Light rays and travelers are charted in absolute terms, free of the misleading space-time diagram which is about nothing more than pseudo-simultaneity.
The horizontal white lines represent the travelers, who carry photon clocks. The fact that time differential is identical in both scenarios (parts 1 and 2 of the video) confirms that one cannot detect one's motion status with respect to the universe.
(None of the parties involved can assume anything about their actual state of motion; thus they cannot know whether they are participating in scenario 1 or 2.)
In scenario 2, one needs to abandon the strict labels of "space station", "traveler one" and "traveler two", even though the video labels them as such for simplicity. In scenario two, the "space station" might regard itself as "traveler one" who meets "traveler two" coming from what the "space station" regards as the opposite direction of travel. The parties involved cannot know which scenario they are involved in.
Space-time is a construct, dependent on Einstein's optional method of clock synchronization which vacates the universal frame of reference. The best one can do with a space-time argument in the context of the twin paradox is to note that one party, when changing inertial frames, will observe a jump in the reading of the clock time of the other party, using the 'lattice of clocks' methodology dictated by Einstein's particular clock synchronization.
But no such jump in anyone's aging (or on anyone's clock) actually occurs.
In contrast with the space-time argument: When an outbound traveler transfers his clock reading to an inbound traveler, the incremental increase of the time differential between the travelers and the stay-at-home is obvious -- as the participants can plainly see upon comparing notes later on.
In short:
Space-time is a construct, dependent on an optional clock synchronization method, and generates a false jump in time reading.
Space itself is not a construct, nor is time-keeping. And a real-world experiment reveals the real-world incremental increase in the time differential.
It is precisely one's motion with respect to the universe -- and to the same end, one's speed as a percentage of light-speed -- that dictates one's actual clock rate (identically one's biological aging), resulting in the actual time differential upon reuniting with the other party.
It has been known for 117 years that relativity in absolute terms encompasses Einstein's purely relative treatment, yet the public remains largely misinformed. No physical experiment can distinguish the absolute approach from Einstein's purely relative approach. [Wheeler, J., Taylor, E. (1992). Spacetime Physics, second edition. W. H. Freeman: New York, p. 88.]
Einstein's treatment of special relativity (and therefore identically the space-time model) is limited to assigning measures that parties of different inertial frames must make of each other's properties, for the satisfaction of Einstein's postulates of *measures*. It employs a hopelessly circular definition of inertial frame and cannot address the twin paradox.
In Spacetime & Electromagnetism, Lucas and Hodgson, using the space-time paradigm, wrestle with the twin paradox for fifteen pages, and claim no resolution.
In a footnote on page 73, they write: "Is it fair to give the Earth-bound twin the vertical world line? Does not that beg the question in his favour? Why not draw another diagram with his world line set at an angle to the vertical, and his lines of simultaneity correspondingly inclined (but at a contrary angle) to the horizontal?"
That alternative diagramming of the situation is identical to the consideration that one might just as well consider that it is the Earth, along with the entire cosmos, that changes inertial frames, in keeping with Einstein's purely relative approach. Of course, that simply makes the twin paradox unresolvable, as either party can then lay equal claim to being the party that ages the least. This is demonstration that one must consider the entirety of the cosmos, the imparter of inertial properties, to be the judge of the matter regarding actual motion.
Einstein himself regarded the time differential as "peculiar" and never attempted to explain it. The jump in the time reading upon changing inertial frames is simply built into Einstein's clock synchronization.
All the results of Einstein's relativity can be derived independent of Einstein's clock synchronization. His clock synchronization method can be diagrammed against a system at rest with respect to the totality of the universe. Also diagrammed, is how parties in different inertial frames assess each other's properties symmetrically, revealing precisely what is transpiring behind the scenes of Einstein's treatment.
copyright 2008, 2011, 2022 Roger Luebeck
More detailed discussion: https://relativitytrail.com/twin-para...
Relativity Trail: https://relativitytrail.com
Информация по комментариям в разработке