starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
there are three possibility:

a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower

b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster

c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind

this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.

if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,

it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.

SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.

cheers
beda

El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> there are three possibility:
>
> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>
> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>
> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>
> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>
> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>
> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>
> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
>
> cheers
> beda

In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this

Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
> > starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > there are three possibility:
> >
> > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >
> > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >
> > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >
> > this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >
> > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >
> > it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >
> > SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >
> > cheers
> > beda
> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
beda
ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin

can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
cheers
beda

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:25:28 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> there are three possibility:
> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind

Insufficient information. Since you define "absolute speed" as the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, you need to specify the original state of motion of the twins in terms of the rest frame of your breakfast bagel. But that will be pointless, because you could also define "absolute speed" to be the speed in terms of the Sun's inertial rest coordinates, or in terms of Andromeda's inertial rest coordinates, or any of infinitely many other inertial coordinate systems. So understanding the phenomena really has nothing in particular to do with your breakfast bagel, and writing the word "absolute" on your bagel doesn't change anything. Understand?

> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes
> behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is
> successful in doing so,

Your misconception is due to your failure to grasp the distinction between the logical concepts of necessity and sufficiency. You think that since events can be described in terms of a particular inertial coordinate system S5 that therefore S5 must have some special conceptual significance, but you admit that the events can be described just as well (with exactly the same laws of physics) in terms of S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, and infinitely many others. Thus there is no rational basis for your belief that S5 has any *particular* significance. Understand?

> Can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going
> away twin while he is keeping traveling away?

A "rate" is a ratio of two things, so you have to specify the two things. Asking for the rate of something without specifying the system of reference coordinates is like tying to clap with one hand. In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?

Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 20:20:22 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:25:28 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > there are three possibility:
> > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> Insufficient information. Since you define "absolute speed" as the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, you need to specify the original state of motion of the twins in terms of the rest frame of your breakfast bagel. But that will be pointless, because you could also define "absolute speed" to be the speed in terms of the Sun's inertial rest coordinates, or in terms of Andromeda's inertial rest coordinates, or any of infinitely many other inertial coordinate systems. So understanding the phenomena really has nothing in particular to do with your breakfast bagel, and writing the word "absolute" on your bagel doesn't change anything. Understand?
beda
the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!

> > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes
> > behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is
> > successful in doing so,
> Your misconception is due to your failure to grasp the distinction between the logical concepts of necessity and sufficiency. You think that since events can be described in terms of a particular inertial coordinate system S5 that therefore S5 must have some special conceptual significance, but you admit that the events can be described just as well (with exactly the same laws of physics) in terms of S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, and infinitely many others. Thus there is no rational basis for your belief that S5 has any *particular* significance. Understand?
beda
there is a particular significance in being at rest in space away from near masses, where light is emitted and received isotropically, you in reckoning it you would not loose anything, instead your SR would gain more physical plausibility, but you are so keen to an hard core attitude that you logical ability is compromised

>
> > Can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going
> > away twin while he is keeping traveling away?
> A "rate" is a ratio of two things, so you have to specify the two things. Asking for the rate of something without specifying the system of reference coordinates is like tying to clap with one hand. In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
beda
you see, you have lost lucidity: obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind, and obviously your SR trickery
doesn't help you, not to even imagine what happens to a single clock/twin while he is going away:

a sane logic requires an answer: what happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??
you cannot answer not even conceptually, by denying the absolute you are logically crippled, admitting the role of the absolute, it wouldn't cost you a penny, but you would gain a lot: that is, a useless, genuine SR bigotry of you and of your pals

cheers
beda

Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 20:23:25 UTC+2 mitchr...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> Move toward each other and there is a fast doppler rate appearance.
> Move away and there is a slow doppler rate appearance.
> There is a rate that is not a doppler appearance.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
beda
doppler is not the issue here
cheers

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:38:10 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!

So, now you are defining "absolute" speed to be the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which Steve (one of the twins) is at rest. But this contradicts your previous insistence that "absolute" speeds are the speeds in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic. Steve is not at rest in that system, so you are contradicting yourself. Sheesh.

> there is a particular significance in being at rest in space ...

No, space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?

> > In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
>
> Obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind...

Your brain malfunctioned again. There are two twins in uniform motion. Each twin is leaving the other twin behind. It is entirely possible that the twin in the rocket is going slower in terms of the CMBR isotropic coordinates than the twin he "left behind". The objects being compared are not the same as the system of coordinates in terms of which the comparison is made.. The rates of proper time of two objects are compared based on a mapping of the events at equal t based on a specified system of coordinates. In general, neither of the objects need be at rest in this system.

Now that you understand this, I say again: In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This provides the unambiguous answer to all your questions.

> What happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??

Already answered multiple times. See above. Once you specify that you are defining absolute speed to be the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which Steve is at rest, the answers are all trivial. But this contradicts your previous assertion that absolute speeds are those in which the CMBR is isotropic. The answers are also trivial in terms of that system, just as they are trivial in terms of any specified system. That's why it is idiotic to label Steve as "absolute". Now do you understand?

