Aether and Relativity by Einstein

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

First, that interview thing from John Doan is not an interview with Einstein, it says directly that it is with some "imaginary Einstein" he made up.

This is a valid refute on that is not a documentary proof of what Einstein had said. Responding to your post, I was searching for documentary proof if Einstein had ever specifically said it is time that is slower for time dilation, then came across that articles, was too engrossed in the content and missed out on the introduction, my apology and thanks for pointing that out. However, my query to you on documentary proof for Einstein said it is time that is slower for time dilation still stands.

And you provided it as follow.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time $\tau$ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time $\tau$. What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?

Between the quantities x, t, and $\tau$, which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and



Therefore,



whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by seconds per second, or--neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher order--by .

This is a direct translation of Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", his words himself.

Note the statement: "the time marked by the clock is slow by"

Compare that with: "It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of ``time'' by substituting ``the position of the small hand of my watch'' for ``time.'' And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.

We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought."

He takes lengths to specify that he is not simply talking about some effect on the clocks themselves, that the clocks by any account remain unchanged during these experiments, but that they simply recorded less time.

Equivalently, one could say that they did not travel as far through time as the resting clock did.

The concluding statement above is a subjective interpretation of what Einstein had explained on time dilation; it is merely a tautology that is analytically true to converge with the preconceived idea of variant time.

Let me make an analogy, say if we watch a recorded video showing a bee flapping its wings in slow motion playback and it show a corresponding real time clock in the actual event that was recorded together. In the slow motion effect of ten times slower the bee is flapping its wings in a slow motion playback, the time marked by the clock in the video would also be slowed by a delay factor of 10 when compare to real time of the observer. We know this slow motion playback is not a real time phenomenon, yet we can say the time marked by the clock in the video is slow by 10 seconds per second.

If one interprets all the explanation of Einstein as stated above to mean that time dilation is a phenomenon of slower motion, it would also converge with the preconceived idea of invariant time. Just by tautology it could also be analytically true.

If Einstein had ever mentioned that it is time that is slower in his definition for time dilation, I expect you to show me that he had said that specifically in documentary proof or the likes, not what you think or believe this is what he had said through your interpretation of Einstein’s explanations. If Einstein meant it is time that is slower for his definition of time dilation, it should be very clearly stated by him, he would not indirectly infer this very crucial terminology. Let me state the definition of time dilation for Einstein’s theory of relativity again:

Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock, which is physically identical to their own, is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. - Excerpt from Wikipedia on time dilation.

Time dilation is not an effect where time is slowed, it is an effect where ones motion through time is reduced.

The above statement is valid for Einstein’s theory of relativity; the first sentence specifically states that time dilation is not an effect where time is slowed, and this is valid for SR as well as GR. The second sentence describes the effect of time dilation; a slower clock that is passively transformed or actively transformed is the motion that is reduced through time, specifically this time refers to the proper time of inertial observer.

However, your example below did not demonstrate consistency with this statement.

If it a resting clock moves through 10 years from 1980 to 1990, while remaining at x, y, z = 0, and you plot a course which transports a clock from x, y, z = 0 to x, y, z = 1,000,000 and back to x, y, z, = 0 at a significant fraction of the speed of light, your clock will move through, perhaps 1 year upon arrival at x, y, z, = 0, t = 1990.

You will have undergone 1 year worth of motion through time yourself, and thus your body would have aged and changed accordingly, while your fellow experimenter who stayed with the rest clock would have moved 10 years through time, and aged accordingly.

Any adjustment of position in x, y, z will reduce the distance traversed along t.

You are always moving through t at a rate decided by your mass and the local neighborhood, which in your case includes the Earth, as it induces noticeable curvature on spaceTIME at your location.

This causes two effects, your position in x, y, z will always be as close to the center of the Earth as possible (barring the resistance of the ground), as your geodesic (or path of least resistance) is bent from the straight line found in flat spacetime, to one which is directed towards the Earth, and your motion through t relative to an observer outside of the Earths gravity well is reduced accordingly.

This thought experiment is invalid. It is a similar version of the twin paradox example in mathematical relativism with the assumption of reified time to illustrate time dilation effect that is not endorsed by Einstein. There is a contradiction of a logical paradox in symmetric time dilation effect with this explanation.

To make this thought experiment tenable for illustrating time dilation effect of SR, one could assume a flat spacetime in a hypothetical construct, that x,y,z = 0 is in a location in space, and x,y,z = 1,000,000 is another location in space of equal gravitational potential, the course to be traveled between the two location follows a curvature in geodesic of an equal gravitational potential that is maintained throughout the journey, and only uniform velocity is involved throughout the journey that is somehow done, so there would be no issue with gravitation time dilation that associates with proper acceleration or deviation in gravitation potential.

