Motion by definition is relative. — noAxioms

Er, no, it really isn't.

I have a hard time thinking in such terms, as I said, you should go with it. — noAxioms

I don't see why I should as it really isn't hard to think in such terms. But anyway, I did. And then you said one was stationary. And I explained why this isn't the issue - we're not talking about space and motion, but about time. So, how does the example show us anything about 'time'?

In absolute interpretation, light speed is not frame independent. That's where it becomes complicated. Has nothing to do with apples. — noAxioms

It has everything to do with apples - I brought apples into it and wanted to know why those who think the twin paradox shows us something interesting about time aren't as confused as someone who thinks that because an apple in the fridge decays more slowly than one on the sideboard, therefore time travels more slowly in the fridge.

So far you have singularly failed to do this - indeed, from your previous comment it seems that you think time does actually travel slower in the fridge.

If you don't think this, can you explain the difference between my apple example and the twin paradox?

Er, no. I've watched youtube videos on it and they are no different to listening to one of you - that is, they seem as confused as someone who thinks time travels more slowly in fridges.

If you understand what the difference is - the difference that allows an inference to be made about time in the one case but not in the other - then explain it in your own words, please.

It has everything to do with apples - I brought apples into it and wanted to know why those who think the twin paradox shows us something interesting about time aren't as confused as someone who thinks that because an apple in the fridge decays more slowly than one on the sideboard, therefore time travels more slowly in the fridge.

So far you have singularly failed to do this - indeed, from your previous comment it seems that you think time does actually travel slower in the fridge.

If you don't think this, can you explain the difference between my apple example and the twin paradox? — Bartricks

With the apples I can open the fridge and set the two side by side and it is clear which one is more decayed.

With two clocks receding from each other (and no other objects), it is impossible to tell which is running slower. To do that, one must make an assumption about which of the two is more stationary, but it's an arbitrary choice. There is no empirical test for it. There is no doubt with the apples.

So this is not a point about reality, or time, but about justified beliefs, yes?

When my twin travels away from me, it seems to me that he is getting smaller and smaller than me. And from his perspective, as he travels away from me, I seem to be getting smaller and smaller than him.

Now, what do we conclude? That we are both getting smaller than each other? No, that's clearly impossible. And it remains impossible even if, due to the fact we've both travelling away from each other, we'll never meet to be able to compare body sizes.

We are not both getting smaller than each other - because that's impossible as a moment's reflection reveals - and that remains true even if, due to our impressions of what's happening, we're both equally justified in believing that we are getting smaller than each other.

Two people can be equally justified in holding contradictory beliefs - there's no problem with that. What is problematic is holding that something contradictory is actually true.

Two people cannot both be older than each other. Two people cannot both be smaller than each other. But two people most certainly can believe that they are older than each other, and be equally justified in that belief; and two people can be equally justified in believing that they are smaller than the other.

So, again, how do you conclude anything about time without committing yourself - on pain of inconsistency - to holding that time travels slower in fridges?

So this is not a point about reality, or time, but about justified beliefs, yes? — Bartricks

The differences between the two interpretations of relativity (relative or absolute frames) and the differences between two interpretations of time (block 4D spacetime vs presentist 3D space) are a matter of belief, yes. The fact that the one twin will be twice the age of the other when they meet again is not a matter of belief.

When my twin travels away from me, it seems to me that he is getting smaller and smaller than me. And from his perspective, as he travels away from me, I seem to be getting smaller and smaller than him.

Now, what do we conclude? That we are both getting smaller than each other? No, that's clearly impossible. And it remains impossible even if, due to the fact we've both travelling away from each other, we'll never meet to be able to compare body sizes.

But you can. Simple geometry. I can measure the actual size of something without being in its presence, if I know how far away it is.

Two people can be equally justified in holding contradictory beliefs - there's no problem with that. What is problematic is holding that something contradictory is actually true.

Only if you believe both are true at once. They can't both be right if they're mutually contradictory. Maybe everybody's wrong.

Two people cannot both be older than each other. Two people cannot both be smaller than each other. But two people most certainly can believe that they are older than each other, and be equally justified in that belief

Nobody I know claims this. I certainly don't. OK, trolls claim this I suppose.

