"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:2e0f2b68-eb27-44cd-9e29-fd598601dd82n@googlegroups.com...

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
>> news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The traveller measures not only a merely changed distance, but a shorter
> > distance. Kevin typically ignores this.
>
>> What are you babbling on about?
>>
>> I explain in full detail in my TP calculation that the traveller measures
>> a
>> shorter distance for himself, and that the stay at home also agrees that
>> the
>> traveller distance is shorter.

>Does the home twin agree? On what basis does he agree?

The twins both agree.

The home twin does the calculation for both the ages on a one way trip, as
does the traveller, and both get the same answer.

The "Star and twin A" are always in the same frame, so always get L whether
they consider the Star pair and twin A moving or not.

The traveller twin B is not in the Star twin A frame, so always gets
gamma.L, whether he considers the "star pair and twin A" moving or not.

The lengths are always asymmetrical, whoever is considered at rest.

It looks like the standard flaw is to assume that twin B's time is
synchronised by the at rest length. It isn't, because Twin A is moving
relative to the Star as well as the Twin.

> >I use whatever the LT spits out for the times and distances.
>
>> Sure, I sometimes might be a tad brief in my prose...
>
> >https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/xht/twinsparadox/twinsparadox.xht
>
> >>The distance is shorter because of the relativity of simultaneity.
>
>> "relativity of simultaneity" is code for "the front and back end of the
>> rod
> >are at different points in time", however time travel makes people sound
>> like nutjobs, so its usually avoided.

>There you go being "a tad brief" again :-) An observer ALWAYS measures
>the front end and back end of the rod at the SAME time.

That is not the point.

The point is that when the static observer is measuring events occurring at
one end of the moving rod and the other end, the events act as if they are
at different points in time, with regard to the rod thinking that they are
at the same time.

That leads to the mental picture that the back and front of the rod are in
different points in time.

This truly obviously light bulb understanding of " relativity of
simultaneity", is the "sounds like a nutjob"

>> The way one lives in denial of this, is to persist in the "path in
>> space-time" euphuism and simply refuse to acknowledge what that actually
>> means.
>
>> Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
>> get
>> this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going
>> at
>> different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length"
>> in
>> time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
>> viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.

>Nobody understands that. There are a lot of speculations, though. Joan
>Vaccaro
>has put her finger on the REAL elephant in the room: the fact that there
>is, in
>fact, an asymmetry between time and space.

We don't know what synchronise time to all objects in the universe. We do
know that time represents physical change.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04012

This is exactly the point. Time is a physical process. Objects evolve, that
is change state.

The synchronisation of time for all objects needs to be stable to 1 part in
10^20 or so, otherwise the atoms would have dismantled themselves by now.

The *apparent* SOL must be invariant because its a term in the fine
structure constant. It the apparent SOL varied the FSC would be such that
this universe couldn't exist as it's fine tuned.

>> One covers more or less of another's time, in their own time. Thus, one
>> covers time at different rates.

>"covers" time? What does that mean? One always experiences time at one
>second per second.

"Covers more of the time of another observer"

One gets to the future, before someone else.

This seems clear to me.

> See below on "time represents a real physical process" as clarification on
> this.

>> Its how the LT has to work. Any observer has to agree on the physical
>> results, without accelerations.

>Acceleration doesn't matter, although an argument using acceleration
>yields the same results as non-accelerated approaches. So using
>acceleration is not stupid.

The problem with introducing acceleration, is that it implies that
acceleration is how/why the differences occur.

Indeed, I had this view of SR until our resident expert Tom Roberts
explained around 23 years ago in this NG.

Most of the time Tom is on the ball, however, he has difficulty in dealing
with alternative interpretations.

>> The problem with SR isn't the LT, and its base conclusions, its the
>> interpretation of the LT.
>
>> We now [k]now that physical objects are excitations in a field. Its QFT.
>> Thus
>> the universe absolutely does have background fields. They are ethers in
>> all
>> but name.

>> A truly empty universe cannot possible have any characteristics. Epsilon0
>> thus cannot possible exist, neither can c. This is truly obvious,
>> unfortunately, many have been gaslighted into the delusion that nothing
>> is
>> something.
>
>> The only reason "c in vacuum" can exist, is if the vacuum isn't actually
>> empty.

>The question you're not addressing is, "Can a volume of space be truly
>empty?"

In principle, yes.

In this universe....maybe.....

