerpts.
yogi said:
A primary theory would be SR or the 2nd law oif thermodynamics, a constructive theory would be created by adding up all kinetic energies of the individual motions of the molecules to reach the same conclusion, or in the case of relativity, to account for the time dilations during each acceleration taking into account the distance between the two clocks
I don't understand what you mean by "taking into account the distance between the two clocks". Does this notion of primary vs. constructive come from Einstein's paper? Are you claiming that Einstein says there is some objective truth about which of two distant clocks is ticking faster? If so I really don't believe that, I'd need to see some quotes where you think he suggests this.
yogi said:
Jesse - more on my comment in post 48 from Wikipedia see last line:
Again, the wikipedia quote is just saying what happens if you stitch together his inertial rest frame before the acceleration and his inertial rest frame afterwards. But there isn't really any justification in SR or GR for saying this uniquely defines the "perspective" of an accelerating observer.

Jesse from post 51: They aren't "the" lines of simultaneity, they are just what you get if you stitch together the lines of simultaneity from two different inertial frames, as I said in my last post. But this doesn't uniquely define the "perspective" of the accelerating twin--in basic SR you're only allowed to use purely inertial frames, and once you bring in non-inertial coordinate systems you're free to use any smooth coordinate sytem you want, you could draw the lines of simultaneity as wavy lines and it'd be just as valid.

What I was referring to was the last line of post #50 - the turn around twin perceives a big jump in the time on the clock of the stay at home twin - and as I said, that type of analysis gets the right answer, but it skirts the issue of what is taking place at all times in the frames of the two clocks.

Let us go back to post 47 - you agree with that I think. So in the last line, it states that A's clock will have gone at half rate compared to B's during the free motion. Are you also saying that if we attach a coordinte system (frame ) to B, then by B's reckoning A's clock is going at half rate during the coasting periods?

Last edited:
JesseM
What I was referring to was the last line of post #50 - the turn around twin perceives a big jump in the time on the clock of the stay at home twin
But as I said, this is not the single correct way to define the traveling twin's "perspective", it's just one choice of non-inertial coordinate systems in which the traveling twin is at rest (one obtained by stitching together two inertial coordinate systems), you're free to pick any number of others, including ones where there is no such "jump", or where the Earth-clock ticks slowly for almost the entire trip but super-fast for the last minute before the traveling twin arrives at Earth.
yogi said:
Let us go back to post 47 - you agree with that I think.
What I said was that it is an accurate description of what happens in G's inertial rest frame (G was the one who moved inertially, A was the one who moved away and then turned around to rejoin G). But I also said I thought the author was being a bit sloppy by not specifying which frame was being used, even if G's frame is the most "natural" one to use in that scenario. (But I suppose the quote could also just be interpreted to mean that the total time elapsed on A's clock between the time of departing a G-clock and reuniting with it would be half the time elapsed on the G-clock, in which case we wouldn't have to worry about the perspective of different frames at all since they all agree on this).
yogi said:
So in the last line, it states that A's clock will have gone at half rate compared to B's during the free motion. Are you also saying that if we attach a coordinte system (frame ) to B, then by B's reckoning A's clock is going at half rate during the coasting periods?
By B do you mean G? Again, I think the quote was already speaking from the perspective of G's inertial rest frame.

Last edited:
Yes - I meant G - G is the inertial frame of the earth and fixed stars that this persons uses - we can put a clock B at rest in G and it stays put.

Now let us focus on the first part of the trip - A accelerates relative to G to velocity v, and coasts. What do you think of the last line - is the A clock running at half speed as reckoned by B during the coasting phase?

PS - Jesse. I thought I had copied the Wikipedia article about the Einstein 1918 paper in a post - but somehow it didn't show up - anyway, it is a decent summary of the paper from the standpoint of the accelerating twin.

JesseM
Now let us focus on the first part of the trip - A accelerates relative to G to velocity v, and coasts. What do you think of the last line - is the A clock running at half speed as reckoned by B during the coasting phase?
Like I said, I think it's correct if it refers to how things work in G's inertial rest frame, or if it refers to the total time elapsed on A's clock between the time it departs from a clock at rest in G and the time it reunites with it. But there is no frame-independent sense in which we can say that A's clock was running at half the rate of G's during a particular phase of the trip, like the outbound leg.
yogi said:
PS - Jesse. I thought I had copied the Wikipedia article about the Einstein 1918 paper in a post - but somehow it didn't show up - anyway, it is a decent summary of the paper from the standpoint of the accelerating twin.
What's the title of the wikipedia article?