There is no explanation. It's like asking why there's chemistry. Or gravity. There are models that are attempts to exhibit in some simple visual form what is happening and that the maths describe.

1) 3-D space is a convenient and mostly useful fiction. 4-d space, spacetime, seems to be the reality, at least at the scales of most purposes. I.e., 3-D plus time. All of us move through spacetime at the speed of light, c, a constant, all the time. That movement has a component through 3-D space and a component through time. If our velocity through space increases, "movement" through time decreases proportionately, and vice versa. At a spatial velocity of c, you're not moving through time at all. If you're quietly sipping a scotch at home, then your spatial velocity is zero and time is passing for you at maximum "speed." It's completely important to recognize that by yourself, you always measure c at the same value and to you your clock always runs at the same rate. The differences occur when your clock is compared with some other clock in motion (not at rest) relative to you.

2) With every point in space there is in theory associated a clock. The clocks at any two - or any number of - points not in motion relative to each other will measure time as passing at the same rate. Points in motion relative to each other will not measure time as passing at the same rate. Which makes sense given the consideration of the effect of the change in velocity given in 1).

2.a) Gravity has the same effect as acceleration so that a clock on the surface of the earth runs more slowly than a clock in a tall building. Because gravity varies point to point, it's accurate to say that almost every clock anywhere measures time as passing at a different rate. This is not open for debate or discussion; it is an an observed fact, and if not adjusted for, then GPS systems don't work properly, and so forth.

3) The speed of light is the same, the constant, c, for all observers, never mind their relative velocity through 3-D space because of the "reciprocity" between velocity and the "speed" of time. If this is not something you're familiar with, it ought to give you pause for thought, as in, how can it make sense that no matter how fast I am traveling, I always measure c as being the same; or how can two travelers, traveling at different speeds, get the same result for the speed of light?

4) The factor that mediates velocity and time is called gamma, γ, and γ is greater than or equal to 1. Gamma is defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor.
In the paradox the idea is that the time that you measure while stationary is equal to the time measured by the traveler, times gamma: T-stationary = (γ) T-motion. If your clock measures one hour of elapsed time, and if γ = 1.5, then T-motion equals .6667, or forty minutes.

5) Bob and Alice are twins. Alice stays home and Bob takes off on a spaceship to alpha centauri, call it 4 light-years away. Assuming no acceleration or deceleration (apparently many people think that the secret of the paradox lies in acceleration/deceleration, but they have nothing to do with it.) - neglecting acceleration, Bob travels at 99.9% of c. This yields γ = 22.4

By Alice's calculation, Bob travels out and back in about eight years. Because T-stationary = (γ) T-motion, Bob ages 8/22.4 years, or about 130 days, or a little over four months. These numbers from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4&t=5s

6) The paradox comes in because both Bob and Alice can claim to be at rest. This language is deceptive because the resolution of the paradox lies in the change of "frame of reference" for Bob. Alice is always in an unchanging frame or reference. Bob, on the other hand, is in one frame of reference outbound, and another inbound. When it's Bob, the implication is that to change reference frames he has to undergo acceleration. But as the video makes clear, it's possible to arrange an identical, in terms of results, thought experiment in which acceleration and deceleration play no part

7) So it's the Lorentz transformations in which gamma is defined, and the change in Bob's frame of reference that eliminates the paradox. Alice the stay-at-home is older.

The youtube videos are by Don Lincoln, from Fermi Lab. They're worth a look if you want to approach an understanding of these topics, or any others he gives that might interest you.

but again, you seem to be confusing epistemological possibilities with metaphysical ones.

Two people can be equally justified in believing contradictory propositions - and there can be nothing we can do to confirm which belief, if either, is true. But you can't conclude from that that both are true. Yet that seems exactly what you would need to do to derive any substantial conclusion about time from the twins paradox.

Two people can be equally justified in believing contradictory propositions - and there can be nothing we can do to confirm which belief, if either, is true. — Bartricks

It seems if there are three valid contradictory positions, then nobody can be justified in their belief using any empirical evidence since they're not justified in eliminating the other possibilities. All of philosophy seems to be like that. If you could verify/falsify one position over the other, it would be justifiable scientific fact, not an interpretational choice.

