JohnLesser

the number one lie has already popped up on this thread. they say we don't understand. They are calling us stupid. They are arrogant with this all the time.

It's so pointless, regs crying to the mods when they can't give a truthful answer to an awkward question.Then the forum moderator answer is a locked thread or ban the poster. These regs brown nose and told numerous lies in thread , I defended science yet i was the one in the wrong . The regs are trying to force their own personal beliefs on people, making things up

Fact

Well what can i say. Make speculation. Get post closed. Defend science get post closed. What a pointless forum .

You seem to be reading and then making things up. Lots of contradictory replies that often don't even address the question. Several times I have asked the immediate future question. I think you like your own ''voices'' too much. I used my time and out of courtesy thought about what the opp said. If twin 1 R(t)=tp and twin 2 R(t)=tp Problem How can Lorentz contract 1.6 x 10-35 m?

Space is not absolute but yesterdays mile is the same as today's mile, I am sorry you again have contradicted yourself. The length of observation is expanding, not the actual space.

Resorting to insults because you are wrong is legendary. Time slows down ,proven by experiment , we see things in their past, the twin is behind in time. I understand relativity can be confusing for some. I never disagreed to begin with. ''But are you asserting that space alone ​somehow incorporates the time property of 'the present' ?'' I asserted nothing of such. I asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

You are the ones being rude and denying time slows down.

Keep denying relativity, you may understand it one day. Keep studying . There is no universal present relative to matter and the rate of time. Space my friend has neither, I suggest you try re-thinking about what you read.

I am not the one who had that idea, I put it into scientific perspective, obviously your lack of answer to that question of immediate future shows your level of knowledge. Space doe's not give off signals and the reason it doe's not age is because it is not made of matter.

I simply asked if space always remained in the present, I observe no ageing process or change of space.

Then I suggest you learn how to read, they are single simple sentences . I have not implied that. Your immediate future is 5.39 × 10−44.s away Do we all agree with that?

I am asking if space is always in the present because relatively it doe's not age or change? I am not asking if space is time. The immediate future is 5.39 × 10−44 s away. Hmmmm, I wonder if that would be absolute time like Newton believed? If each twins rate of time was 5.39 × 10−44 s , then we have a problem.

Some posts like the extensive post of Janus need more thought before an answer. You should respect that I am not replying in haste. Doe's space age? What about absolute space? Is space constant in that it never changes? Is space always present? I also think our ''friends'' notion implies absolute time.

I will comment on this: ''Eddington was the first man to articulate that there is no 'Universal Present', even if he was not the first man to realise this. (Faraday was the originator in his famous letter deposited with the Royal Society March 12th, 1832'' Is space itself not a universal present that doe's not change? My apologies, bare in mind this is quite a busy thread and I may temporary overlook things

Was awaiting reference.

What an interesting notion you have. The smallest increment we have is a Planck length and Planck time, do you mean something like that? An interesting notion by our friend and adding some ''workings'' to what he said by what I deem he was saying. The immediate future is 5.39 × 10−44 s away. Hmmmm, I wonder if that would be absolute time like Newton believed?

Contradictory, if his clock falls behind he will measure 2016 while the faster measurement measures 2017. How is that not in the past? Are you trying to say that from the present to the immediate future is an increment so small it is fractionally 0t?

huh? What is the ground normally? Obviously invariant because on the ground 0 velocity, what is a constant rate? 9,192,631,770hz/3.24cm

Wrong, twin 2 knows the length of constant rate. Twin 2 knows relativity and knows the ground state is invariant.

No, twins 1 clock is the ground state constant, twin 2 clock is the only variant.

Twin 2 departs , time slows down, twin 2's present falls into the past relative to ground state present? Then you don't understand the subject if you think that.

Ones time can not be dilated if they remain synchronous in the present. If I wrong then so must be time dilation. Luckily I am correct. I said pages ago I understood simultaneity.

Like I said, the travelling twin drifts into the past. Their relative present being behind in time relative to ground state, then light allows us to see the past. They have. Yes, each present is simultaneity.

No, again you are in a way saying there is no time dilation. The two twins can not both occupy the present unless their time lines are equal length.