Like I said, I think it's correct if it refers to how things work in G's inertial rest frame, or if it refers to the total time elapsed on A's clock between the time it departs from a clock at rest in G and the time it reunites with it. But there is no frame-independent sense in which we can say that A's clock was running at half the rate of G's during a particular phase of the trip, like the outbound leg.

Well, there may be no frame independent sense - and there are always sync issues that will be different as to the start and stop components that define a spacetime interval as viewed from relatively moving inertial frames - but the interval (the spacetime distance between the end of the acceleration and turn around point) will be the same in the G frame and the frame attached to A. From G's point of view, the B clock interval is entirely temporal, whereas from G's point of view the A clock interval is a combination of spatial and temporal components. Now, if we attach a coordinate system to A, and measure the same interval in the A frame and G frame, I think you are saying there is no difference as to what A would measure from A's frame and what G measured from G's frame since we cannot tell which frame is in motion. Ergo, there is no reason to believe the A clock will have accumulated less time when it begins its turn around

At least I think that is what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong - actually I don't think I need to tell you that.

Last edited:
#52...
What I was referring to was the last line of post #50 - the turn around twin perceives a big jump in the time on the clock of the stay at home twin - and as I said, that type of analysis gets the right answer, but it skirts the issue of what is taking place at all times in the frames of the two clocks.

The answer could be that the stay at home twin was in the preferred rf, so the outward-bound twin’s clock runs slow all the time it's moving. Then at turn around the moving twin’s clock would continue to run slow and there wouldn’t be a big jump in the time on the clock of the stay at home twin.

PS: SR doesn't allow for a preferred rf, but it doesn't prove it cannot exist.

JesseM
JesseM said:
But there is no frame-independent sense in which we can say that A's clock was running at half the rate of G's during a particular phase of the trip, like the outbound leg.
Well, there may be no frame independent sense
If there's no frame-independent sense in which one clock is running slower than the other, and if at any given moment there are equally valid frames where A's clock is running slower than G's and frames where G's clock is running slower than A's, then what are we debating here exactly? I was just trying to debate your statement that two clocks cannot each be running slower than the other, that there must be an actual physical truth about which was "really" running slower at a given moment.
yogi said:
From G's point of view, the B clock interval is entirely temporal, whereas from G's point of view the A clock interval is a combination of spatial and temporal components.
I guess B is a clock at rest in G's frame? If so, I agree.
yogi said:
Now, if we attach a coordinate system to A, and measure the same interval in the A frame and G frame, I think you are saying there is no difference as to what A would measure from A's frame and what G measured from G's frame since we cannot tell which frame is in motion. Ergo, there is no reason to believe the A clock will have accumulated less time when it begins its turn around
I don't remember saying anything remotely like that--what specific quote gave you this impression? All I've been saying is that you can come up with equally valid coordinate systems where at any given moment, or doing any particular phase of the trip (like the outbound leg), one frame says clock A was running slower and another frame says clock B was running slower. But of course all frames will agree on the total elapsed time on each clock between A and B leaving each other and A and B reuniting (specifically, they'll all agree that A shows less elapsed time), because these are physical events and all frames make the same physical predictions!

Jesse -Then I still don't know what you are saying. When I claim that the two clocks will have accumulated different amounts of time during the one way trip, and that bringing the two clocks to rest (not together, but simply brought to rest) in the G frame, you say something else - like post 56.

Wisp - yes, I agree. It is hard to get from the notion of equivalent inertial frames to Einstein's claim in his 1905 paper of real age difference. In order for their to be a real age difference, there must be an asymmetry. The only difference between the clock frames in the one way trip is the initial acceleration - but it still leaves the physics unanswered. Rindler takes the view that the initial acceleration (In the scenereo described in post 47) produces an asymmetry because the accelerated twin has been put into a frame where he is already half way to his destination due to length contraction, and therefore the A clock he carries with him will only accumulate 1/2 as much time as the clocks in the G frame during the interval. This comports with the formulas and so the numbers come our right, but ...