I justify my choice because I think the 3D interpretation, by putting time outside of the universe, creates the logically incoherent position of the universe suddenly 'happening' at some random time without cause. That works great for say the theists who assign that cause to a decision made by a deity, but then you have the same problem of the deity existing within time or v-v, both of which typically are incompatible with the definition given for said deity.

But you can't conclude from that that both are true. Yet that seems exactly what you would need to do to derive any substantial conclusion about time from the twins paradox.

You seem to not understand either interpretation then. Neither requires the other to be true.

Tim Wood above seems to be mixing the two interpretations just like Edgar Owen does, which leads to confusion since the two views are contradictory. Tim seems to want a 4D relative interpretation and Edgar wants a 3D presentist interpretation even if he resists the label, but each of them borrows from the other interpretation. There is also the 4D absolute interpretation which nobody here seems to support.

Mike,

Rather than doing the example you suggest here's one I've already done using the standard method I outlined.

This example starts in Earth twin frame with her path from (0,0) to (10,0). Space twin path is from (0,0) to (5,4) to (10,0). Earth twin calculates proper time of space twin over the entire trip as 6 while hers is 10, and Earth twin calculates space twins clock reads 3 at turnaround.

I then use Lorentz transformations to convert to frame of 1st leg of space twin path, From the end of that path (turnaround) apparent time of Earth twin calculated by space twin is 1.8.

I then use Lorentz transformations to convert to frame of return leg of space twin's path. From turnaround at the start of that frame I calculate apparent Earth twin time is 8.2.

So at turnaround in this scenario there is an apparent instantaneous symmetrical jump of 6.4 due to the non physical instantaneous acceleration assumed. As I said this disappears when a physically possible acceleration-deceleration is used in which case the change sweeps continuously across the difference. I can show you a diagram of this if you like.

I can also post all my calculations if you want to see how I got these results.

I used the standard method I outlined to get these results. I suggest you do the same example with your method and see if you get the same results.

Best,
Edgar L. Owen

Yes, the apparent contradiction that each other's clocks are running slower is just a very simple matter of perspective.

Here's an easy explanation from the book I'm currently writing:

1. Thus in relativity when two clocks move relative to each other they both see each other’s clocks running at a slower rate due to time dilation, and thus they both see less time passing on the other’s clock than their own.
2. This is easy to understand as a matter of perspective. A spatial analogy will make this clear.
3. Imagine two cars each traveling at the same 60 mph but on roads that are angled with respect to each other. Each measures the speed of the other and the distance it seems to travel in terms of a coordinate grid aligned with the road it’s on. Each car travels entirely along the x-axis in its own coordinate system. Thus each driver sees the other car traveling some distance at some velocity along the y-axis.
4. Using the familiar Pythagorean formula this apparent motion along the y-coordinate reduces the other car’s distance traveled along the x-axis by dx’=√ (dx2 – dy2) and thus its apparent velocity along the x-axis.
5. And the same is true from the perspective of the other car since both measure the other car’s motion relative to their own x-axis.
6. Thus both drivers each see the other car traveling at a slower velocity and covering a lesser distance than their own.
7. But importantly both drivers are viewing the same actual reality from the perspective of their respective coordinate systems.
8. The same is true with respect to time dilation and elapsed proper time. Again each of two relatively moving observers each sees the other’s clock ticking slower and covering a lesser distance through time than their own, and for the exact same reason of perspective.
9. Here too everything is going at the same velocity, the speed of light. So if two clocks are traveling with relative spatial velocity, each will see the other clock ticking slower and covering less distance in time.
10. Here again both observers measure motion through spacetime in terms of a coordinate system in which they are traveling entirely through time with no velocity in space relative to themselves. And both see the other traveling with an equal but opposite relative motion along the x-axis.
11. So using the same Pythagorean theorem, each sees the other’s distance through time traveled as as dτ =√ (dt2 – dx2), less than their own as they see some of the other’s spacetime c velocity as being through space along the x-axis.
12. But again it’s important to understand that both observers are viewing the same actual reality just from the perspectives of their different coordinate systems. In particular they are seeing the actual clock readings of the other clock, and seeing the actual tick rates of each other’s clocks, just from their own native perspective. Each sees the other from the perspective of the frame in which it is at rest.
13. Even though observers in different frames may view the spacetime variables of another clock differently how it’s viewed doesn’t affect its actual behavior at all. The actual behavior of everything in spacetime depends entirely on its own path through spacetime.
14. Specifically its actual elapsed proper time depends entirely on how much it deviates from an inertial path. Otherwise all clocks travel exactly the same distance through time at the same c velocity so long as they follow inertial paths in flat spacetime.
15. How clocks are viewed by other clocks doesn’t affect them in the least, however relativity enables us to calculate any clock’s elapsed proper time from any inertial frame.
16. So all views are perspective views of actual events, but we only see part of a moving clock’s passage through time from our perspective, as do all other observers in relative motion to it, who all must view everything entirely from the perspective of their own coordinate system.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

