Instantaneous action at a distance

[Roshi]

According to this:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm

If at the points A and B of [the coordinate system] K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by ½ t v2/c2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

I have one clock here, and one clock at the other end of the Universe. And I move my clock a little, I go to the mall. Now my clock has a speed in relation to the other clock. This means mysterious forces will act on my clock, and it will go slower, than the other clock at the end of the Universe, with which it was synchronized. Isn't this instantaneous action at a distance? My clock slows down - but only in relation to another, does this not mean there is a physical phenomenon linking them, no matter the distance?

Some say what's going on is going on only "from the point of view of the other clock", and no real "slowing down" happens. I agree with that. Then comes the "twins paradox" called a paradox because this reciprocity is broken, and one twin really remains younger.... Because he "changed the reference frame" (this is the mainstream accepted solution). And the instantaneous action at a distance is real here.

Twins A, B, they are equal. B goes on a journey, while he goes away he sees A clock slowing down, and A sees B clock slowing down. But nothing real happens. Then, at the moment B changes course and returns, real time dilation kicks in and he arrives younger....That's what the laws of physics say...

What if at the point of course change, when B returns, there is twin C, C = A = B? While B goes from A to C, these three remain equal. Then B leaves C and returns to A, and remains younger than A at arrival.... But in the same way as when B was leaving A and the time dilation was "not real", now B leaves C, and the dilation is not real because no course change or reference frame change happened. This means B = C. And C = A, this means B = A. Else we live in Harry Potter land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

The paradoxical aspect of the twins' situation arises from the fact that at any given moment the travelling twin's clock is running slow in the earthbound twin's inertial frame, but based on the relativity principle one could equally argue that the earthbound twin's clock is running slow in the travelling twin's inertial frame.[16][17][18] One proposed resolution is that the earthbound twin is at rest in the same inertial frame throughout the journey, while the travelling twin is not: in the simplest version of the thought-experiment, the travelling twin switches at the midpoint of the trip from being at rest in an inertial frame with velocity in one direction (away from the earth) to being at rest in an inertial frame with velocity in the opposite direction (towards the earth).

Hafele Keating proved nothing. Even the atomic clock creator disagreed with them.
https://debunkingrelativity.com/twin-flight-experiment/

[comingfrom]

Hi Roshi.

Isn't this instantaneous action at a distance?

It takes a long time for the light to get across the universe, for you to see what time the far away clock says it is now.

That is what gives the illusion that time is slowed down, or sped up, over there.
The clock hasn't changed speed for the observer in the clock's frame of reference.
No clocks are actually slowing down.

Some say what's going on is going on only "from the point of view of the other clock", and no real "slowing down" happens. I agree with that. Then comes the "twins paradox" called a paradox because this reciprocity is broken, and one twin really remains younger.... Because he "changed the reference frame" (this is the mainstream accepted solution). And the instantaneous action at a distance is real here.

Twins A, B, they are equal. B goes on a journey, while he goes away he sees A clock slowing down, and A sees B clock slowing down. But nothing real happens. Then, at the moment B changes course and returns, real time dilation kicks in and he arrives younger....That's what the laws of physics say...

That's not right.
At the start you say paradox, because reciprocity is broken.
Paradox actually means theory, and math, are broken.
If you ended with a paradox, you didn't end with a solution.
Have to start over.

What if at the point of course change, when B returns, there is twin C, C = A = B? While B goes from A to C, these three remain equal. Then B leaves C and returns to A, and remains younger than A at arrival.... But in the same way as when B was leaving A and the time dilation was "not real", now B leaves C, and the dilation is not real because no course change or reference frame change happened. This means B = C. And C = A, this means B = A. Else we live in Harry Potter land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Instead of Wikipedia's Harry Potter land, try this.