Il giorno lunedì 31 maggio 2021 alle 00:17:30 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:38:10 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > the reference is, obviously, the left behind twin!!!!
> So, now you are defining "absolute" speed to be the speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which Steve (one of the twins) is at rest. But this contradicts your previous insistence that "absolute" speeds are the speeds in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic. Steve is not at rest in that system, so you are contradicting yourself. Sheesh.

beda
your logic is biased irreversibly,
absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition in any instant of time,
if a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can be used as a reference
the comparison we obtain is relative to the reference we choose, the comparison tells us a ratio between their
absolute values.
so Steve is left at his stable inertial absolute speed, while his twin John goes inertialy away, the result is that John while inertially traveling (and stably) may age less, more or the same, depend on his new absolute inertial speed being more, less or the same (in the opposite direction vs the CMBR)
this happens to john independently if john is in a SR frame or not.
you don't realize that your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock in the frame
K', nor this can be done using the SR doppler reciprocity were also the absolute single clock rate is not known
that is the price you pay for your blind acceptance of the SR procedure as a given black box, without looking inside the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.

>
> > there is a particular significance in being at rest in space ...
>
> No, space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
beda
you must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
does provide a reference that allow us to tell our absolute movement versus them.
moreover the inertia gives us the immediate knowledge of the our state of rest: the same impulse results in the maximum change of speed of an object when the propulsive platform is at absolute rest
you may not follow, but I give you a chance:
two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially,
after an arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!
A is at absolute rest!, B is at an absolute inertial speed different from absolute rest (versus the CMBR and the universe)

a little addendum: A or B, gun or bullet, cannot even be considered at rest versus themself, because absolute movement produces effects on them, so when they are absolutely moving, they are absolutely different from when at rest, (of course in our case, except the gun A that we have put at absolute rest on purpose).

the description above is, of course, conceptual, when you operatively want to do concrete measurements, you can arrange them in a frame based on the inertia, then you will obtain SR results , with an arrangement using absolute movement versus the CMBR the results are as I described.
both descriptions have to be compatible done the transposition from a scheme to the other correctly,
notwithstanding that the SR pretences of extend the "invariance, symmetries and reciprocity" to all speeds is illusory:
it works only abstractly in math, in reality there is, only, a low range of speeds where it may apply approximately

> > > In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Understand?
> >
> > Obviously the comparison is with the twin left behind...
>
> Your brain malfunctioned again. There are two twins in uniform motion. Each twin is leaving the other twin behind. It is entirely possible that the twin in the rocket is going slower in terms of the CMBR isotropic coordinates than the twin he "left behind". The objects being compared are not the same as the system of coordinates in terms of which the comparison is made. The rates of proper time of two objects are compared based on a mapping of the events at equal t based on a specified system of coordinates. In general, neither of the objects need be at rest in this system.
>
> Now that you understand this, I say again: In terms of *any* system of inertial coordinates x,t the rate of proper time for an object moving at speed v is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). This provides the unambiguous answer to all your questions.
>
> > What happens to the rate of the going away twin, goes it slower, faster or the same??
>
> Already answered multiple times. See above. Once you specify that you are defining absolute speed to be the speed in terms of inertial coordinates in which Steve is at rest, the answers are all trivial. But this contradicts your previous assertion that absolute speeds are those in which the CMBR is isotropic. The answers are also trivial in terms of that system, just as they are trivial in terms of any specified system. That's why it is idiotic to label Steve as "absolute". Now do you understand?
beda
absolute rest, and absolute movement versus the absolute rest, you must distinguish them
steve is not, or may not be, at absolute rest versus the CMBR,
so the comparison between Steve and John is between their different ageing absolute rates,
locally, as they perceive it, they are ageing the same: as long as they keep their speed unchanged, they age just the same.
the difference is that their local "duration" corresponds to two different absolute universal times, and while traveling the appearance of the surrounding universe is different for them,
Steve and John can compare their universe appearance and find it being different, by exchanging photos, among themselves and with their father that stays at rest in the CMBR.

but unfortunately you are shut into a windowless SR cage, so you are missing the whole realistic picture
cheers
beda

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 5:45:45 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...

Then it's a meaningless concept.

> If a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can
> be used as a reference

Then you are not describing an "absolute" thing, you are describing a purely relational thing. Sheesh.

> Your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock
> in the frame K'

Any such comparison entails a mapping between the events of one clock and the events of the other. There are infinitely many such mappings. You can choose one particular mapping, such as the one given by the time coordinate of the system in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, and grandly declare it to be the absolute mapping, but that's pointless and does not enhance your understanding.

> the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.

You are not describing any hidden mechanism. You are just naively saying that you gain understanding by describing things in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. Your beliefs are absurd.

> > Space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
>
> You must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
> does provide a reference...

But that is not *space* providing a reference, that is the radiation and the distant galaxies providing a reference. Just like your breakfast bagel provides a reference, and Steve provides a reference. Not space. Remember?