JesseM
Jesse -Then I still don't know what you are saying. When I claim that the two clocks will have accumulated different amounts of time during the one way trip, and that bringing the two clocks to rest (not together, but simply brought to rest) in the G frame, you say something else - like post 56.
Yes, if you don't actually bring them together you can't say which clock accumulated more time. But I understood the quote about the G frame to be a standard twin-paradox-type situation where a clock moved away from another clock on Earth and then returned to it, not just came to rest relative to it at a distance from it:
An observer A, travelling into space in a rocketship, accelerates during a period T1 until he attains a speed v relative to the frame G of the fixed stars. He then falls freely towards some distant celestial object, where he reverses his motion during a period T2, and returns freely to earth with the same speed as before. Finally he decelerates during a period T3 and lands. If for example v = square root of 3 times c over 2, A's clocks will have gone at half-rate compared with those of G during his free motion.
Did you interpret this quote differently?
yogi said:
Rindler takes the view that the initial acceleration (In the scenereo described in post 47) produces an asymmetry because the accelerated twin has been put into a frame where he is already half way to his destination due to length contraction, and therefore the A clock he carries with him will only accumulate 1/2 as much time as the clocks in the G frame during the interval.
I don't trust your paraphrases of other people's positions--can you give the full quote where you think Rindler is saying this?

Jesse - Special Relativity by Rindler at page 31: "How is it that a large asymmetric effect can arise, and moreover, one that is proportional to the symmetric portions of the motion? The reason is, that accelerations, however brief, have immediate and finite effects on A but not B. During the period T1, for example, A finds he has accomplished more than half the outward journey! For he has transferred himself to a frame in which the distance between the earth and his object is halved (length contraction) and this halving is real to him in every possible sense. Thus he accomplishes his outward trip in about half the time B ascribes to it, and the same applies to his return trip."

The situation quoted in your post 62 which you quoted from my earlier post is a direct quote out of Rindler at page 30. I will convey to Wolfgang your critique of his misconceptions about special relativity

Last edited:
JesseM
Jesse - Special Relativity by Rindler at page 31: "How is it that a large asymmetric effect can arise, and moreover, one that is proportional to the symmetric portions of the motion? The reason is, that accelerations, however brief, have immediate and finite effects on A but not B. During the period T1, for example, A finds he has accomplished more than half the outward journey! For he has transferred himself to a frame in which the distance between the earth and his object is halved (length contraction) and this halving is real to him in every possible sense. Thus he accomplishes his outward trip in about half the time B ascribes to it, and the same applies to his return trip."

The situation quoted in your post 62 which you quoted from my earlier post is a direct quote out of Rindler at page 30. I will convey to Wolfgang your critique of his misconceptions about special relativity
I didn't say there were any misconceptions in the quote, just in your interpretation in it. For example, the quote you post above doesn't say what you claimed it did. In particular, it doesn't say anything about it making sense to say that one clock is accumulating time more slowly than the other in an absolute sense while they are separated. It just says that when A accelerates to a large speed relative to the Earth, then in his new inertial rest frame the distance to the object is much shorter than it was in the Earth's frame, and that this explains why in this frame (not in any universal frame-independent sense) the time for the ship to get from the Earth to the destination is half the time between these events as measured in the Earth's frame. This is essentially the exact same point I was making about the explanation for how a high speed pion makes it to the Earth's surface in the pion's own rest frame back in post #28!

Last edited:
In my post 61, I stated that Rindler analysed the situation by treating the accelerated twin as being put into a frame where he is already halfway to his destination - you didn't believe that - so I copied the whole paragraph which states that A finds he is already halfway to his objective ..so he accomplishes his outward journey in about half the time B ascribed to it.