The central contradiction is solved by recognizing that Relativity is a theory of observation and measurement, not a theory of existence. That is, Relativity is operational, not existential. What this means, specifically, is that mass and velocity transforms are performed on data, not upon particles. A given mass may look like it is increasing, from a distance, but locally there is no mass increase. A given velocity may look like it is decreasing, from a distance, but locally there is no change. Relativity does not apply locally. Einstein himself stated this explicitly and implicitly in a number of places, as I have shown in other papers, but he was not always consistent in his interpretation. And subsequent interpretations have not kept this distinction. The standard model now interprets Relativity in existential ways, claiming that Relative changes are in fact Absolute changes. Meaning that mass and velocity change not only in measurement, but locally—for the particles themselves. But, I may point out, if they were absolute and existential changes, Einstein would not have called Relativity “Relativity”. A relative change requires a relationship—a distance, a viewpoint. Local measurements are self-measurements where there is no distance, no relationship, and no relativity. Locally, there are no transforms, no mass increases, and no velocity changes.***

***Some physicists like Feynman have understood this (at times).

I shouldn't be pushing Miles Mathis here,
but he really helped me with the relativity conundrum.
He has a lot of papers on relativity.

I got this quote from his paper on THE MYTH OF THE BLACK HOLE
To find his papers on relativity, take the link to his homepage, scroll down and there is a whole section on relativity.

Paul

EDIT: to add a shortcut to his paper on the twin paradox IS TIME TRAVEL POSSIBLE?

[Roshi]

It takes a long time for the light to get across the universe, for you to see what time the far away clock says it is now.

That is what gives the illusion that time is slowed down, or sped up, over there.
The clock hasn't changed speed for the observer in the clock's frame of reference.
No clocks are actually slowing down.

I agree with that. A clock moving away from me would seem to tick slower, something like the Doppler effect. But no real slowing down due to "time dilation due to relative velocity" that causes a twin to remain younger somehow.

That's not right.
At the start you say paradox, because reciprocity is broken.
Paradox actually means theory, and math, are broken.
If you ended with a paradox, you didn't end with a solution.
Have to start over.

That's how the Twin Paradox is defined. That's why it's a paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.

And they say "yes, the returning twin remains younger - because he changed his reference frame". And I dismantled that, using 3 twins.

Mainstream is not sure if time dilation (real time dilation with real effects) due to relative velocity exists. But they gave a prize to Hafele Keating, so they are stuck with it, let them explain and believe themselves how this nonsense is caused by "changing reference frames", see the first link from my post.

"Time dilation due to gravity" is something else. I agree clocks may run slower in orbit, but that is not caused by "time running slower".

[comingfrom]

I agree with that. A clock moving away from me would seem to tick slower, something like the Doppler effect. But no real slowing down due to "time dilation due to relative velocity" that causes a twin to remain younger somehow.

And the clock moving towards you is sped up.

So, when the younger twin has turned around and is returning to earth, he is aging more quickly than his twin now. By the time he arrives at earth, they will be the same age again.

They always were the same age, of course. The slowing and speeding up of time was just an illusion caused by the fact it takes time for the information (about what time it is there) to get here.

And they say "yes, the returning twin remains younger - because he changed his reference frame". And I dismantled that, using 3 twins.

They didn't take into account the direction of travel.
Einstein didn't, and everybody else who worked this problem didn't either.

Mainstream is not sure if time dilation (real time dilation with real effects) due to relative velocity exists. But they gave a prize to Hafele Keating, so they are stuck with it, let them explain and believe themselves how this nonsense is caused by "changing reference frames", see the first link from my post.

Einstein did explain it well initially.
Others have misinterpreted his relativity ever since.

Until today, now scientists almost all universally believe the changes are absolute, and not relative.
And the misconceptions have become fodder for Hollywood too.
The masses are now being educated these misconception about relativity through the popular media.

We are probably the last generation who had any handle on the theory at all.
Paul

[comingfrom]

There is a better thought experiment to analyse this problem, than the ones mostly given.
It is hard to see the hands (or digits) on a clock that is so far away, so I think people get confused as to how we are getting to know the time in the distant coordinate, which would have to converted to a digital signal and sent to us on earth by radio waves, from someone aboard distant spaceship.