> Two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
> gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially, after an
> arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet
> A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!

In accord with the principle of relativity, each bullet has the same velocity u (reaching the same distance in the same time) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the respective gun is at rest. Now, if a gun is moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, then the bullet has speed (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) in terms of the bagel coordinates. This is all perfectly consistent with (and predicted by) local Lorentz invariance.

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 3:25:28 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> there are three possibility:
>
> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>
> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>
> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>
> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>
> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>
> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>
> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
>
> cheers
> beda

How are twins in relative motion to one another?
If that is the same they should share the same
slow clock.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:25:28 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> there are three possibility:
>
> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>
> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>
> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>
> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>
> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>
> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>
> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.

Here ’s the full story:
The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

Il giorno lunedì 31 maggio 2021 alle 17:20:54 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 5:45:45 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
>
> Then it's a meaningless concept.
beda
that is to be ruminated
>
> > If a object is in a stable condition, for long enough for our purposes, it can
> > be used as a reference
> Then you are not describing an "absolute" thing, you are describing a purely relational thing. Sheesh.
beda
yes, the relative comparison takes place between two objects or more, and the comparison implies that each
single objects is absolute and absolute are the characteristics compared
>
> > Your SR arrangement cannot compare a single clock in the frame K to a single clock
> > in the frame K'
>
> Any such comparison entails a mapping between the events of one clock and the events of the other. There are infinitely many such mappings. You can choose one particular mapping, such as the one given by the time coordinate of the system in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, and grandly declare it to be the absolute mapping, but that's pointless and does not enhance your understanding.
beda
no mapping is required when all the objects, that are compared, are considered in their absoluteness:
nature doesn't map anything, doesn't use math, doesn't know any law, you have to guess or use your intuition to have a mental representation of what nature does mindlessly and purposelessly.
once you have that mental representation, hopefully at best guess or intuition, then you can play with nature behavior
and make out a lot of meaningful tricks and mapping
if you don't have the correct intuition you can only make a conceptual mess, and let me repeat this: the correct experimental results of a theory or of a procedure don't mend the conceptual errors,
those conceptual errors become extremely deceitful being supported by factual evidences

> > the box at its hidden absolute mechanism.
> You are not describing any hidden mechanism. You are just naively saying that you gain understanding by describing things in terms of the inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest. Your beliefs are absurd.
>
> > > Space does not provide any reference state for position or velocity. Remember?
> >
> > You must be kidding, the CMBR in association with the universe local appearance,
> > does provide a reference...
>
> But that is not *space* providing a reference, that is the radiation and the distant galaxies providing a reference. Just like your breakfast bagel provides a reference, and Steve provides a reference. Not space. Remember?
beda
what provides a reference are the physical characteristics of the local space that are determined by the effects of the totality of the masses and of the total energy of the universe plus the gravitational effects of nearer local masses,
a object that receives and emit light isotropicaly in such local space, can be used as an absolute reference
>
> > Two identical guns pointing in the same direction when they meet they shoot two bullets;
> > gun A is at rest versus the CMBR, the other gun B is passing by by inertially, after an
> > arbitrary elapsed time after the shootings, the resultant position in space of the bullet
> > A versus the gun A, is at a greater of the distance than bullet B versus the gun B!!
> In accord with the principle of relativity, each bullet has the same velocity u (reaching the same distance in the same time) in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the respective gun is at rest. Now, if a gun is moving at speed v in terms of inertial coordinates in which your breakfast bagel is at rest, then the bullet has speed (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) in terms of the bagel coordinates. This is all perfectly consistent with (and predicted by) local Lorentz invariance.
beda
translated in raw physical facts: the same impulse results in different change of absolute speed depending on the
absolute speed the object had before the impulse was applied:
e.i. if the object of unitary mass under the effect of a impulse "jumps" from 0 to .5c
the same impulse applied to the same object traveling at .5c the jumps of the speed is only from .5c to .8c

there is a reflection needed here (for me): how the thrust given by the same impulse decreases its efficacy on the thrusted object, as the object increases its absolute speed ???? any hint??

cheers
beda

On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
>>> there are three possibility:
>>>
>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>>>
>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>>>
>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>>>
>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>>>
>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>>>
>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>>>
>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> beda
> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
>
> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> cheers
> beda
>

The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.