These are exactly the same thing - you challenged the correctness of my statement in your post 62 and I substantiated it - so then you go back to some other post and try to incorporate it into what is at issue - but all that is in issue in your post 62 and my post 63 is Rindler's analysis. You did not believe he said what I paraphrased and you were wrong. If you want to talk about extending or embellishing upon how the differences can be viewed or delve into or other ways of viewing the matter - fine - that is another subject. You have the math down, but you have a very limited perspective. There are many ways of arriving at the age differences - but if you were to accept Rindler's analysis, then you would have to reject Lederman's, Sciama's and Born's because they are not mutually consistent. When I hear many times over again the "rightness" of special relativity, I always wonder "which version of relativity is the right one" Sort of like going to church to get saved - but which church? One says "there ain't no hell, and the other says "the hell there ain't.

JesseM
In my post 61, I stated that Rindler analysed the situation by treating the accelerated twin as being put into a frame where he is already halfway to his destination - you didn't believe that
The part I didn't believe in your paraphrase was the part in bold:
Rindler takes the view that the initial acceleration (In the scenereo described in post 47) produces an asymmetry because the accelerated twin has been put into a frame where he is already half way to his destination due to length contraction, and therefore the A clock he carries with him will only accumulate 1/2 as much time as the clocks in the G frame during the interval.
I thought you were saying the A clock would only accumulate half as much time in some objective, frame-independent sense. All Rindler is saying is that in the A frame, the time between the event of the ship leaving Earth and the event of the ship reaching its destination far away is half the time between the same two events in the G frame. But this doesn't actually mean the A clock is objectively ticking faster, because the A frame and the G frame disagree about what time on the Earth-clock is simultaneous with the time of the ship reaching its destination. If the ship left when both its clock and the Earth's clock read 2000, and when the ship arrived at its destination its own clock read 2010, then in the G frame the event of the ship reaching its destination is simultaneous with the Earth clock reading 2020 (the Earth's clock accumulated twice the time of the ship's clock in this frame), while in the A frame the event of the ship reaching its destination is simultaneous with the Earth clock reading 2005 (the Earth's clock accumulated half the time of the ship's clock in this frame). Nothing in Rindler's quote suggests he means that the ship's clock accumulated less time than the Earth's clock in any frame-independent sense, he was just talking about the time between the events of the ship leaving Earth and arriving at its destination in the A frame vs. the G frame.

So, once again, if our basic disagreement is over the question of whether there is any objective truth about which of two separated clocks is ticking faster, this Rindler quote doesn't help your case. You won't find any quotes from mainstream scientists that do, because it's an utterly clear-cut issue that there cannot be such an objective truth in relativity.
yogi said:
These are exactly the same thing - you challenged the correctness of my statement in your post 62 and I substantiated it - so then you go back to some other post and try to incorporate it into what is at issue
Are you referring to the part in post 62 where I referenced a Rindler quote that was apparently not the one you had intended to refer to in your response to Wisp in post 61? I'm not a mind reader, you had posted a number of different quotes by Rindler on this thread, and the most recent Rindler quote you had posted before my post 62 was in your post 47, which was about a twin paradox type situation where the twin actually returned to Earth, so I had assumed that from then on we were discussing that quote.
yogi said:
You did not believe he said what I paraphrased and you were wrong.
Your paraphrase was ambiguous, but if you did intend to suggest that Rindler was arguing for an objective frame-independent truth about whether the ship's clock or the Earth's clock was ticking faster, then I was right not to believe you, there is nothing in Rindler's quote that would suggest he meant to overturn basic concepts of relativity in that way. If you didn't mean this implication, but just meant that Rindler was saying that the time between the events of leaving Earth and arriving at the distant destination in the A frame is half the time between the same two events in the G frame, then I agree he was saying that, but since the heart of our debate is the issue of whether there is any frame-independent sense in which one separated clock is ticking faster than another, it's important that you not be ambiguous about the difference between these two statements in your paraphrases!
yogi said:
but if you were to accept Rindler's analysis, then you would have to reject Lederman's, Sciama's and Born's because they are not mutually consistent.
Once again, I don't believe you for a second. Please provide quotes from these people, and I'm sure we'll find that they all reach the same physical conclusions, and that the only differences in their analyses are coordinate-dependent ones, which all mainstream physicists agree have no ultimate physical significance.
yogi said:
When I hear many times over again the "rightness" of special relativity, I always wonder "which version of relativity is the right one"
Only because you apparently don't understand the very basic difference between coordinate-dependent statements and physical statements. There are no different "versions" of relativity that disagree on physical issues, they only analyze problems using different types of coordinate systems which give different answers about simultaneity and the relative rate that separated clocks are ticking, but no one aside from crackpots thinks there must be any "real" truth about these coordinate-dependent matters.