But try this instead.
Your clock is now a blinking light on top the spaceship. It blinks exactly once every second.
You are observing the blink as the spaceship travels away from you.
The spaceship is doing half c.

You see a blink, and set your timer and wait for the next blink.
After one second the light blinks again, but the spaceship has moved so much distance (½ a light second) in that second, so that the light from the second blink takes a little bit longer than the light from the previous blink took, to get here. So when the light gets here, we stop the timer and it says 1.something seconds. And every blink we receive takes that little bit longer than period between the previous two blinks. Due the spaceship getting further away, and the light having to travel that extra distance to us, every time the light clock blinks.

Hopefully you are still with me.

Now the spaceship has turned around, and is heading towards us at half the speed of light. Now the distance the light has to travel becomes shortened for each blink. The time between the blinks is less than a second, and each period is getting longer than than the last, because the vector is reversed. The spaceship is now travelling in the same direction as the light from the blinking clock has to take to get to us.

Most everyone leaves out the direction of velocity when discussing this problem, but the direction is critical. The direction can mean the difference between time being slowed down or time being sped up. Or, your relative clock maybe doing near light speed, but if it isn't moving away from you, nor moving towards you, say it is orbiting you, then the clocks remain in sync. The relative clock remains a constant amount of time in the past (however long it takes light to get to you, is how long in the past).

To prove this, rerun the experiment with your twin doing c in a circle around you in the same room. Both can see the same clock in the room. The high velocity twin isn't left in the past, nor takes off into the future. Though one is doing c relative to the other, yet no time transforms are happening. It takes virtually no time for light to travel from the clock to either observer, so they both see the same time.

Hopefully this helps.
Paul

[Roshi]

Thought experiment:
Let's have points A and B, placed on the same line as O, on opposite sides. A - O - B. At a distance of 180,000,000 km from O each.

Object 1 goes from O to A in 1000 seconds. What speed does it have? Simple: 180,000 km/s. How was the speed calculated, where were those 1000 seconds measured? There are synchronized clocks in all three points. When the object passes through these points, people write down the time on the clock. Then they compare what they wrote, sometime later. They divide distance by time and obtain speed. No need to mess things up with "how fast does information travel".

Object 2 goes from O to B, and does exactly the same thing as Object 1, at the same time.
What is the speed between these objects? In 1000 seconds, the distance between them went from 0 to 360,000,000 km. That means the speed of Object 1 in relation to Object 2 is 360,000 km/s...

Relativists would like to use their law of composition of velocities, then we would only have a max of 300,000 km/s speed between objects, this means they were traveling at 150,000 km/s each, they would not have reached A and B. I am sure they will say the objects can't even reach A and B, even if that's how the initial speed was measured, and it's a perfectly legal speed and they used that speed in their composition formula.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Roshi.

Let's have points A and B, placed on the same line as O, on opposite sides. A - O - B. At a distance of 180,000,000 km from O each.

Object 1 goes from O to A in 1000 seconds. What speed does it have? Simple: 180,000 km/s. How was the speed calculated, where were those 1000 seconds measured?

Up to this point, from a perspective outside of the all the objects' local coordinates.
I think that is called God's eye view, or Galilaean relativity.

When the object passes through these points, people write down the time on the clock. Then they compare what they wrote, sometime later. They divide distance by time and obtain speed. No need to mess things up with "how fast does information travel".

In other words, no need for relativity in this problem.
Provided the three clocks are in sync.

Object 2 goes from O to B, and does exactly the same thing as Object 1, at the same time.
What is the speed between these objects? In 1000 seconds, the distance between them went from 0 to 360,000,000 km. That means the speed of Object 1 in relation to Object 2 is 360,000 km/s...

In Galilaean relativity.
In Einsteinian relativity, a coordinate to measure from is chosen.