Sylvia

Il giorno giovedì 3 giugno 2021 alle 16:01:01 UTC+2 seto...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:25:28 AM UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> > when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> > there are three possibility:
> >
> > a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >
> > b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >
> > c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >
> > this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >
> > if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> > understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >
> > it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >
> > SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> Here ’s the full story:
> The only time exists is absolute time. The rate of passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion or gravity.potentials. This means that in terms of absolute time both twin aged at the same rate. However, there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. This means that in terms of clock time, the twin are aged at different rates.
beda
you got it reversed: the differently moving twins are ageing (and their local clocks run) at the different rate, in accord to their inertial speeds, while the absolute time is unique and same for both of them.
cheers
> The designers of the GPS knew this: in terms of clock time the GPS ages at a faster rate. To correct this, they redefine the GPS second to have 4,4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This correction is made before the launch.of the GPS. At the GPS location the passage of a redefined GPS second is corresponded to the passage of a standard ground clock second and this makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> >> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
> >>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> >>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> >>> there are three possibility:
> >>>
> >>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >>>
> >>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >>>
> >>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >>>
> >>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >>>
> >>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> >>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >>>
> >>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >>>
> >>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> > beda
> > ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> > e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
> >
> > can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
>
> Sylvia
yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
"know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
can you??
cheers
beda

On Friday, 4 June 2021 at 14:11:57 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> >> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
> >>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> >>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> >>> there are three possibility:
> >>>
> >>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >>>
> >>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >>>
> >>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >>>
> >>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >>>
> >>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> >>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >>>
> >>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >>>
> >>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> > beda
> > ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> > e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
> >
> > can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.

That's why this idiocies Giant Guru has written about it
can't be beaten; as they're limited to inertial frames
only (i.e. apply nowhere) they're truly invincible.

On 04-Jun-21 10:19 pm, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
>>>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
>>>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
>>>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
>>>>> there are three possibility:
>>>>>
>>>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>>>>>
>>>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>>>>>
>>>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>>>>>
>>>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>>>>>
>>>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
>>>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>>>>>
>>>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda
>>>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
>>> beda
>>> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
>>> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
>>>
>>> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>>>
>> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
>> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
>>
>> Sylvia
> yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
> "know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
> can you??
> cheers
> beda
>

If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.

Sylvia.

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 8:36:49 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 04-Jun-21 10:19 pm, beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> >>> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> >>>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero..it escribió:
> >>>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> >>>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> >>>>> there are three possibility:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >>>>>
> >>>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >>>>>
> >>>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> >>>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> beda
> >>>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> >>> beda
> >>> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> >>> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
> >>>
> >>> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
> >> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
> >>
> >> Sylvia
> > yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
> > "know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
> > can you??
> > cheers measure the rate of a moving clock?
> > beda m
> >
> If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
> twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.

Then how come all your SR brothers assert that they can MEASURE the rate of a moving clock?

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 5:04:26 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
> >
> > Then it's a meaningless concept.
>
> that is to be ruminated

No, it is self-evidently a meaningless concept. If you say everything is blamange, you have not given a meaningful definition of blamange.

> The relative comparison takes place between two objects or more...

Right.

> and the comparison implies that each single objects is absolute and absolute
> are the characteristics compared

Your brain malfunctioned again. Please try to concentrate: In each frame we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and synchronized inertially in terms of that frame, and we can then describe the spatio-temporal relations between entities in terms of those coordinates. There is no blamange here. The concept of blamangeness does not enter into this process at all.

> What provides a reference are ... the totality of the masses and of the total energy
> of the universe

That is not absolute reference, it is a relative reference to quantities of matter and energy, and it is perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance. You are just vaguely groping towards what Einstein called Mach's Principle, but that principle is hypothesized as the origin of inertia (i.e., the absoluteness of acceleration), not for the absoluteness of position or velocity. As a reference for velocity, it is purely relational, the opposite of absoluteness. We covered this before.

> A object that receives and emit light isotropicaly in such local space, can be used as
> an absolute reference

The speed of light is isotropic in terms of the rest inertial coordinates of every object. What you might be trying to say is that there is a unique state of motion for an object in between two identical sources of light (at rest in some frame) for which the *frequencies* of the impinging light are equal. But this is just defining a state of motion relative to the sources of light, so it is a relational definition, not absolute.

> Translated in raw physical facts: the same impulse results in different change
> of absolute speed depending on the absolute speed the object had before the
> impulse was applied...

Your brain malfunctioned again. All you are doing is insisting that semantically we should always use one particular system of inertial coordinates, and not any of the others, even though no one ever actually uses the one you suggest (including you), and the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of all of them, and the one you hypocritically suggest is based purely on relational considerations, not absolute considerations, and any other would serve just as well.

> e.i. if the object of unitary mass under the effect of a impulse "jumps" from 0 to .5c
> the same impulse applied to the same object traveling at .5c the jumps of the speed
> is only from .5c to .8c

Right, this is a consequence of Lorentz invariance, which you cannot explain at all, but which is a natural consequence and verified prediction of special relativity. You admit that this behavior is a complete mystery to you:

> How the thrust given by the same impulse decreases its efficacy on the thrusted
> object, as the object increases its absolute speed ???? any hint??

Sure, your question, as always, is based on false premises. The efficacy is not reduced, because the application of a given force through a given distance (the definition of work/energy) is always the same. That's why the kinetic energy of mass m moving at speed v is not (1/2)mv^2, it is mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1]. This amount of energy can be confirmed by measuring the energy released by slowing the object back down. So there is no reduction in efficacy of the force. The explanation is that energy E has inertia E/c^2. Everything follows from this. We covered this before.

Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:36:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 04-Jun-21 10:19 pm, beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> >>> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> >>>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero..it escribió:
> >>>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> >>>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> >>>>> there are three possibility:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >>>>>
> >>>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >>>>>
> >>>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> >>>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> beda
> >>>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> >>> beda
> >>> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> >>> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
> >>>
> >>> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
> >> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
> >>
> >> Sylvia
> > yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
> > "know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
> > can you??
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
> twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
>
> Sylvia.
beda
ok let's do it, to make it easy we substitute twins with two clocks,
you say they keep their normal rate locally, (which is false)
so the going away clock B (zeroed and send away) say at .5c (vs the left behind clock A)
after a while B encounter another clock C coming in the opposite direction say at .6c
C assume the reading of clock B and keeps going towards clock A
when finally the clock C encounter clock A if the two traveling clocks kept their normal rate
as you say, they should read the same elapsed time.
well they don't, clock C reads less elapsed time, because clock A has slowed down in the going away trip,
and clock C also has had its rate slowed down in the way back.
dear sylvia, you are obfuscate by your own dogmas, what you assert is not correct even according to your own theory

note: a clock considered locally running at its normal rate is a blatant falsehood: a clock when change its speed can easily be compared to a still clock and anyone can tell that the clock that has changes its speed obviously has changed its rate, is this simple deduction too hard for you????

cheers
beda

Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 19:33:06 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 5:04:26 AM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > > > Absolute is anything whatsoever in any whatsoever condition...
> > >
> > > Then it's a meaningless concept.
> >
> > that is to be ruminated
> No, it is self-evidently a meaningless concept. If you say everything is blamange, you have not given a meaningful definition of blamange.
beda
there are not any definition of any concept used, the sense of the discourse is on the context, for any goodwilling person, when anyone asks for definition it is a way to swindler around in vain.
>
> > The relative comparison takes place between two objects or more...
>
> Right.
> > and the comparison implies that each single objects is absolute and absolute
> > are the characteristics compared
> Your brain malfunctioned again. Please try to concentrate: In each frame we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks at rest and synchronized inertially in terms of that frame, and we can then describe the spatio-temporal relations between entities in terms of those coordinates. There is no blamange here. The concept of blamangeness does not enter into this process at all.
beda
you are guiltily wrong comparison don't need any of such, it can be made immediately using our senses:
we can see the difference in height or distance, we can hear the difference in sound pitch, we can feel microscopic grain dust clued on a surface by tact...
and any of the detected difference is an absolute difference, quantified or not is irrelevant
>
> > What provides a reference are ... the totality of the masses and of the total energy
> > of the universe
>
> That is not absolute reference, it is a relative reference to quantities of matter and energy, and it is perfectly consistent with local Lorentz invariance. You are just vaguely groping towards what Einstein called Mach's Principle, but that principle is hypothesized as the origin of inertia (i.e., the absoluteness of acceleration), not for the absoluteness of position or velocity. As a reference for velocity, it is purely relational, the opposite of absoluteness. We covered this before.
beda
you are wrong, you should know better, you are ignoring that light travel at c versus the local space where an object
is at rest versus the incoming isotropic light; this object is at rest for the appearence of the universe unchanging and this can be checked by the unchanging of its position through time.
the absoluteness of the condition of the object at absolute rest rely on many indicators that are coexistent at same time, the same many indicators tell the eventual absolute movement of an object.

you are thwarting by omission or pretenses a trivial fact that the local speed of light and its counterpart local space
where light happen to travel are perfect absolute references

>
> > A object that receives and emit light isotropicaly in such local space, can be used as
> > an absolute reference
>
> The speed of light is isotropic in terms of the rest inertial coordinates of every object. What you might be trying to say is that there is a unique state of motion for an object in between two identical sources of light (at rest in some frame) for which the *frequencies* of the impinging light are equal. But this is just defining a state of motion relative to the sources of light, so it is a relational definition, not absolute.
beda
no, you keep bringing in inertial coordinates, that cannot be brought in, I am talking only of a unique local reference for light and for moving objects, your SR frames are manipolation of fact upon which we don't agree.
so we must talk about facts, and we must, because we still disagree
or,, talk about manipulated procedures, we can do this later,
try to be constructive on this very edge cutting point
>
> > Translated in raw physical facts: the same impulse results in different change
> > of absolute speed depending on the absolute speed the object had before the
> > impulse was applied...
>
> Your brain malfunctioned again. All you are doing is insisting that semantically we should always use one particular system of inertial coordinates,
beda
not a inertial system of coordinates, but an absolute unique one, this one accidentally is coincident with one of the set of your inertially coordinates systems,
inertially coordinates systems of which use I disagree, especially on conceptual basis,
you should not have anything against the use of such unique absolute reference having it all the requirements of the rest of your inertial frames,
so that should be a reference that we can use in our analysis.