If you want to include the effect of the transit time of light there is a very easy way.

First ignore it completely and just use my method to calculate the proper times from any frame using dτ = √(dt^2 – dx^2) to get the proper time at any point along a moving path in the current reference frame. As I said the effect of light signal transit time is an entirely separate issue which is now easily added.

Just extend a line 45° downward from any point on the vertical ct axis until it intersects the relatively moving path. Since Minkowski diagrams are scaled by c, light takes 45° upward paths.

Assuming the reference frame is one of the legs of the space traveling twin then where the 45° downward line from time t on the vertical t-axis intersects the earth path at time t' will be the earth time the space twin 'sees' at his time t. You can connect any two points on the two paths with similar 45° lines to get the apparent time at any points along any moving path including the light transit time delay once you've used my method to first get the innate time relationships.

Hope this is clear. It's really quite simple...

Edgar L. Owen

right. So we can't conclude anything about the nature of time from the example. All the example illustrates is that two people can acquire equally justified contradictory beliefs about something. Which is something every thoughtful person already knew.

I really am justified in believing my twin is getting smaller as he moves away from me, and he really is justified in believing the opposite. From this we can no more conclude that size is relative than that it is absolute. The same, I take it you would agree, applies to time.

No, this is not a matter of belief but the way reality actually works.

Edgar L. Owen

Mike,

I tried to sign up to http://www.sciforums.com/forums/physics-math.33/ but was rejected with the message that my attempt "resembled spam or automated behavior". So I'll continue to post here.

Edgar L. Owen

Sorry ... I don't know why it did that to you. I've been banned for life on Physics Forum (since more than 10 years ago), so at least you didn't get bashed that bad!

ah, so you don't really know what you're on about.

Is your book written in crayon?

is that two people can acquire equally justified contradictory beliefs about something. — Bartricks

We're all ignorant; it is the condition of us all, until we should know better. If we're then still ignorant, the proper term is stupid. Relativity is well-observed, well-established fact. Any problem you have with it is your own - not so terrible because while relativity in broad strokes is not too difficult, it can be both tricky and difficult in the details. But any claims at all about relativity being wrong or a matter of opinion is really just a declaration of personal stupidity. Insistence in any of these claims just an insistence on being stupid.

You don't get it - the twin paradox in no way implies the relativity of time.

When my twin travels away from me, it seems to me that he is getting smaller and smaller than me. And from his perspective, as he travels away from me, I seem to be getting smaller and smaller than him.

Now, what do we conclude? That we are both getting smaller than each other? No, that's clearly impossible. And it remains impossible even if, due to the fact we've both travelling away from each other, we'll never meet to be able to compare body sizes.

We are not both getting smaller than each other - because that's impossible as a moment's reflection reveals - and that remains true even if, due to our impressions of what's happening, we're both equally justified in believing that we are getting smaller than each other.

Two people can be equally justified in holding contradictory beliefs - there's no problem with that. What is problematic is holding that something contradictory is actually true.

Two people cannot both be older than each other. Two people cannot both be smaller than each other. But two people most certainly can believe that they are older than each other, and be equally justified in that belief; and two people can be equally justified in believing that they are smaller than the other. — Bartricks

Thank you for the much-needed sanity.

