I don’t have a job here. I’m not getting paid to write to you.
Noted. You are not interested in understanding the twin paradox or special relativity. So I’ll stop trying to explain them to you. Of course, if you really wanted to know what was wrong with your argument, you would consult those voluminous online resources that cover this topic, but you just said that’s not what you’re looking for. So be it.
And seconds tick exactly the same for the twin on the space ship as they do for the twin on the ground. I have already explained this numerouos times, and you have ignored the explanations. So we are done,.
What if I read everything that is out there but still require other people’s assistance in order to understand it?
That’s just one possibility. There are many other.
If it were that simple, debates wouldn’t be a thing. They would be kind of redundant, wouldn’t they? People would simply have to read books in order to resolve disagreements. No dialog would be required.
If the other person doesn’t understand your explanations, they aren’t really explanations. You can either face that fact and adapt (either by ending the conversation for the time being or by discovering and providing a proper explanation) or you can deny it and keep being frustrated.
Or it could be that if the other person doesn’t understand the explanations, he’s not making a sufficient effort to understand, or he is not able to understand. I don’t think the latter is true for you, so I have to go with the former. You are making no effort to meet me halfway. When I call you “confused,” I am not insulting you, I am observing that you are confused about what relativity theory actually says. It is a fact that you are so confused, and this would be true even if relativity theory is false, (which it isn’t). But one can be confused about what a false theory actually says, in the same way they can be confused about what a true theory says.
You have not responded to the points that I made to you — that is what I find frustrating. I don’t think you understand (I could be wrong) the two postulates undergirding relativity theory. Postulate one is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Postulate two is that the speed of light is constant as measured in all such frames. Do you understand these postulates? Do you know what an inertial frame means? If you understand all that, then I can show you straight away why time dilation happens. But first you must understand the postulates.
You’re asking me to do calculations that I’m not particulary good at. Right now, I am getting different base-9 percentages for these numbers (and they happen to be infinite decimals.) So perhaps I was wrong the last time and numbers such as (0.1_9), (0.2_9), (0.3_9) and so on actually have no equivalent base-9 percentages. Either way, I don’t know where you’re going with this.
Having 3 of 9 apples means you have 33.333…% of the apples, or .3 of the apples.
There is no .9 in base 9, just like there isn’t a “10” in base 10.
9/9 = 1.0 in base 9
10/10 = 1.0 in base 10
There is no number 10 in base 10, and there is no number 9 in base 9.
Having 10 of 10 apples in base 10 means you have 100% of the apples, 1.0 of the apples.
Having 9 of 9 apples in base 9 means you have 100% of the apples, 1.0 of the apples.
This is not a correct description of scientific theories. For example, evolution is both a theory and a fact. In any case, no scientific theory is an assumption. A theory is a well attested and supported framework for explaining some fact or facts about the world, and making predictions that can be tested. That is not an assumption.
A supposition is an unproven belief ie. an assumption.
Merriam Webster:
Definition of theory
1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
the wave theory of light
2a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
theory of equations
4: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
music theory
5: abstract thought : SPECULATION
6: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
I am correct.
Unproved assumptions…conjecture.
Abstract thoughts…Speculation.
A hypothesis(unproven so assumed and speculated) assumed for the sake of argument.
A plausible(what does that boil down to? An good assumption) or scientifically acceptable(assumptions) general principle or body of principles(assumptions based on other assumptions) offered to explain phenomena.
Let’s take a look at the modern definition of the word “second”.
The problem with it is that the word “second” no longer refers to a specific duration. In other words, the word “second” can now be used to refer to different durations. Thus, the stay at home twin can rightfully claim the the trip has lasted for 5 trillion seconds; and at the same time, the travelling twin can rightfully claim that the trip has lasted for 1 trillion seconds. And they can do so for no other reason than because the word “second” has been (re)defined to be ambiguous. The stay at home twin uses the word “second” to refer to one duration; the travelling twin uses the word “second” to refer to another duration. And they can do so because the definition permits it. The elapsed time, however, remains the same for both. The Earth doesn’t care. The number of revolutions the Earth has made remains the same for both twins.
But they will not get around the fact that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. The very definition of the meter is the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Light travels an exact path length, in an exact duration of time.
In my example with the mirror placed 1 light minute away, it takes exactly 2 minutes for light to travel to the mirror and back. The twins tested it numerous times, and in every case, the light returned in 2 minutes.
So the traveling twin claiming the total time of his trip being 51 seconds is claiming the speed of light is faster than c. That means his clock is absolutely wrong, and the length of the path that light traveled proves it. There is only 1 path length, not 2, so it’s a fact that his clock did not measure time accurately, because light didn’t travel at 2 different speeds.
The stay at home twin’s clock kept accurate time. The traveling twins clock did not keep accurate time. His clock changed rate when he traveled and that meant the speed of light changed for him, and we know that is false!
Measurement of time is based on some cyclical phenomenon. One can say it’s the orbits of the earth around the sun but that’s pretty inconvenient. That’s why we use clocks. Now we use atomic clocks. And it’s the same specific duration in the spaceship and on earth.
But really the main point is that all processes in motion are slower relative to the earth. Pendulums, spring wound mechanical clocks, atomic motion, your biological aging, radioactive decay, etc. Everything.