The phenomena of length contraction and length extension that would be involved in this example are omitted to keep the focus on time dilation effect of SR.

In your example there would be two legs of passive transformation in the course for the to-and-fro motion. The inertial observer would observe a time dilation effect when the traveling clock moves away, and then observe a reversed time dilation effect when the traveling clock is on its way back. In the inertial frame of reference for the person who make the trip, in relative motion he would also observer a symmetrical time dilation effect and symmetrical reversed time dilation effect of the at rest clock at location z,y,z=0. When the two clocks met again at the at rest location ten years later, both clocks would record a same period of ten years and both experimenters would also age the same ten years. There is no contradiction with this explanation.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Further clarification, the light clock which was measuring rate t' while in motion would not measure rate t' when returned to a state of rest alongside the stationary clock.

I agree. This would qualitatively prove the assumption is invalid in mathematical relativism that assumes this light clock is a standard clock. This is a false fact used to conclude that time is variant.

It was not stated that it was adjusted to read rate t' while in motion, it was stated that while in motion the difference between the stationary rate t and the moving rate t' can be taken only as a change in the clocks motion through time, due to the invariance of the speed of light.

It does said the person in relative motion of uniform velocity would observe the clock to be indicating proper time “t”, this infers the light clock has to be adjusted to read rate “t” while in motion in order for him to observe proper time “t”. If he carries an atomic clock with him, the rate of the light clock in uniform velocity motion "v" would by in sync with the atomic clock. From the reference of this "t" that is identical to the inertial observer, the inertail observer would observe a time dilated "t" for the person in motion "v". This is despite the example only indicates the change in rate of the clocks that is in motion "v".

Despite an inertial observer would observe both the light clock and atomic clock in motion to be time dilated when compare with his proper time at rest frame. The person in relative motion of uniform velocity in his inertial reference frame would observe the inertial observer to be in relative motion with the light clock of the inertial observer to be symmetrically time dilated when compare to the proper time of the person moving in uniform velocity. Qualitatively, this symmetric time dilation effect is itself an immutable proof that time dilation effect is a passive transformation of no physical significant; the observable phenomenon of time dilation effect in SR is merely an optical illusion of relative motion in uniform velocity.

[Max™]

The concluding statement above is a subjective interpretation of what Einstein had explained on time dilation; it is merely a tautology that is analytically true to converge with the preconceived idea of variant time.

What? Einstein was proposing the idea of variant time, not proposing thought experiments which agree with that idea as though it were a pre-existing statement.

Let me make an analogy, say if we watch a recorded video showing a bee flapping its wings in slow motion playback and it show a corresponding real time clock in the actual event that was recorded together. In the slow motion effect of ten times slower the bee is flapping its wings in a slow motion playback, the time marked by the clock in the video would also be slowed by a delay factor of 10 when compare to real time of the observer. We know this slow motion playback is not a real time phenomenon, yet we can say the time marked by the clock in the video is slow by 10 seconds per second.

No, if during this video we had a way of observing a person going past at a significant fraction of light speed, we could see that their clock, and thus their subjective time, is slower than the one with the stationary clock and the bee.

If one interprets all the explanation of Einstein as stated above to mean that time dilation is a phenomenon of slower motion, it would also converge with the preconceived idea of invariant time. Just by tautology it could also be analytically true.

It is not slower motion, when you are experiencing time dilation, you do not perceive it, if you did you could determine that you were in motion and not at rest in a gravitational field, which violates the very foundation of relativity.

If Einstein had ever mentioned that it is time that is slower in his definition for time dilation, I expect you to show me that he had said that specifically in documentary proof or the likes, not what you think or believe this is what he had said through your interpretation of Einstein’s explanations. If Einstein meant it is time that is slower for his definition of time dilation, it should be very clearly stated by him, he would not indirectly infer this very crucial terminology. Let me state the definition of time dilation for Einstein’s theory of relativity again:[/FONT][/SIZE]
Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock, which is physically identical to their own, is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. -

That is not Einstein's definition, I gave his definition already. That is a generalization on Wikipedia, which lacks the phenomenological description of the effect.

The above statement is valid for Einstein’s theory of relativity; the first sentence specifically states that time dilation is not an effect where time is slowed, and this is valid for SR as well as GR. The second sentence describes the effect of time dilation; a slower clock that is passively transformed or actively transformed is the motion that is reduced through time, specifically this time refers to the proper time of inertial observer.