Some other things that are worth pointing out:

In practice what we call time is a relative measure of change, and not a tangible entity that we detect to be passing or flowing.

The idea that relativity proves there is no absolute frame is false. The Lorentz aether theory is experimentally equivalent to special relativity, while assuming an absolute frame.

In practice an absolute frame can be detected: that determined by the cosmic microwave background radiation.

We can’t measure the speed of light in any one direction without using signals traveling faster than light, so the speed of light measurements are always average velocities on a round-trip. So there is no proof that light travels at c in all directions in all inertial frames, it’s a postulate of relativity and not an experimentally verified fact, indeed the Lorentz theory doesn’t start from this postulate yet it matches experiments just as well.

And since we don’t have to start from that postulate (that light travels at c in all directions in all inertial frames), we don’t have to accept as true the conclusions that follow from this postulate (such as that each twin is really aging more slowly than the other).

The existence of the aether hasn’t been disproved, only a particular model of it was shown to be inconsistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Just like experiments inconsistent with a particular model of gravitation don’t imply that gravitation doesn’t exist. In fact modern experiments do show that what we call the vacuum of space isn’t empty, isn’t nothing.

There are so many misconceptions surrounding relativity, and they’re spread everywhere, in books, textbooks, scientific articles, news articles, ...

Hahaha, so you DO think time goes more slowly in fridges?! It has been demonstrated conclusively that apples decay more slowly in fridges.

The apple in the fridge on the sideboard does not 'age' faster than the one in the fridge. They are both the same age. One is just more shrivelled than the other. Processes have happened in one faster than they have in the other. — Bartricks

I really like your example of the fridge. Indeed the observation of muons decaying more slowly when traveling faster is taken as proof that time is running more slowly in their frame, while all it shows is that their internal processes have taken place more slowly, just like for the apple in the fridge. And if one says that what we call a muon has no internal structure, well that’s a belief, an assumption, and not at all a proven fact.

Also one wonders how something that has no internal structure could decay into several other things ... :grin:

the muon is not believed to have any sub-structure—that is, it is not thought to be composed of any simpler particles

the muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino

If the above two quotes aren’t a contradiction I don’t know what is. But that doesn’t seem to bother physicists too much... :grin:

It’s crazy what people are willing to believe when ‘scientists’ are saying it.

Mike Fontenot wrote
"Sorry ... I don't know why it did that to you. I've been banned for life on Physics Forum (since more than 10 years ago), so at least you didn't get bashed that bad!"

Hey Mike did you not see my other responses to you giving results of the earth times calculated from the two legs of the space twin with my method, and second how to easily calculate the signal lag effect from the earth twin to the space twin which is a separate non-relativistic issue?

Yes, some physics forums seem to be run by the most extremist politically correct martinets one can imagine! I've been banned from a couple myself...

Would like to get your responses to my responses to you from those other posts yesterday.....

Thanks,
Edgar

You don't get it - the twin paradox in no way implies the relativity of time. — Bartricks

You either know what you mean and can make it clear, or you don't and cannot. I think you don't, but I'll retract when you make it clear. What do you mean by "relativity of time"? Are you referring to an idea of time? Proper time interval? An abstract "essence" of time? Something else?

Would like to get your responses to my responses to you from those other posts yesterday..... — Edgar L Owen

Too busy right now with work on my new simultaneity method. Sorry.

Mike,

No offense but I strongly suggest you read my solutions to the same problem first. It may save you considerable time and effort.

Best,
Edgar L. Owen

Too busy right now with work on my new simultaneity method. Sorry.

And they are both short to the point posts...

Edgar

You don't get it - the twin paradox in no way implies the relativity of time.
— Bartricks
You either know what you mean and can make it clear, or you don't and cannot. — tim wood

In this case, he seems to be talking about the absolute/preferred frame interpretation (Lorentz and such) vs the mainstream interpretation that says the speed of light is actually the same in any frame, and doesn't just appear that way.
The two interpretation make all the same empirical predictions and hence neither can be falsified. That's the point Bartricks seems to be trying to make. The absolutists tend to be militantly biased, and Bartricks and Leo fit right in with that crowd. They even hold conventions for them to help separate them from their money.