Last edited:
Jesse - your post 66: "So, once again, our basic disagreement is over the question of whether there is any objective truth about which of two separated clocks is ticking faster"

No - our basic difference is how clocks in relativly moving equivalent inertial frames can wind up with different amounts of logged time when they are compared after being brought to rest at different locations in the same frame. You deny the reality of age differnce produced by one way travel - claiming they must be brought together as in the classic twin scenereo with the traveling twin returning to his start point. Since you don't see age difference in the one way excursion as a reality, you don't see it as a mystery.

If there is no mystery, you naturally have little patience with the thousands of persons that have pondered the problem and proposed various explanations because they were unsatisfied with the traditional views.

If you want to read the views of Born, Sciama, and Lederman, you can expand your library. Their views are based primarily upon Einstein's 1918 paper. It doesn't do any good to take the time to look up and type quotes from these sources as you have a twisted way of interpreting plain language. I do not say their views are right - I do say they are inconsistent with the analysis of other well known writers. Nor would I say Rindler's approach is satisfying, nor Wheeler's, nor have I ever intended to say as you imply that time runs different in different frames - although I would not exclude that as a possibility. Nor can I conclude that, in the future, all inertial frames will be found to be equivalent, or eliminate the possibility that the earths gravitational field may play a part in biasing measurements made to determine the constancy of one way light speed. In summary, before I condemn all other suggestions as crank or crackpot, I would prefer to await the outcome of experiments that prove them faulty. We all agree that SR has had many successes - but it is not interpreted consistently. That is why it is an interesting topic for discussion.

One more point - When I say I do not exclude something, I do not mean to convey it is likely - only that it should be considered a remote possibility until discredited by solid experimental evidence.

Last edited:
You deny the reality of age differnce produced by one way travel - claiming they must be brought together as in the classic twin scenereo with the traveling twin returning to his start point. Since you don't see age difference in the one way excursion as a reality, you don't see it as a mystery.
It is very easy to demonstrate one-way age differences:

Spacestation A and B are a fixed distance away from each other. A sends two clocks at the same time to B with each a different relativistic speed. After both clocks have arrived, B can easily verify that the clock that arrived first is showing an earlier time than the other clock.

Last edited:
JesseM
Spacestation A and B are a fixed distance away from each other. A sends two clocks at the same time to B with each a different relativistic speed. After both clocks have arrived, B can easily verify that the clock that arrived first is showing an earlier time than the other clock.
If the first clock actually comes to rest with respect to B, then when the second clock arrives it will actually be at the same location as the first, and this becomes a standard twin paradox type situation where the two clocks depart from a common point in spacetime and reunite at a common point, with the first clock having a bent worldline between these points and the second having a straight one. If the clocks do not accelerate but just sail past B, there are perfectly valid inertial frames where the first clock actually had a smaller speed than the second, with the second clock moving away from B and B taking longer to catch up with it. In such a frame the second clock would be aging more slowly than the first and thus would show less elapsed time at all moments after the clocks depart, and there is no reason to prefer other frames over this one.

Do you deny that a basic principle of relativity is that the only facts which can be considered "physical" are the ones that are the same in all frames?

JesseM
Jesse - your post 66: "So, once again, our basic disagreement is over the question of whether there is any objective truth about which of two separated clocks is ticking faster"