Relativists would like to use their law of composition of velocities, then we would only have a max of 300,000 km/s speed between objects, this means they were traveling at 150,000 km/s each, they would not have reached A and B. I am sure they will say the objects can't even reach A and B, even if that's how the initial speed was measured, and it's a perfectly legal speed and they used that speed in their composition formula.

All velocities are relative.
This is a fundamental postulate of Einsteinian relativity.
It means you can't tell where the velocities and accelerations are coming from.

If you are on object A, measuring the velocity of object B, you use Einsteins transform to get the relative velocity, and there is no way in the equation you can say what percentage of the velocity belongs to each object.
Another way to say it, the object where you are measuring from is considered to be at rest.
All the relative velocity belongs to the object being measured.

Looks to me like you, or they, are trying to use absolute velocities to create (not solve) a relativity problem, which is bound to run into problems.
So they succeeded.

Google search for law of composition of velocities shows this is a law of Galilaean relativity anyway.

[Roshi]

Any object that has no acceleration can be considered the origin of a reference frame.
First:
Object 1 goes from O to A with a legal speed
Object 2 goes from O to B with a legal speed.
These are given, these are the data of the problem. Now, we can select any of the objects as the origin of a reference frame. What is the distance of object 2 in relation to object 1, after 1000 s? It's 360,000,000 km, meaning object 2 moved with 360,000 km/s in relation to object 1. Else - both objects did not reach A and B, but this is given, and it's perfectly legal - until we want to calculate the speed between objects...

[Roshi]

If you have a speed - you can only measure it in relation to something else. If suddenly the rest of the Universe disappears, you cannot know if you have a speed or not. Even if before you had a speed. Except, if there is something like the aether, and you can measure in relation to that.
If you are on a ship you can feel the acceleration, but if that stops, you cannot know if you are moving or have stopped.

Let's say there are only 2 objects in the Universe. They are so far away, they have no influence on each other, or information about one another. They move towards each other. Until they see one another, they can't know if they are moving or sitting still. Then if they collide, they can conclude they were moving, even if there was no indication of that... Even then, both objects could conclude that they were hit by the other object that was moving towards them, because they themselves did not feel they were moving.

This is kind of strange. Shouldn't there be a way to determine motion, even in the absence of other objects?
Or: does motion exist in the absence of another object? It does not - it has no effect, then we suddenly hit something, and we find out we were in motion.

[comingfrom]

Shouldn't there be a way to determine motion, even in the absence of other objects?

No.

Or: does motion exist in the absence of another object?

No.

Not sure why you would think that is strange.
You seemed to have a good grip on relativity.

[webolife]