If the two interpretations make the same predictions, why was the Michelson-Morley experiment performed? Its results seems to be a falsification of what those two predicted as an empirical test for the absolute interpretation.

All said, most absolutists correctly do not posit an inertial frame as the preferred one, and hence you get strange effects like any moving object, in the absence of a force acting on it, will tend to slow down over time. If you find a fast moving thing, it must have been recently accelerated. Photons similarly tend to lose energy over time. Both effects violate energy conservation, and I wonder how they account for that, or if they also need to discard thermodynamic law.

The absolutists tend to be militantly biased, and Bartricks and Leo fit right in with that crowd. They even hold conventions for them to help separate them from their money. — noAxioms

Never been to such a convention, you seem to have more experience with them than I do.

I fight for truth, you got a problem with that?

When people are told the lies that relativity is true, that they have to give up many of the intuitive ideas they’ve had all their life, that they have to replace them with totally unintuitive ideas because supposedly that’s how the universe really works, when as a result they give up trying to understand the universe or end up blindly believing the authority, when people who have an inquiring mind explore alternatives to relativity and get labeled derogatory names (“crackpot”, “absolutist”) simply because they have a scientific mind and they use it, when they get told more lies (“relativity proves there is no absolute frame”, “the concept of the aether was falsified experimentally”, “light is measured to travel at c in all inertial frames”), I think it’s a disgrace.

When the normality is to spew lies and when one gets attacked or scorned for correcting these lies and fighting for truth, it’s a disgrace. If you don’t see the problem with that attitude and the attitude you’re having now, that’s a problem too. This is the attitude that makes science dogmatic and stagnate.

If the two interpretations make the same predictions, why was the Michelson-Morley experiment performed? Its results seems to be a falsification of what those two predicted as an empirical test for the absolute interpretation. — noAxioms

Relativity and the Lorentz aether theory didn’t even exist back then, what are you talking about? They weren’t looking to test these theories.

The result of the experiment is inconsistent with a particular theory in which there is an absolute frame, it isn’t inconsistent with the existence of an absolute frame. Mercury’s precession is inconsistent with Newton’s theory of gravitation, that doesn’t imply gravitation doesn’t exist. Yet that’s the argument you seem to be making. Many claim the Michelson-Morley experiment disproves the existence of an absolute frame, that’s simply false, maybe you like spreading falsehoods but I don’t like seeing them being spread.

All said, most absolutists correctly do not posit an inertial frame as the preferred one — noAxioms

If there is an absolute frame then by definition there is a preferred frame, even if it may not be detected, again what are you talking about?

Also as I mentioned earlier, the cosmic microwave background radiation does select a preferred frame.

and hence you get strange effects like any moving object, in the absence of a force acting on it, will tend to slow down over time. — noAxioms

I wonder where you got that, tell me more and I’ll debunk it for you.

Also I like how you don’t bat an eye when you attempt to explain in a convoluted way why the twins are really both aging more slowly than the other, or why light really travels at c in all directions in all inertial frames, if you were consistent you would call THAT a strange effect.

And if you were consistent you would admit that muons decaying more slowly doesn’t imply that time runs more slowly in their frame, just like an apple decaying more slowly in a fridge doesn’t imply that time runs more slowly in the fridge. You can surely ignore your inconsistencies but that doesn’t make them go away.

And regarding Bartricks, I don’t know the guy, we spoke once before on a different subject and we were in disagreement, but it’s nice to see he has analyzed relativity critically, because it’s something most people don’t do, most people simply learn what they read in some book or on some website and then repeat it, without looking deeper.

When people are told the lies that relativity is true, — leo

All right, relativity is a lie. Now how about you make that case right here, right now.

Relativity is a theory about as well verified as any theory. In simple terms, it's an observed fact, and lots of technology relies on it. So, put up, or, you know....

The absolutists tend to be militantly biased
— noAxioms

I fight for truth, you got a problem with that?