Yes, time is not something which possesses the scalar quantity of velocity. Time is a direction, motion through time involves duration.

It is not merely clocks, Einstein goes to GREAT lengths to specify that it is not an effect of the clocks involved, I don't understand how you got from his paper that he was speaking of some transformation of the clocks alone, when he specifically states exactly the opposite: that clocks are bad examples of this effect and cannot be used unless they are understood as only an approximation of some ideal timepiece which cannot be incorrect, and which is only making the actual effect VISIBLE to observers who lack internal clocks, such as ourselves.

However, your example below did not demonstrate consistency with this statement.

[SIZE="2"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]This thought experiment is invalid. It is a similar version of the twin paradox example in mathematical relativism with the assumption of reified time to illustrate time dilation effect that is not endorsed by Einstein. There is a contradiction of a logical paradox in symmetric time dilation effect with this explanation.

There is no twin paradox. It is well known that the twin paradox is based on a mistake on the part of the person who proposed it, and that in actual relativity the twin who changed direction on his trip would be able to measure that he underwent acceleration, and thus the two are no longer indistinguishable/symmetric.

To make this thought experiment tenable for illustrating time dilation effect of SR, one could assume a flat spacetime in a hypothetical construct, that x,y,z = 0 is in a location in space, and x,y,z = 1,000,000 is another location in space of equal gravitational potential, the course to be traveled between the two location follows a curvature in geodesic of an equal gravitational potential that is maintained throughout the journey, and only uniform velocity is involved throughout the journey that is somehow done, so there would be no issue with gravitation time dilation that associates with proper acceleration or deviation in gravitation potential.

You cannot make a journey from one point to another, and return without including some sort of acceleration. This is trivially obvious.

The phenomena of length contraction and length extension that would be involved in this example are omitted to keep the focus on time dilation effect of SR.

In your example there would be two legs of passive transformation in the course for the to-and-fro motion. The inertial observer would observe a time dilation effect when the traveling clock moves away, and then observe a reversed time dilation effect when the traveling clock is on its way back.

He would not observe a reversed time dilation effect. This is completely false, and is nowhere suggested by Relativity.

I repeat, nowhere at all was that ever hinted or alluded towards by Einstein, or anyone who understands the theory, ever.

Furthermore, the inertial observer would not observe a time dilation effect, he may be able to observe some effects due to the redshift/blueshift of his twin on their journey, but the time dilation would not become apparent until they were located adjacent to one another, unless they had some faster than light communication method, which is obviously left out due to it violating basic principles of SR.

In the inertial frame of reference for the person who make the trip, in relative motion he would also observer a symmetrical time dilation effect and symmetrical reversed time dilation effect of the at rest clock at location z,y,z=0. When the two clocks met again at the at rest location ten years later, both clocks would record a same period of ten years and both experimenters would also age the same ten years. There is no contradiction with this explanation.

He would not observe a reversed time dilation effect, that entire explanation contradicts relativity.

The twin who turned around would obviously claim he was the one who had been in motion, and there is no reason for him to claim his time dilation would be symmetric with his brother.

The symmetric time dilation ONLY applies to pairs of observers in uniform relative motion to one another.

If the twin in motion had not returned, they could not say for sure what happened, since he did, it is clear that they were not in uniform and relative motion.

[Max™]

I agree. This would qualitatively prove the assumption is invalid in mathematical relativism that assumes this light clock is a standard clock. This is a false fact used to conclude that time is variant.

No, if the clock read rate t' in motion, and read rate t' at rest, then the assumption that it is a standard clock would be invalid, you've got something reversed here.

It does said the person in relative motion of uniform velocity would observe the clock to be indicating proper time “t”, this infers the light clock has to be adjusted to read rate “t” while in motion in order for him to observe proper time “t”.

No, his very ability to observe is adjusted, not the clock.

If he carries an atomic clock with him, the rate of the light clock in uniform velocity motion "v" would by in sync with the atomic clock. From the reference of this "t" that is identical to the inertial observer, the inertial observer would observe a time dilated "t" for the person in motion "v". This is despite the example only indicates the change in rate of the clocks that is in motion "v".

The t' in motion would only seem identical to the inertial observer t, when viewed from the frame in motion. This is because you cannot determine by any experiment that one is in motion if you cannot see your surroundings. You would claim you were observing proper time, when in fact you were moving slower through time.

Despite an inertial observer would observe both the light clock and atomic clock in motion to be time dilated when compare with his proper time at rest frame. The person in relative motion of uniform velocity in his inertial reference frame would observe the inertial observer to be in relative motion with the light clock of the inertial observer to be symmetrically time dilated when compare to the proper time of the person moving in uniform velocity.