and not any of the others, even though no one ever actually uses the one you suggest (including you), and the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of all of them, and the one you hypocritically suggest is based purely on relational considerations, not absolute considerations, and any other would serve just as well.
> > e.i. if the object of unitary mass under the effect of a impulse "jumps" from 0 to .5c
> > the same impulse applied to the same object traveling at .5c the jumps of the speed
> > is only from .5c to .8c
> Right, this is a consequence of Lorentz invariance, which you cannot explain at all, but which is a natural consequence and verified prediction of special relativity. You admit that this behavior is a complete mystery to you:
beda
it is not a mystery to me, only I refuse to consider that coordinate systems inertially synchronized are showing
the properties that you assign them, instead the search of the nature behavior and its description must be based on the absolute space and absolute time, and due to the emergent novelty of the Lorentz contraction, no other frames are possible beside the unique absolute reference.
said this, of course I cannot force anyone to change his approach to facts, but on the conceptual basis, your inertial
bullet uses the change of absolute movement to synchro the distant clock, as I told you before, after the Esynchro, the absolute movement of the SR frame is transferred to the span of the "asynchrony" of the frame clocks, this should tell you a lot.
did you check this, reread below:
a frame at .5c sees its unitary ruler traversed in the direction of the movement in a time
sqrt(1-.5^2)/ (1-.5^)= 1.73; local time 1.5
the clock at end of the ruler should by set at 1.5, instead is set at 1
so the clock is retsarded of exactly .5 () the value of the absolute speed of the SR frame.
do you really think that this has not meaning??
for any SR frame the "asynvhrony" of the two clock is exactly, the value of the absolute speed of the SR frame,
how do you explain this, please don't ignore this crucial point.
>
> > How the thrust given by the same impulse decreases its efficacy on the thrusted
> > object, as the object increases its absolute speed ???? any hint??
> Sure, your question, as always, is based on false premises. The efficacy is not reduced, because the application of a given force through a given distance (the definition of work/energy) is always the same. That's why the kinetic energy of mass m moving at speed v is not (1/2)mv^2, it is mc^2[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1]. This amount of energy can be confirmed by measuring the energy released by slowing the object back down. So there is no reduction in efficacy of the force. The explanation is that energy E has inertia E/c^2. Everything follows from this. We covered this before.
beda
I agree that all the energy that is transferred to the object can be given back, I still wonder how the thrusting object can transfer the energy without loosing efficacy as the thrusted object reaches very high speed,
I mean kind of: 10 of energy is spent while only 1 is tranferred to the object.
cheers
beda

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:14:25 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> There are not any definition of any concept used...

That is not true. I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.

> ...comparison don't need any of such, it can be made immediately using our senses:

Sorry to say, but you are lying. If someone offered you a million dollars right now, based on your own senses, to point in the direction of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame, you could not answer. You have no sense of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. Likewise you have no sense of your motion in the rest frame of the Andromeda galaxy. And so on. And in any case, all these things are relational speeds, not absolute speeds, so even if you could sense them (which you can't), they would not support your position. Anything that can be sensed is relational, so to support your case you need to be able to sense something that cannot be sensed.

> You are ignoring that light travel at c versus the local space where an object
> is at rest versus the incoming isotropic light;

The speed of light is isotropically c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in terms of any given frame). We've covered this before.

> I am talking only of a unique local reference for light and for moving objects...

And I keep reminding you that there is no such thing. There are various relational references such as the Sun's rest frame or Andromeda's rest frame, your your breakfast bagel's rest frame, or the CMBR isotropic rest frame, etc., but these are not absolute frames and they are all Lorentz invariant.

> I refuse to consider that coordinate systems inertially synchronized are showing
> the properties that you assign them...

Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).

> A frame at .5c ...

In terms of what coordinate system? You cannot talk meaningfully about lengths, distances, time intervals, speeds, etc., without specifying a system of coordinates.

> I agree that all the energy that is transferred to the object can be given back, I still
> wonder how the thrusting object can transfer the energy without loosing efficacy as
> the thrusted object reaches very high speed...

Practical difficulties of applying a given amount of force are just incidental factors, not relevant to this discussion. The laws of physics enable us to determine the amount of force actually applied to an object (such as to a charged particle in an electrostatic field), and this results in the acceleration and gain of kinetic energy as expected.

On 05-Jun-21 3:42 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:36:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>> On 04-Jun-21 10:19 pm, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>>>> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
>>>>> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
>>>>>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
>>>>>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
>>>>>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
>>>>>>> there are three possibility:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
>>>>>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> beda
>>>>>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
>>>>> beda
>>>>> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
>>>>> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
>>>>>
>>>>> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> beda
>>>>>
>>>> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
>>>> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia
>>> yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
>>> "know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
>>> can you??
>>> cheers
>>> beda
>>>
>> If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
>> twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> beda
> ok let's do it, to make it easy we substitute twins with two clocks,
> you say they keep their normal rate locally, (which is false)
> so the going away clock B (zeroed and send away) say at .5c (vs the left behind clock A)
> after a while B encounter another clock C coming in the opposite direction say at .6c
> C assume the reading of clock B and keeps going towards clock A
> when finally the clock C encounter clock A if the two traveling clocks kept their normal rate
> as you say, they should read the same elapsed time.