No - our basic difference is how clocks in relativly moving equivalent inertial frames can wind up with different amounts of logged time when they are compared after being brought to rest at different locations in the same frame. You deny the reality of age differnce produced by one way travel - claiming they must be brought together as in the classic twin scenereo with the traveling twin returning to his start point. Since you don't see age difference in the one way excursion as a reality, you don't see it as a mystery.
It's true, I don't see a "reality" of age difference here. But once again, it's a basic relativity 101 concept that the only "real" physical facts are frame-independent ones! There are no mainstream physicists who would dispute this! And clearly the "age difference" between separated clocks is dependent on one's definition of simultaneity, so it cannot be a real physical fact.
yogi said:
If there is no mystery, you naturally have little patience with the thousands of persons that have pondered the problem and proposed various explanations because they were unsatisfied with the traditional views.
None of them mainstream physicists.
yogi said:
If you want to read the views of Born, Sciama, and Lederman, you can expand your library. Their views are based primarily upon Einstein's 1918 paper. It doesn't do any good to take the time to look up and type quotes from these sources as you have a twisted way of interpreting plain language.
Well, that's kind of evasive of you, if you have the sources handy it wouldn't take a great amount of effort for you to type out a paragraph or two that you think supports your views. At least tell me which specific books/papers and page numbers these supposed statements can be found! Judging by the Rindler quote, I expect that these will just be more examples of statements that can perfectly easily be interpreted in terms of the perspectives of specific coordinate systems, and that the authors will never say outright that the perspective of one coordinate system is more accurate or "real" than another, that you are simply "reading between the lines" to infer that they meant that because you want to imagine they thought like you do. My "twisted" way of interpreting quotes such as Rindler's is simply based on the assumption that these physicists probably were not trying to overturn relativity itself, which is what your interpretation would suggest (again, it is a well-understood foundation of relativity that only coordinate-independent facts are treated as physical, and that no coordinate system's perspective should be priveleged over any other's).
yogi said:
I do not say their views are right - I do say they are inconsistent with the analysis of other well known writers.
Without actually providing quotes, this isn't worth much, as you tend to interpret quotes in non-mainstream ways that support your own idiosyncratic ideas, whereas I try to interpret them in ways that don't make out the authors to be secret relativity-deniers. Are you familiar with the notion of confirmation bias?
yogi said:
Nor would I say Rindler's approach is satisfying, nor Wheeler's, nor have I ever intended to say as you imply that time runs different in different frames - although I would not exclude that as a possibility.
Where did I "imply" this, and what do you mean by "time runs differently in different frames"? If you're talking about my statements to the effect that in some frames one clock is accumulating more time and in other frames a different clock is, I wasn't implying that you believed this, I was just telling you a totally obvious and unremarkable fact about how the standard theory of relativity deals with accumulated time of separated clocks. Of course physicists don't believe that any frame's perspective on matters like this represents a physical reality, any more than the fact that different coordinate systems assign the same event a different x-coordinate!
yogi said:
Nor can I conclude that, in the future, all inertial frames will be found to be equivalent, or eliminate the possibility that the earths gravitational field may play a part in biasing measurements made to determine the constancy of one way light speed. In summary, before I condemn all other suggestions as crank or crackpot, I would prefer to await the outcome of experiments that prove them faulty.
Now you're totally changing the subject. We were discussing whether different theoretical analyses of situations like the twin paradox or two clocks moving apart are somehow inconsistent with each other or support the notion that there is a real truth about which of two separated clocks has accumulated more time; the question of whether future experiments might discredit the theory of relativity is a completely different issue, one I wasn't addressing at all.
yogi said:
In summary, before I condemn all other suggestions as crank or crackpot
What I labeled "crackpot" was the claim that theoretical arguments based on relativity itself could somehow show that one coordinate system's perspective has more physical validity than another, or that there is a real truth about coordinate-dependent facts.
yogi said:
I would prefer to await the outcome of experiments that prove them faulty. We all agree that SR has had many successes - but it is not interpreted consistently.
By mainstream physicists, yes it is. What you don't seem to understand is that simply using different coordinate systems to deal with the same problem (including non-inertial coordinate systems, as in the 'general relativity' analysis of the twin paradox) is not an inconsistency in interpretation as long as everyone agrees with the basic principle that the only physical facts are coordinate-independent ones, and that no coordinate system should be privileged over others; to deny this is to deny relativity itself, so I think it's safe to bet that if any mainstream physicists intended to question the validity of relativity they would have made themselves clear on this rather than writing in such a way that people would have to "read between the lines" to understand their position.

I'm going away on a trip for a while starting tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to continue this discussion until mid-June, but if you post any further thoughts I can respond then.

Last edited:
Always good to chat with you - Hope your trip is a vacation and a good one. I will remain here in my preferred frame and make precise measurments of your clock while you are in motion.

Yogi