As long as he did not change directions and bring the clocks back for comparison, yes, he could claim the other person was the one undergoing dilation. The very instant he changes speed and heads back to the inertial observer, the fact that he was the one in motion becomes obvious.

Qualitatively, this symmetric time dilation effect is itself an immutable proof that time dilation effect is a passive transformation of no physical significant; the observable phenomenon of time dilation effect in SR is merely an optical illusion of relative motion in uniform velocity.

You've missed the part where that "illusion" only holds until the observer in motion does something which determines that they were in fact in motion: i.e. they change course somehow which would enable them to experimentally distinguish between their claimed inertial frame, and an accelerated frame.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

What? Einstein was proposing the idea of variant time, not proposing thought experiments which agree with that idea as though it were a pre-existing statement.

Einstein did not endorse variant time for SR for inertial observers in relative motion of uniform velocity postulated in mathematical relativism.

No, if during this video we had a way of observing a person going past at a significant fraction of light speed, we could see that their clock, and thus their subjective time, is slower than the one with the stationary clock and the bee.

This analogy is a known setup to display the dynamic image in a slow motion playback; the slower clock observed that corresponds to the slower wing flapping of the bee is a slow motion playback that apparently it is a passive transformation of the real time event. Yet one can say the time marked by the clock in the video is slow by 10 seconds per second. What I am saying is the interpretation of that Einstein statement could have different conclusions subjected to different assumptions. If one proposition variant time, you would interpret that statement to mean active transformation, if you proposition invariant time, you would interpret that statement to mean passive transformation. And both interpretations can be analytically true in the frame of thought subjected to their fundamental assumptions.

It is not slower motion, when you are experiencing time dilation, you do not perceive it, if you did you could determine that you were in motion and not at rest in a gravitational field, which violates the very foundation of relativity.

From the perspective propositioning variant time in SR for inertial observers in relative motion of uniform velocity that would involve active transformation of time, then what you mentioned above would be analytically valid.

That is not Einstein's definition, I gave his definition already. That is a generalization on Wikipedia, which lacks the phenomenological description of the effect.

I understand you propositioned active transformation of time occurs for an observer in relative motion of uniform velocity with SR. In my humble opinion the definition you gave is the mathematical relativism version for theory of relativity. This is the disagreement that we are debating on.

Yes, time is not something which possesses the scalar quantity of velocity. Time is a direction, motion through time involves duration.

It is not merely clocks, Einstein goes to GREAT lengths to specify that it is not an effect of the clocks involved, I don't understand how you got from his paper that he was speaking of some transformation of the clocks alone, when he specifically states exactly the opposite: that clocks are bad examples of this effect and cannot be used unless they are understood as only an approximation of some ideal timepiece which cannot be incorrect, and which is only making the actual effect VISIBLE to observers who lack internal clocks, such as ourselves.

These are the conclusions that are very much in line with mathematical relativism that assumes time is transformable for its theory of relativity.

There is no twin paradox. It is well known that the twin paradox is based on a mistake on the part of the person who proposed it, and that in actual relativity the twin who changed direction on his trip would be able to measure that he underwent acceleration, and thus the two are no longer indistinguishable/symmetric.

To make this thought experiment tenable for illustrating time dilation effect of SR, one could assume a flat spacetime in a hypothetical construct, that x,y,z = 0 is in a location in space, and x,y,z = 1,000,000 is another location in space of equal gravitational potential, the course to be traveled between the two location follows a curvature in geodesic of an equal gravitational potential that is maintained throughout the journey, and only uniform velocity is involved throughout the journey that is somehow done, so there would be no issue with gravitation time dilation that associates with proper acceleration or deviation in gravitation potential. - Vincent Wee-Foo

You cannot make a journey from one point to another, and return without including some sort of acceleration. This is trivially obvious.

When one establishes a hypothetical construct for SR, the circumstances presumed have to be valid for time dilation effect of SR; the example illustrated must not involve gravitational time dilation else it would induce trivialism and the example would not be valid. The mathematical relativism version of the twin paradox example is clearly established to illustrate SR in presumed circumstances of uniform velocity motion; it is a tenable example in hypothetical circumstances. Your example is basically similar to the tenable mathematical relativism version of the twin paradox example that illustrates time dilation effect of SR. I merely establish the circumstances so that your example is tenable for illustrating time dilation effect of SR for our discussion.