How is it not understood that, as far as measurement is capable of informing us, all action is at some distance? A space exists between [in the interaction of] all objects, in other words, an interface of space. This spacial interface somewhat defines the interacting objects' fields. The motion of objects can be described using either Galilean or Einsteinian relativity. Where the breakdown[s] occur, is in trying to aetherize the spacial interface. To eliminate the space, some assume a practically solid or infinitely dense aether, others possibly conclude that action is induced upon objects by something immaterial in space, or that that action is instantaneous across that interface. Neither of these is particularly palatable to the secular physicist, or to modern science as a general rule. We want all of our forces to be embodied [corporeal], so we invent objects like gravitons, photons, yes... even electrons. The word "invent" should not be taken to signify that these are necessarily non-existent, simply that they are models built upon the assumption of a fundamental billiard ball view of interacting objects. So how would I resolve this dilemma? I take the instantaneous interaction across distance that we observe as being what actually occurs. An object and it's field are a unity. If a compression, collapse, decay, or energy "loss" occurs at the centroid of the field, a/the/any peripheral point in that field is immediately changed likewise, a detector or observer at that point noticing a "tug" -- actually a PUSH -- toward that centroid. This push [better understood three-dimensionally as a squeeze] is variously denoted as "gravitation", voltage, charge, mass, nuclear force, etc. I refer to it [in memoriam of the late Robert Archer Smith who coined the term] as Centropy or "centropic pressure". In this view, it also describes LIGHT. Light action across a distance is the only way it is observed. It is detected at the peripheral interface, or not at all, never "along the way". In other words, when we see it, it is there, not somewhere else. No amount of femtophotographic processing negates this observation. And in the unity of fields, that instantaneous light action is operable at any scale, infields of all hierarchies. The vector of light, as with gravitation, is toward the centroid, therefore must be instantaneous in its action. No speeding photon bullets, or paradoxical wavefronts. Simple vectors of force or pressure, simply described by optical ray diagrams. Speed of objects is necessarily relative, but speed of light is irrelevant, since light is the interaction of the periphery and the centroid of a unified field. The twins paradox is therefore irrelevant. On a side note, it must be understood that any object moving through space, as in an orbit or circuit, is being acted on by tremendous forces both to accelerate it away from its system centroid, and to push it back into that field centroid. When thinking of objects as isolated we forget that these "outside" forces/pressures have significant fundamental material effect, eg. the operation of clocks. The basic rule of decay [a la 2nd law of thermodynamics], is also due to this universal system of pressure. Centropy = Entropy.
Haven't put my two cents worth in for while, so thought I'd insert again here

[comingfrom]

Webolife.

Light action across a distance is the only way it is observed. It is detected at the peripheral interface, or not at all, never "along the way". In other words, when we see it, it is there, not somewhere else. No amount of femtophotographic processing negates this observation.

So when a second observer steps between you and the light source, and casts a shadow on you, isn't that showing you that the light was in between "you at the peripheral interface" and the source?

Is not that which casts it's shadow upon us detecting the light "along the way"?
Paul

[webolife]

Hmmm... interesting line of questioning, but no: light "interupted" is simply blocked as is a book sitting on a table. The so-called shadow casting is no more phenomenal than the gravitational "shadow" between the table top and a scale beneath it upon the floor "waiting" to detect the weight of the book. From the viewpoint of the scale, the book is weightless since it's not detecting anything. This lack of detection of the book in no way invalidates the gravitation it is experiencing, in the same way that our inability to detect the blocked light as we observe from within its shadow does not infer that the light is not "there". I'm analogizing gravitation and light here deliberately as I believe both are manifestations of the same universal unified centropic pressure field. Remember too that all light is "invisible" until it is "blocked" by a resonant detector. There is no "visible" light [colors] except in the photodetector upon which it impinges. So seeing the light affirms its [omni]presence no more than closing your eyes and temporarily blocking its detection at the retina. To fully understand that last statement you must shift your paradigm to that of light as a pressure directed toward the source rather than as some objects emitted away from it. In addition, when light is "blocked" [at least]two things happen:
1. Some of it is reflected/vectored toward another detection device, and...
2. It's "invisible" manifestation to the blocked detector occurs as a different energy level of light, eg. x-ray or infrared/radio. If our eyes were resonant to these "colors" we would never experience a light shadow.
I'm hoping the above [too short] explanation leads to some additional questions for clarification. I've explained all this at great length on other boards.

[comingfrom]

Gravitational shadow?

Ants that walk under your table should begin to levitate, if the table is creating a gravitational shadow.

I don't think you can compare light to a book falling.
Unless your book represents a single photon.

Then we need a source of books, which is continuously radiating books.

Paul

[kevin]

The table is a resistor relative to the book.

In a perfectly packed near solid universe of geometric packing, all points are in direct contact with each other.
The memory field of this planet is a net implosion field, the stars are net explosion fields.
All 3D memories (atoms) have variant degrees of orientation relative to the overall planets and are generally vectored towards the heart centre of the planets memory field, there is no gravity to shield, as it doesn't exist.

Instantaneous actions at a distance will not occur in 3D, but in alternate geometries of the packing where no memory field resistances will be.

kevin