Your argument doesn't work. You are assuming, falsely, that clocks
running at their normal rate in their own frames are also running at
their normal rate in some global frame.

Sylvia.

Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 02:33:28 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 05-Jun-21 3:42 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> > Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:36:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >> On 04-Jun-21 10:19 pm, beda pietanza wrote:
> >>> Il giorno venerdì 4 giugno 2021 alle 14:11:57 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> >>>> On 31-May-21 12:53 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> >>>>> Il giorno domenica 30 maggio 2021 alle 15:11:10 UTC+2 Paparios ha scritto:
> >>>>>> El domingo, 30 de mayo de 2021 a las 6:25:28 UTC-4, beda-p...@libero.it escribió:
> >>>>>>> starting from the two twin side by side, they of course age at same rate.
> >>>>>>> when one twin moves away at a new different speed, and for all the time that he travels at same new speed,
> >>>>>>> there are three possibility:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> a)the new absolute speed is higher then he ages slower
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> b)the new absolute speed is lower then he ages faster
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> c)the new absolute speed is equal and opposite to the one it had before, then he ages at same rate of the twin left behind
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this is our starting point to understand what comes next into the SR garbled arrangement, SR solved the ageing of the traveling twin only when it comes back (after the forth and back trip, for sure, the twin ages less), but SR doesn't tell how he ages while it is traveling one way forth, nor how he ages while he is traveling one way back.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if you carefully go one step at a time into the SR mist, you come finally to
> >>>>>>> understand that the SR procedure is conceived to use the "hidden" absolutes behind it, to make the knowledge of the absolute superfluous and SR is successful in doing so,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it only takes us to know the full story from the very origin of it: SR is fully embedded into the absolute behavior of the nature.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SRists can live with their relativistic illusions, the trick is served free of charge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> cheers
> >>>>>>> beda
> >>>>>> In https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html you will find graphics detailing year by year what you should know about this
> >>>>> beda
> >>>>> ok, thanks for the link, but the question is how the twin is ageing while he is going away in one way trip
> >>>>> e.i, in the case c) in my post, the going away twin happens to be traveling at same speed in the opposite direction ​he is ageing exactly at same rate of the left behind twin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can you answer to this simple question: what is the ageing rate of the going away twin while he is keeping traveling away? just a simple comparative answer: he ages more, less or the same?
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> beda
> >>>>>
> >>>> The question is meaningless. It is not possible to compare the rates of
> >>>> ageing of the two twins when they are in relative motion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia
> >>> yes, sylvia, it is impossible to "compare" the ageing rate, but it is possible to
> >>> "know" what is happenins to their rate of ageing, by a correct intuition
> >>> can you??
> >>> cheers
> >>> beda
> >>>
> >> If you cannot compare them, then all you can do is consider the rate a
> >> twin ages in his own frame - which is just his normal rate.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > beda
> > ok let's do it, to make it easy we substitute twins with two clocks,
> > you say they keep their normal rate locally, (which is false)
> > so the going away clock B (zeroed and send away) say at .5c (vs the left behind clock A)
> > after a while B encounter another clock C coming in the opposite direction say at .6c
> > C assume the reading of clock B and keeps going towards clock A
> > when finally the clock C encounter clock A if the two traveling clocks kept their normal rate
> > as you say, they should read the same elapsed time.
> Your argument doesn't work. You are assuming, falsely, that clocks
> running at their normal rate in their own frames are also running at
> their normal rate in some global frame.
>
> Sylvia.
beda,
schizophrenic thinking apply to people, people may say the different thing at same time,
schizophrenic time rate don't apply to a single clock
a single clock traveling in space has a unique time rate for all observers.
of course you can manipulate frames to transform anything as you want
but that is just manipulation.
a clock is unique and unique is its time rate

you may mean that in SR you distinguish the local time rate of a single clock
from the time rate measured on that clock by a relatively moving observer.
be careful that is not a comparison between the single clocks belonging to the
two frames, but it is a "surreptitious" measurement that result on an artifacted apparent
time rate generated by comparing a rate of the observed clock against a row of clocks
passing by, this row of clocks are Esynched to be absolutely asynchronized
so that a fictitious elapsed time is added to the measurement, you should know this.

important is to point out that, a single clock in each single frame, has a unique time rate
determined by the absolute movement of the clock/frame, all the rest about SR measurements
are manipulations, useful or senseless we don't care for now, but surely a manipulation

sylvia, manipulating if not awarely done brings to self manupulated logic and to a conceptual mess:
the local clock is not running at normal rate: in the SR arrangement it is fictiously assumed
in running at such normal rate, to fit into the artifacted procedure resulting in a inexistent time rate
associated to an inexistent relative speed.
now this SR procedure is well known in its mechanism, and if you think it is useful to the your purposes,
fine, but please don't cheat: single clocks in each single SR frames do run at different rate accordingly to their absolute speeds, you may want to add that neither the rate of the clock is known nor its absolute speed, you may say so (it is a white lie) but if you insist in claiming that the single local clock runs at its normal rate, you are
lying or you are deceited by your own deceitful and messy way to profess your SR believe.