> Space:
>
>> Space is the concept that is used to account for the fact that real
>> physical, measurable objects do not all merge into one object. It
>> expresses
>> the fact that there are discrete, separate objects that can be identified
>> from other objects. Without individual physical objects, space does not
>> exist. That is, “space” is how separation of physical objects is
>> accounted
>> for.

>But does the ZPE count as "individual physical objects"?

"individual objects" means any method to identify a change. Its a
definition.

Different lumped disturbances in a rope would do.

If there is complete homogeneity, one can't detect anything.

>> One don't even need SR or LET to get to the basic equations.

>What about the basic assumptions (postulates)? One must start with
>those. SR has such which are observed behaviors of nature. If your
>postulates aren't observables ... ?

The problem is that the alleged observed behaviour may have different
consistent interpretations.

As noted before. If one measures a moving clock, it appears to tick slow. SR
denies this is physically real and offers one alternative.

The POR implies that clock ticks, locally must always tick the same, thus
always tick the same.

However, this can just be an illusions, as described by:

Neil deGrasse Tyson has an "explanation" of SR time on youTube

time point 1:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo

"Time ticks more slowly for you... not just your clock its
everything...about you and your environment slows down... you don't notice
this because everything slows down..."

Tyson don't actually understand that he is not describing SR, but the
background alternative. Oh the irony....

He is explaining how things are, apparently, truly physically changing (in
his view), but that no one notices, hence the POR is apparently true, but
actually isn't.

The root to this, as noted prior, the axioms of SR are circular, allowing
different interpretations of the LT.

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:rpudnejOk6YDJ9z4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...

>On 10/31/23 2:10 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
>> get this, represents *time*.

>There's your mistake. The other axis represents time IN THE INERTIAL
>FRAME IN WHICH THE DIAGRAM IS DRAWN.

What part of "represents time" did you miss?

>But remember in SR, all inertial frames are equally valid....

You are like a parrot mate. We all know the POR. The POR is an "as if"
effect.

What is interesting is that Neil deGrasse Tyson has an "explanation" on
youTube

time point 1:20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo

"Time ticks more slowly for you... not just your clock its
everything...about you and your environment slows down... you don't notice
this because everything slows down..."

So... there you have it, an extremely well know pop media Phd... allegedly
describing SR.... but isn't. He is describing exactly the situation of a
background field explanation of the LT rather than magical "space-time"

Thus the POR is an "as if", things really do change, but one don't notice
locally.

I did point out this alternative to you over 20 years ago, which you claimed
was nonsensical

Apparently I'm in prestigious company.

The irony is that deGrasse's misunderstanding of SR, is probably correct in
reality, and is the one most pop media physicists use as an explanation.

Oh... I do reproduce your post on an axiomatic derivation of SR here:

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/AxiomaticSR.html

As noted, the SR interpretation of the LT is clearly wrong, as noted here.
Its truly a claim of magic. Its why Smolin makes his dead end claim.

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/Geometry&Relativity.html

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:jvydnYIJTMsmJdz4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com...

On 10/29/23 2:39 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
> news:yqidnSWeE7fNoqr4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 10/23/23 3:33 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> If this were only so, clocks taking different paths would never
>>> physically read different when reunited. Either clocks physically slow
>>> down, OR they travel through time "space-time" at different rates. You
>>> can't have it both ways. [...]
>
>> Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration fails because YOU forgot
>> a third possibility: clocks following different paths through spacetime
>> have different path lengths between a given pair of endpoints, and the
>> clock's elapsed proper time is that path length.
>
>> This is no different from two sides of a triangle having
>> a different total path length than the third side.
>
> >Nope. That's precisely what "travels through time at different rates
> >means". Its what actually *creates* the different path length.
>> Its why time in the LT has the gamma factor.

>Hmmmm. So for a right triangle with sides along Cartesian x and y axes, the
>hypotenuse "travels through y at a different rate [#]" -- have you ever
>seen anyone make such a silly claim?

[twaddle removed]

> >The "path length" can't change without travelling through "space-time",
> >that is "time", at different rates, by action of the gamma factor.

>Except that every clock "travels through time" at 1 second per second. It
>is only when you look at a clock from a different inertial frame, AND
>FORGET THAT YOU ARE DOING SO, that you can deceive yourself like that.

This is the twaddle of SR. Time is a real physical process. It describes how
objects change their real physical state.

Sure, it can be useful to engage a blind behaviour mathematical model and
pretend that its a "length". It isn't.