Tenable example is one issue and the assumption of active transformation of time that deduced the traveling twin in uniform velocity would age lesser is another issue when using the example. Einstein did not endorse active transformation would occur in SR with the original twin paradox example; time dilation effect by itself is a passive transformation that would not cause the traveling twin to age lesser.

In the modified thought experiment for Einstein receding from a clock tower I had shown you in a previous post on how the thought experiment could be tenable as an SR example. Since you raise this issue that it is an impossible situation, I would elaborate on how to establish uniform velocity for your thought experiment so that it could be possible and also tenable as a SR example for time dilation effect.

In perpetual motion of uniform velocity in circular path that moves in equal gravitational potential, an inertial observer in continuously motion can travel from point A to point B, and then from point B back to point A without involving proper acceleration or gravitational acceleration. Under these circumstances the hypothetical construct could be tenable to illustrate time dilation effect of SR.

Your conclusion that the person traveling at a fraction of light speed would age for one year while the person at rest would have aged ten years, is deduced by the traveling person would have undergone active transformation of time that correspond the what Einstein light clock would measure; this is based on the assumption that uniform velocity motion through time dilation effect has physically effect.

He would not observe a reversed time dilation effect. This is completely false, and is nowhere suggested by Relativity.

Time dilation refers to the phenomenon of another's clock, which is physically identical to their own clock, is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. It is a fact that atomic clock in satellite would physically run faster in weaker gravitational potential when it is in higher altitude that follows the principle of inverse-square law. This is a reverse situation for gravitational time dilation.

If Einstein recedes from the clock tower at near light speed, he would see the clock to be time dilated, if he approaches the clock tower at near light speed, in a reverse manner of time dilation effect, he would see the clock to be running faster. This is what I mean by reversed time dilation effect, a phenomenon that an inertial observer would be seeing the clock to be ticking faster. In my humble opinion, in a reverse manner this is compatible with the Einstein’s version of time dilation effect for SR that postulates passive transformation of no physical significant.

...post too large, to be contiuned in next post.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

I repeat, nowhere at all was that ever hinted or alluded towards by Einstein, or anyone who understands the theory, ever.

Reversed time dilation effect conflicts with mathematical relativism version for time dilation effect of SR that postulates active transformation of physical significant.

Let me illustrate a simple example that anyone can understand it intuitively: If one sees a star that is ten light years away, he is seeing a ten year time delayed image of the star. If he observer a sunspot event on the star (like the one that occurs on the Sun), that event had actually occurred ten years ago, this is as a result of the distant apart that takes light to travel ten years from the star to reach the observer; the observer is observing a historical event. A particular sunspot event is relatively temporal that usually last only for a few months, a particular sunspot event on the star could be long gone in real time when he is observing the time delay image of the event through his sunspot telescope.

If one has moved halfway toward the star in uniform velocity, he would see the image of the star that is five years time delayed. In uniform velocity moving towards the star, the ten years time delayed image of the star would be gradually transformed to the five years time delayed image. During the course of uniform velocity motion to reach the halfway distant, the observer catches up five year of time delay image in a speed up manner; he would literally observe the events on the star to have sped up. If there is an identical atomic clock on the star that tick at the same rate with an atomic clock with him when he is in rest frame, he would see the clock speed up while he approaches the halfway point, and when he reached the halfway point, the clock on the star would be observed to record five years of time more than the clock with him that records proper time. If he move at 90% of speed of light in uniform velocity to travel five light years it would take him approximately 5.556 years to reach there, his proper time would record 5.556 years approximately, at that location the clock on the star would now be five years time delayed instead of ten years, and he would observe this clock to record a total of approximately 10.556 years of time. This is a reversed time dilation effect of SR that is consistence in passive transformation of no physical significant.

Furthermore, the inertial observer would not observe a time dilation effect, he may be able to observe some effects due to the redshift/blueshift of his twin on their journey, but the time dilation would not become apparent until they were located adjacent to one another, unless they had some faster than light communication method, which is obviously left out due to it violating basic principles of SR.

When we say observation here, we should understand it refers to instrumentation-aided observation, not limited only to optically seeing it. This applies to the light clocks as well for the SR example, it is the instrument that records and counts the bouncing of light beam between the two mirrors and then optically display the counted results.

In your SR example for time dilation effect if you used that Einstein light clock, the clock in motion that physically runs slower would undergo time dilation effect when it is moving away from the inertial observer. The physically slower ticking clock in motion could be telescopically observed by the inertial observer to be further slower by the functions of a Lorentz factor and its geodesic factor in curved path. On its return trip towards the observer, it would then be observer to be running faster by the reversed functions of the Lorentz factor and the geodesic factor. And when they were located adjacent to one another, the inertial observer would read the actual recording of the physically slowed clock. This Einstein light clock is physically slowed when it is in uniform velocity motion. If an atomic clock is used instead, it would record a same time as the atomic clock that is with the inertial observer when the clocks are next to each other after the clock in uniform velocity motion has returned from the trip.