cheers
beda

Il giorno sabato 5 giugno 2021 alle 01:32:38 UTC+2 Cliff Hallston ha scritto:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:14:25 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > There are not any definition of any concept used...
>
> That is not true. I've given operational definitions of every term, using standard rulers and clocks, and referring to the established equations of physics. You, on the other hand, do nothing but repeat the word "absolute" with no coherent definition at all. You've given a dozen different vague attempts at definitions, and each one has been a relational one, not absolute at all.
beda
that is right, it is impossible to define what is obvious,
at same time the absolutness can be met in many different ways.
>
> > ...comparison don't need any of such, it can be made immediately using our senses:
>
> Sorry to say, but you are lying. If someone offered you a million dollars right now, based on your own senses, to point in the direction of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame, you could not answer. You have no sense of your motion relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. Likewise you have no sense of your motion in the rest frame of the Andromeda galaxy. And so on. And in any case, all these things are relational speeds, not absolute speeds, so even if you could sense them (which you can't), they would not support your position. Anything that can be sensed is relational, so to support your case you need to be able to sense something that cannot be sensed..
beda
look cliff, as I said the absolute is obvious, and I von't spend a word in the attempt of prove it, because I would fail against your lack of reckoning it by your self
>
> > You are ignoring that light travel at c versus the local space where an object
> > is at rest versus the incoming isotropic light;
> The speed of light is isotropically c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in terms of any given frame). We've covered this before.
beda
your manipulated SR frame are appositely constructed to show an apparent isotropic speed of light

>
> > I am talking only of a unique local reference for light and for moving objects...
>
> And I keep reminding you that there is no such thing. There are various relational references such as the Sun's rest frame or Andromeda's rest frame, your your breakfast bagel's rest frame, or the CMBR isotropic rest frame, etc., but these are not absolute frames and they are all Lorentz invariant..
beda
be sure, the sun, Andromeda, the CMBR, don't need any of your crooked SR frames, to show what they are,
and I want to know what they are and what they do, without any manipulated preconstructed human device.
only when, extablished at best of the possible our knowledge, have we given to each of them the proper physical explanation, and agreeing on that, only then, we can construct a common shared global scheme that put everything together.
till then, in presence of disagreement, we are forced to limit our confrontation on one single raw physical fact.

> > I refuse to consider that coordinate systems inertially synchronized are showing
> > the properties that you assign them...
>
> Well, you can live your life denying the objective facts, but that just leads you to solipism. The objective fact is that the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of every local system of inertial coordinates (standard rulers and clocks at rest an inertially synchronized in the given frame).
beda
that is surely true in the math SR use, if that is true factually in the real world is at stake.
but I invite you to limit our analisys using a common ground, that is the preferred frame at rest versus the CMBR.
that can help us out of a only apparent disagreement, because once extablished that the SR math rend invariant all your apposite constructed SR frame, you can live happily with you illusions and I can live happily with my opinion that math is not transferable to reality so easily.
few other conceptual minor expects are left to elaborate, and they would emerge clearly with an approach using the preferred frame anchored the the CMBR, like the SR arrangement to be strictly embedded on the absolutness of the speeds involved in the peculiar synchro SR uses

>
> > A frame at .5c ...
>
> In terms of what coordinate system? You cannot talk meaningfully about lengths, distances, time intervals, speeds, etc., without specifying a system of coordinates.
beda
you are swindling!, any speed even whatever one, with the SR synchro procedure, you will find that, whatever one value of the speed of the frame is, this value is transferred to the Esynchro retarded span time between successive clocks of the SR frame along the x axis,
you will refuse to go into this because it will show that all your pretence of ignoring the absolutness of the basis of your SR synchro procedure is one amongst many ways the "hidden" absolutes keeps peeping out to your face all the time.
just to add a more argument, each SR frame has a different shrewd Esynchro that distinguish one SR frame from the others, so this, is one way of assigning to any of the SR frames an absolute characteristic, specifically distinguished by the absolute of its speed value indicated by the Esynchro spanned clocks.

please don't swindle on the issue of the information of the absolute inertial speeds of each SR frames transferred
to the Esynchro clocks span, it is crucial for your understanding you SR !!!!

cheers
beda

> > I agree that all the energy that is transferred to the object can be given back, I still
> > wonder how the thrusting object can transfer the energy without loosing efficacy as
> > the thrusted object reaches very high speed...
>
> Practical difficulties of applying a given amount of force are just incidental factors, not relevant to this discussion. The laws of physics enable us to determine the amount of force actually applied to an object (such as to a charged particle in an electrostatic field), and this results in the acceleration and gain of kinetic energy as expected.