Time isn't a length, its a physical process.

>> Your use of the word "path length" is just a meaningless word used to
>> avoid the fact that SR is time travel into the future.

>Nonsense. For a timelike path, its path length is well defined and equal to
>the elapsed proper time of a clock that follows the path.

More of the same twaddle

Time is a real physical process. It describes how objects change their real
physical state.

You are so indoctrinated with your math, that you just cant get to grips
with physical reality.

>But yes, due to the way we humans perceive time, SR and GR model timelike
>paths as necessarily future directed. Anything else would be instantly and
>completely refuted by very basic observations of the world we inhabit. And
>in accordance with myriad observations, SR and GR also model clocks
>traveling between a given pair of endpoints along different paths as having
>different path lengths (elapsed proper times) -- just like triangles on a
>Euclidean plane.

Again, more of the same twaddle

Time is a real physical process. It describes how objects change their real
physical state.

Lee Smolin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

You just cant get out of the mind virus that SR is a blind mathematical
model. It isn't reality. Claiming that "time" is simply another axis and
ignoring what it actually is delusional.

Einstein:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypotheses (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so
clearly makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is
directly declaring here explicitly, that he not even going to offer an
explanation.

> https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf - 3rd party
> account of the block universe

>Did you even read the abstract???? -- it directly implies the universe
>cannot be 3D, implying it must be (3+1)-D as in SR.

Sure, it says that IF the SR interpretation of the LT is correct, the
universe is described by some sort of 4 D model

What's your point?

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

news:2e0f2b68-eb27-44cd-9e29-fd598601dd82n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:11:06 PM UTC-6, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> "Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
> news:b1e207c9-86cb-4b02...@googlegroups.com...
> >

>
>> Only one axis of the Minkowski diagram is spatial length, the other, now
>> get
>> this, represents *time*. A length in the time axis physically means going
>> at
>> different rates, say 100sec/sec. Its the only way to interpret a "length"
>> in
>> time. This is the bit Tom Roberts just don't get. I understand his
>> viewpoint, unfortunately, he don't understand what time actually is.

>Nobody understands that.

When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum, changes its
position, time has changed.

This is truly obvious. If nothing changes position, somewhere, than time has
stopped, that is, don't exist

This includes Spin. There must be something internal that moves from one
position to another. That's why something like String Theory must be
correct. Internal vibrations is the obvious solution.

All there is in the universe, are objects, that move. Period. Anything else
as an explanation is magic.

>There are a lot of speculations, though. Joan Vaccaro
>has put her finger on the REAL elephant in the room: the fact that there
>is, in
>fact, an asymmetry between time and space.

>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04012

This is truly a WOW.... I haven't ever thought of this before, but after
the fact, its so f'ing obvious. Its a killer to the space-time view as
reality

Sure, an object, say, an electron cannot be localised in time, because it
always exists, however it can be localised in space.

A fundamental object has an infinite "length" in the time axis.

What's also interesting is that in "Gravitation" MTW Box 2.1 "Farewell to
ict" it explains that:

"One participant in special relativity will have to be put to the sword:
x^4=ict .... no one has discovered a way to make an imaginary coordinate
work in the general curved spacetime manifold"

The problem is the naive illusion of a time=space because of the apparent
invariance of the SOL, via x=ct

Einstein:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypotheses (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so
clearly makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is
directly declaring here explicitly, that he not even going to offer an
explanation.

Einstein simply ignores the issue. Unfortunately, the followers took this to
be "no physical mechanism is required to explain the SOL"

Its trivially obvious that if the universe was truly empty, the SOL would be
infinite. It isn't because there is $hit in the way.

The symmetry and group arguments for SR are actually only anthropic
arguments. Its "whatever the actual physical mechanism is that generates our
universe is, it must satisfy the LT"

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/misc/AxiomaticSR.html - Tom Roberts
derivation.

The LT clearly has a physical cause, it cant be magic.

QFT with its "particles are excitations in a field" is an explicit
declaration that there exists throughout the vacuum, a real physical
substance. Most are too $hit scared to state this because of all the
historical bad press on "Ether"

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

On 11/14/23 2:12 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum,
> changes its position, time has changed.

Tha vacuum, quantum or classical, hds no "position", and thus cannot
"change position".

> This is truly obvious.

Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.

> If nothing changes position, somewhere, than time has stopped, that
> is, don't exist

Not in our best physical theories.