He would not observe a reversed time dilation effect, that entire explanation contradicts relativity.

The twin who turned around would obviously claim he was the one who had been in motion, and there is no reason for him to claim his time dilation would be symmetric with his brother.

The symmetric time dilation ONLY applies to pairs of observers in uniform relative motion to one another.

If the twin in motion had not returned, they could not say for sure what happened, since he did, it is clear that they were not in uniform and relative motion.

No, if the clock read rate t' in motion, and read rate t' at rest, then the assumption that it is a standard clock would be invalid, you've got something reversed here.

No, his very ability to observe is adjusted, not the clock.

The t' in motion would only seem identical to the inertial observer t, when viewed from the frame in motion. This is because you cannot determine by any experiment that one is in motion if you cannot see your surroundings. You would claim you were observing proper time, when in fact you were moving slower through time.

As long as he did not change directions and bring the clocks back for comparison, yes, he could claim the other person was the one undergoing dilation. The very instant he changes speed and heads back to the inertial observer, the fact that he was the one in motion becomes obvious.

You've missed the part where that "illusion" only holds until the observer in motion does something which determines that they were in fact in motion: i.e. they change course somehow which would enable them to experimentally distinguish between their claimed inertial frame, and an accelerated frame.

There is no absolute reference frame in SR. You above arguments that portrayed absolute reference frame for SR are invalid.

The above deductions and conclusion based on active transformation of time by ignoring symmetrical time dilation effect are therefore fundamentally invalid.

The time dilation effect of SR is reciprocal; symmetrical time dilation effect occurs to both inertial observers in relative motion of uniform velocity.

[Max™]

I did not posit an absolute reference frame.

SR is only an approximation.

Your argument is founded on a mistake.

As an obvious example, if you do not understand that a circular path constitutes acceleration, and would thus make the person in motion distinguishable, you have missed a lot of important points.

SR cannot be applied improperly as you are doing, it leads to trivially unphysical suggestions like reverse time dilation on a return trip.

Just because it does not handle acceleration well, does NOT mean SR cannot handle it at all.

It should be obvious that the twin who turned around and returned was able to feel acceleration at that end of his journey, and if he checked his brothers clock at that point in the trip, he would see his brother had incurred no dilation, the effect he observed in motion was due to his motion through time being different.

You've taken one part of the description: two observers in uniform motion will observe reciprocal time dilation, and WRONGLY applied it to the actual phenomenon of time dilation.

Consider this, two observers in uniform motion, both observing the other to be dilated.

Then one observer stops moving, what do you think would happen?

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

I did not posit an absolute reference frame.

In stating time dilation effect is an active transformation for the traveling observer and both observers would agree it is the traveling observer’s time that is dilated, you had posited an absolute reference frame that is invalid for SR.

SR is only an approximation.

I agree. However, this would not alter the type of transformation involved for time dilation effect of SR for the two inertial observers in uniform velocity motion in symmetrical situation.

Your argument is founded on a mistake.

You have to specifically address it with substantiate proof if my argument is founded on a mistake, just by saying it is founded on a mistake does not suffice.

For example, I have proved to you that the Einstein light clock is not a standard clock; this clock ticks at different rates when it is at different velocity. In a frame of reference the ticking of this clock in motion would be physically slowed when compared to an identical light clock at rest. Using this clock for the SR example is invalid for the reason that the symmetry of SR for the two inertial observers is broken. Mathematical relativism assumed that Einstein light clock is a standard clock and concluded with this assumption that active transformation of time occurs to time dilation effect of SR. This conclusion is based on a wrong assumption and therefore is invalid.

The GPS experiments that accurately accounts for gravitation time dilation with atomic clocks in

You have to prove to us that Einstein light clock is a standard clock; just by believing it is a standard clock through statement of faith or explain it with moot reasoning does not suffice to validate your claim.

As an obvious example, if you do not understand that a circular path constitutes acceleration, and would thus make the person in motion distinguishable, you have missed a lot of important points.

I believe you are referring to centripetal force, and again this is an issue of gravitational time dilation on inertial acceleration, not an issue with time dilation effect. One can just account for this factor in the SR example and that would suffice, just like making the adjustment for the atomic clock in a satellite orbiting the Earth so that it is synchronized to the atomic clock on Earth and its reading could therefore be accurate; the symmetrical situation for both inertial observer could be maintained and therefore tenable as a SR example.