When people are told the lies that relativity is true, that they have to give up many of the intuitive ideas they’ve had all their life, that they have to replace them with totally unintuitive ideas because supposedly that’s how the universe really works, when as a result they give up trying to understand the universe or end up blindly believing the authority, when people who have an inquiring mind explore alternatives to relativity and get labeled derogatory names (“crackpot”, “absolutist”) simply because they have a scientific mind and they use it, when they get told more lies (“relativity proves there is no absolute frame”, “the concept of the aether was falsified experimentally”, “light is measured to travel at c in all inertial frames”), I think it’s a disgrace.

When the normality is to spew lies and when one gets attacked or scorned for correcting these lies and fighting for truth, it’s a disgrace. If you don’t see the problem with that attitude and the attitude you’re having now, that’s a problem too. This is the attitude that makes science dogmatic and stagnate. — leo

Thank you for illustrating my point.

All said, most absolutists correctly do not posit an inertial frame as the preferred one
— noAxioms

If there is an absolute frame then by definition there is a preferred frame, even if it may not be detected, again what are you talking about?

I use the two terms interchangeably. The preferred frame and the absolute one refer to the same thing.

Also as I mentioned earlier, the cosmic microwave background radiation does select a preferred frame.

Yes, that's the obvious one. It isn't inertial, and has the problems/properties listed in my prior post.

and hence you get strange effects like any moving object, in the absence of a force acting on it, will tend to slow down over time.
— noAxioms

I wonder where you got that, tell me more and I’ll debunk it for you.

Do you agree that the inertial frame in which the CMB aopears isotropic from here is a different inertial frame that the one where the CMB appears isotropic from a galaxy say 8 billion light years away? Not sure how far short your understanding is, so not sure where to start.

Also I like how you don’t bat an eye when you attempt to explain in a convoluted way why the twins are really both aging more slowly than the other, or why light really travels at c in all directions in all inertial frames, if you were consistent you would call THAT a strange effect.

Illustrating an apparent complete lack of understanding of the mainstream interpretation. Anyway, I called nothing 'strange' and don't deny the validity of most absolute interpretations, but I pointed out some conservation problems with it that need resolution.

And if you were consistent you would admit that muons decaying more slowly doesn’t imply that time runs more slowly in their frame

I would never have suggested time running more slowly in a muon's own frame. That's wrong in both interpretations.

Thank you for illustrating my point. — noAxioms

So you’re saying you have a problem with people fighting for truth? Apparently in your view it’s not a good thing to point out falsehoods in the mainstream narrative. Would you say that relativists attacking ‘absolutists’ aren’t ‘militantly biased’? Personally I would converse on that subject much more calmly if I hadn’t been attacked so many times for simply being a curious and inquiring mind questioning the mainstream narrative and exploring alternative paths, which is what science is supposed to be about in the first place.

I guess you don’t have a problem with people getting attacked when they question the mainstream narrative. In this case questioning is not claiming that relativity isn’t consistent with many experiments, it is pointing out that all these experiments can be explained differently, in a much more intuitive way.

Also note that many ‘relativists’ claim that relativity proves there is no absolute frame. This is false (relativity doesn’t prove that, considering that relativity isn’t the only way to account for the experimental evidence), yet it is claimed as a truth. Meanwhile, I don’t claim that absolute frame theories prove that an absolute frame exists. However it is easier for most people to think in terms of an absolute frame (it gets rid of all the confusion surrounding the relativity paradoxes), so there is no reason to force people to believe that no absolute frame exists. Simply saying that kind of thing gets one attacked by many relativists, as if heresy had been committed. Relativity is treated as a religion by many of its proponents, that’s a problem.

Do you agree that the inertial frame in which the CMB aopears isotropic from here is a different inertial frame that the one where the CMB appears isotropic from a galaxy say 8 billion light years away? — noAxioms

So? How does that prevent us from selecting the CMBR rest frame here as a preferred frame? If a true absolute frame exists it may not be that one, but we can pick that one for now, until we get more information that may allow us to know better.

If the CMBR rest frame in a galaxy 8 billion light years away ever becomes relevant, then presumably we would have found superluminal signals by then, which would allow us to pick a more accurate preferred frame.

Anyway, I called nothing 'strange' — noAxioms

you get strange effects — noAxioms

I would never have suggested time running more slowly in a muon's own frame. — noAxioms

So how do you interpret it?