> This includes Spin. There must be something internal that moves from
> one position to another.

Not in QFT.

> That's why something like String Theory must be correct. Internal
> vibrations is the obvious solution.

Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.

> All there is in the universe, are objects, that move. Period.

Not in QFT. In QFT, all that exists are fields.

> QFT with its "particles are excitations in a field" is an explicit
> declaration that there exists throughout the vacuum, a real physical
> substance.

Hmmm. This depends on unusual meanings of words.

> Most are too $hit scared to state this because of all the historical
> bad press on "Ether"

Not true. Physicists don't way that because in QFT it is not true. ALso
because the fields of QFT are not at all an "ether".

Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news:ud6cnZTsb9wrzMn4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com...

>On 11/14/23 2:12 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum, changes
>> its position, time has changed.

>Tha vacuum, quantum or classical, hds no "position", and thus cannot
>"change position".

Sure it does. if the quantum fields have no position, its impossible to
write f(x,t) to describe anything with referance to it.

>> This is truly obvious.

>Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.

Its true to anyone that don't believe in magic.

>> If nothing changes position, somewhere, than time has stopped, that is,
>> don't exist

>Not in our best physical theories.

Present a description of an experiment that can demonstrate that if nothing
changes, time exists.

Hint: clocks can't work if nothing at all changes

You have truly lost the plot mate.

> This includes Spin. There must be something internal that moves from one
> position to another.

Not in QFT.

QFT is a macroscopic description of events. It doesn't address physically
how E=mc^2, that is how can mass be notionally exchanged with energy.

>> That's why something like String Theory must be correct. Internal
>> vibrations is the obvious solution.

>Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.

....and you argument as what spin physically is, is?

That is, how does an electron, considered a point particle, have spin?

Hint: magic don't exist.

The only option is internal motion.

All there is in the universe are objects, that move. Again truly obvious.

Give us another explanation.

>> All there is in the universe, are objects, that move. Period.

>Not in QFT. In QFT, all that exists are fields.

Er nope. What QFT actually means is a matter of strong debate:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/

There is a detailed description as to the interpretation of QFT is it
particle or fields that are fundamental?

Particles move mate. But so do fields.

Extract....

5.1.1 The Particle Interpretation

5.1.1.1 The Particle Concept

5.1.1.2 Why QFT Seems to be About Particles ......

5.1.2 The Field Interpretation .... Since various arguments seem to speak
against a particle interpretation...

>> QFT with its "particles are excitations in a field" is an explicit
>> declaration that there exists throughout the vacuum, a real physical
>> substance.

>Hmmm. This depends on unusual meanings of words.

Ho hummm.....FFS

Either the fields of QFT are simple a mathematical abstractions of
observations or they are physically real themselves.

In the event that thee are an abstraction, they must still be referring to
something physical, or it QFT means nothing. QFT wont describe physical
observations at all.

What it refers to, must be physically real, otherwise QFT is physically
meaningless.

You are denying that physical reality actually exists mate.

>> Most are too $hit scared to state this because of all the historical bad
>> press on "Ether"

>Not true. Physicists don't way that because in QFT it is not true. ALso
>because the fields of QFT are not at all an "ether".

Sure they are.

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics

On 11/23/23 2:25 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Tom Roberts"  wrote in message
> news:ud6cnZTsb9wrzMn4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 11/14/23 2:12 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>> When any object in the universe, including the quantum vacuum,
>>> changes its position, time has changed.
>> That vacuum, quantum or classical, has no "position", and thus cannot
>> "change position".
>
> Sure it does. if the quantum fields have no position, its impossible to
> write f(x,t) to describe anything with referance to it.

Hmmm. When one writes f(x.t) one is expressing its value with respect to
THE COORDINATES x and t, not any field. Note that f(x,t) _IS_ a field
for suitable f(.,.), x, and t.

>>> This is truly obvious.
>> Only to people like you who reify their personal fantasies.
>
> Its true to anyone that don't believe in magic.

No "magic" is involved, only coordinates. But one DOES need to
understand the mathematics involved, and it is quite clear that YOU don't.

> [... too much nonsense to be bothered with]

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 30 November 2023 at 05:12:10 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

> No "magic" is involved, only coordinates. But one DOES need to
> understand the mathematics involved

And speaking of mathematics, it's always good to
remind that your bunch of idiots hat to announce
its oldest, very important part false, as it didn't want
to fit your madness.