As long as the symmetry for the two inertial observers are somehow maintained, even with your original example of straight path, accounts the measurements only when the relative motion is at uniform velocity and omits the measurements when the motion is not in uniform velocity such as when it accelerates, turns around or decelerates, the example would be tenable for time dilation effect of SR.

If you drag in those factors that would cause non-symmetrical situation for the two inertial observers that does not relates to time dilation effect in SR and do not want to presume they could be somehow offset to maintain the symmetrical situation, you would have no end in the discussions on other issues that are not focused on the time dilation effect of SR.

SR cannot be applied improperly as you are doing, it leads to trivially unphysical suggestions like reverse time dilation on a return trip.

This is your opinion according to mathematical relativism that postulates active transformation of time would occur for time dilation effect of SR that does not refer to reality, the opinion is based on wrongly assuming a fiddled clock to be a standard clock and ignores the fundamental principle of symmetrical situation in time dilation effect.

Just because it does not handle acceleration well, does NOT mean SR cannot handle it at all.

This is not the issue for a hypothetical construct of SR example in symmetrical situation.

It should be obvious that the twin who turned around and returned was able to feel acceleration at that end of his journey, and if he checked his brothers clock at that point in the trip, he would see his brother had incurred no dilation, the effect he observed in motion was due to his motion through time being different.

This is merely a tautology for time dilation; this is not an issue of time dilation effect.

You've taken one part of the description: two observers in uniform motion will observe reciprocal time dilation, and WRONGLY applied it to the actual phenomenon of time dilation.

I don’t agree.

Consider this, two observers in uniform motion, both observing the other to be dilated.

Then one observer stops moving, what do you think would happen?

I assume you meant relative motion of uniform velocity for uniform motion as stated above.

If relative motion stops, time dilation effect for both inertial observers would accordingly stops symmetrically. When the relative motion is completely stopped, they would both observe a time delay effect of each other depending on how far they are apart. If they were one light year apart, both observers would see the events of the other observer in their historical image of one year ago without any time dilation effect, and both observers would see the other party’s standard clock to be slowed by a fixed period of one year.

I am glad you have asked this question. However, please tell me what you think would happen.

[Max™]

In stating time dilation effect is an active transformation for the traveling observer and both observers would agree it is the traveling observer’s time that is dilated, you had posited an absolute reference frame that is invalid for SR.

No I did not posit an absolute reference frame, I simply stated that the observer who experienced a change in their rate of motion would be able to distinguish they had not been at rest, which is one of the main points of SR.

That the symmetry of physical laws holds while in motion or at rest means if you cannot see outside of your ship, and you are not accelerating, you cannot tell if you are moving or at rest.

If you stop moving and turn around, even without seeing outside of the ship (let's assume it is automated, so you have no control over the path), you could tell that you had stopped moving and reversed course simply by hanging a pendulum in front of you and watching it's behavior.

I agree. However, this would not alter the type of transformation involved for time dilation effect of SR for the two inertial observers in uniform velocity motion in symmetrical situation.

Nonetheless, you have to recognize that once you change direction, you are no longer in a symmetrical situation or state of uniform velocity.

You have to specifically address it with substantiate proof if my argument is founded on a mistake, just by saying it is founded on a mistake does not suffice.

For example, I have proved to you that the Einstein light clock is not a standard clock; this clock ticks at different rates when it is at different velocity. In a frame of reference the ticking of this clock in motion would be physically slowed when compared to an identical light clock at rest. Using this clock for the SR example is invalid for the reason that the symmetry of SR for the two inertial observers is broken. Mathematical relativism assumed that Einstein light clock is a standard clock and concluded with this assumption that active transformation of time occurs to time dilation effect of SR. This conclusion is based on a wrong assumption and therefore is invalid.

You have to prove to us that Einstein light clock is a standard clock; just by believing it is a standard clock through statement of faith or explain it with moot reasoning does not suffice to validate your claim.

First, Einstein assumed it is a standard clock, as it is based on a physical principle which has yet to be invalidated: that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the reference frame of any observer.

If you place two mirrors at a distance which light will travel in some specific time, then light WILL travel between them in that time. That is the only assumption Einstein makes regarding SR, and I'm only using his arguments.

If the mirrors are in motion, the distance the light travels will increase, thus the ticks will be further apart, and the clock will measure less time.

Going back to the example where you are in a closed off room in a spaceship with no way to see outside, if you could look at a light clock and determine you were in motion, then SR would be invalidated.

The only way to resolve this dilemma is to have your very ability to perceive time be adjusted, so even though the clock is ticking slower, you still claim it is ticking at the proper time. Thus your motion through time is slower relative to an observer at rest with their own light clock at rest.

I believe you are referring to centripetal force, and again this is an issue of gravitational time dilation on inertial acceleration, not an issue with time dilation effect. One can just account for this factor in the SR example and that would suffice, just like making the adjustment for the atomic clock in a satellite orbiting the Earth so that it is synchronized to the atomic clock on Earth and its reading could therefore be accurate; the symmetrical situation for both inertial observer could be maintained and therefore tenable as a SR example.

You cannot account for the factor in SR. It is not a symmetrical example, if you are in a closed room and the room is following a circular path, you could simply hang a pendulum in front of you and note that it does not hang vertically, simple logic would then say that you were in some state of motion.

As long as the symmetry for the two inertial observers are somehow maintained, even with your original example of straight path, accounts the measurements only when the relative motion is at uniform velocity and omits the measurements when the motion is not in uniform velocity such as when it accelerates, turns around or decelerates, the example would be tenable for time dilation effect of SR.

If you drag in those factors that would cause non-symmetrical situation for the two inertial observers that does not relates to time dilation effect in SR and do not want to presume they could be somehow offset to maintain the symmetrical situation, you would have no end in the discussions on other issues that are not focused on the time dilation effect of SR.

You're attempting to apply SR in situations where it breaks down.

This is your opinion according to mathematical relativism that postulates active transformation of time would occur for time dilation effect of SR that does not refer to reality, the opinion is based on wrongly assuming a fiddled clock to be a standard clock and ignores the fundamental principle of symmetrical situation in time dilation effect.

It is not a fundamental principle, it is ONLY valid to assume time dilation is symmetrical between two symmetrical frames of reference. That is the only situation where SR holds to be exact, and it is not the description used to explain the actual effect of time dilation in Einstein's very first paper on SR, in which he clearly describes a case of an observer tracing a path which brings it back to the origin, and the resulting time dilation of his clock relative to the clock which remained at rest.

This is not the issue for a hypothetical construct of SR example in symmetrical situation.

If you are attempting to include anything which violates your hypothetical symmetric situation, the problem is with your example.

Having your observers brought back together is not a symmetrical situation. One of them can clearly state that they underwent acceleration which the other did not, thus the effect you are referring to would only be valid during the parts of the trip when they were in uniform motion relative to each other. It is a different effect from the actual amount of dilation the twin in motion would incur over his trip.

This is merely a tautology for time dilation; this is not an issue of time dilation effect.

Yes it is an issue, when one observer changes his state of motion you can determine that the symmetry is broken and perform an accurate measurement.

I don’t agree.

Then you don't agree with Einstein, the guy who authored the paper describing the effect we are discussing?

[Max™]

I assume you meant relative motion of uniform velocity for uniform motion as stated above.

If relative motion stops, time dilation effect for both inertial observers would accordingly stops symmetrically. When the relative motion is completely stopped, they would both observe a time delay effect of each other depending on how far they are apart. If they were one light year apart, both observers would see the events of the other observer in their historical image of one year ago without any time dilation effect, and both observers would see the other party’s standard clock to be slowed by a fixed period of one year.

I am glad you have asked this question. However, please tell me what you think would happen.

The apparently reciprocal effect from the symmetrical motion would stop, however the observer who (without assuming that he had ever been at rest adjacent to the inertial observer) stopped would have an actual amount of time dilation incurred based on his velocity.

In this example, again let me specify that both observers are in closed rooms, with no link to the outside world other than a TV feed from the other observers room. By no experiment they could perform would they be able to determine they were in motion, and in this limited situation, both would claim the other observer is experiencing time dilation while they are not.

After one of them changed their state of motion, the symmetry would be broken, for not only could they determine that they were in a new state of motion, they could also determine that the other observer had not changed their state.

If the one who was now undergoing acceleration (i.e. change in their motion, ANY change from uniform motion is an acceleration) came to rest at any location, be it 1 light year away, or adjacent to the inertial observer, they would no longer be able to detect any motion experimentally.

Simply checking the inertial observers clock would determine that while there is a time delay (NOT dilation) from the TV signal traveling between them, the apparent rate of their clocks is the same, so they must both be at rest.

Now that they have established that they are at rest relative to each other, they would notice that the duration recorded from the moment when they were adjacent to each other until the moment when they were both at rest would be different for each of them.

The observer who was in motion would have recorded less time than the inertial observer, and again he could confirm that he was in fact in motion.

This is not mathematical relativity, this is actual relativity.