YuanShenhao

4 hours ago, Strange said:

It doesn't matter. This has been know for 400 years. You need to catch up.

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

Science isn't a popularity contest. Relativity gives the right answers. Therefore it is accepted.

You can only change that by showing a (real) experiment that goes the wrong answers.

[Reported for more trolling. You seem to be more successful at breaking the rules of the forum than understanding science.]

In addition to saying something that is useless, I don't see any derivation of the mainstream view. Please take out your courage and wisdom to accept the challenge and convince us.

Thanks.

Correction:

who moves faster than SPACE-TIME ===>

who moves faster in SPACE-TIME

 

 

Corrections：

    

Whether the special theory of relativity needs space-time

First, the space-time here refers to the space of the t moment, because the quality will distort the space, and the space at different times is different.

 

Common view:

Both the special theory of relativity and the general relativity are verified by experiments and are correct theories.

 

Different views:

Your mainstream view is that it is only necessary for AB to refer to each other to explain physical phenomena with relativity theory.

My point is that it is necessary to use SPACE-TIME as a reference to explain physical phenomena in relativity theory.

 

Present situation：

You do not approve of my point of view, and I do not agree with you. So who is the right one in the end, we need to make two rules of judgment.

1. if your or my point of view can be a good explanation of physical phenomena, it is very possible to show that it is right.

2. if your or my point of view is not logical, it may be very wrong.

 

If you approve of my rules of the game, let's continue the debate.

You need courage, and once you lose, you may lose your reputation, so if you are afraid you can choose to refuse and lock my post.

 

 

TOM&JERRY RACE IN SPACE-TIME

From my point of view:

 

 

In the absence of any other reference (including SPACE-TIME)

 

 

TOM & JERRY come into space, as above, they have no other reference except the themselves. They found each other far away. So who is moving? Is it TOM or JERRY? Or is it a chase? Or are they doing the opposite movement together? We can't give the answer. But what we can know is that they are far away from each other at a certain speed. Then, according to the discussion of speed and time in the special theory of relativity, the time of one of the two sides of TOM and JERRY is slower. So whose time is slow? We don't know. Maybe you'll come up with the logic that TOM takes JERRY as a reference, JERRY is static, TOM is moving, and then TOM is slow. On the other hand, if JERRY takes TOM as a reference object, the time of JERRY is slow. This is a very contradictory two logic, we still can't know whose time is really slow. Maybe you will say that, who is a reference, whose time will go fast, well, this is a "because it is , so it is" theory. Fortunately, we have done a lot of experiments and specific applications, such as the slow effect of GPS clock, such as particle acceleration experiment, which has been proved by fact that this view is incorrect. The correct conclusion should be whose speed is fast and the time is slow. So how should we compare speed? We watched the runners' running on the runway. We saw that A ran faster than the B athletes. That's based on the direction we knew they were running, and we had the runway as a reference, so we had the right judgement. So if all the other references are disappearing except for the two people of A and B, can you know the direction of their running? Can you know who is faster? (don't say you can see the direction of their faces. Can't they run against running? " In the special relativistic formula, there is no input parameter for the face. Now I think you should be aware of the importance of the third party reference.

 

 

SPACE-TIME as a reference

 

 

Back to TOM, JERRY. SPACE-TIME is their reference object, who moves faster than SPACE-TIME, whose time will pass slowly. If you have seen general relativity, you will know how correct this conclusion is. The geometric effect caused by distorted space-time will really affect our planet. The essential explanation for the time expansion caused by speed is because of the relative speed of the SPACE-TIME.

 

 

 

Twins Paradox:

This is a very famous hypothesis experiment. It's one of the twins on the earth who travels by spaceship to the outer space. When he comes back, he finds his brother has become an old man. The special theory of relativity explained the phenomenon, because the rapid flight of the spacecraft caused the time of the spacecraft to slow down.

 

On the basis of Lorenz transform, we deduce how SPACE-TIME is a key reference to this derivation. The following is the content of the “The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox” that I have published directly from the previous publication.

 

From the entire process of Lorentz transformation, we can see, A(S), B(S’) two objects refer to each other, the time of moving objects B slowed down.

 

If A is used as a reference, the time of moving B will be slower than that of A.

 

 

t’ = t   if v = 0

t’ = 0    if v = c

As you can see, t’ is always less than t.

 

 

 

 

If B is used as a reference, the time of A will be faster than that of B.

 

t = t’  if v=0

t = infinite if v=c

As you can see, t is always larger than t’.

 

From the mathematical deduction, it has been proved that A and B refer to each other, their time expansion is different. So does it just need A and B two things to refer to each other? We can make sure whose time is slow and whose time is fast?

Don't you need third parties for reference?

 

Let’s start the analysis. The whole derivation is based on the speed of light, the constant speed of light, except that we must also pay attention to a very important point, which is (O, O ') point. Since the S coordinate system is not moving, when referring to O point, the time on S does not become faster nor slower. That is to say, the speed of time has not changed. While S' is in motion, observing S' from S time has slowed down. So here is the question, the time getting slower is compared with which one. Of course, it is compared with the time on S, and the time on S does not change, which is for the reference to decide? It is the O point, so we say that the time on S' become slower and which O point is also for the reference.

 

What is O point? It is space-time, space-time point which is located on S. With the same principle, this could also be applied for the observation of S from S'.

However, this space-time point will often be ignored by us, which is the third-party reference for the comparison between two inertia systems, without it, there is no above conclusion. I believe after the above analysis, you will have a sudden understanding about the twin paradox, we will describe in detail later. We can boldly put forward the conclusion that the speed of time requires space-time for reference. Without a third party, there is no way to compare A, B two subjects.

 

Well, let's go to the theory of relativity. I believe many people will have such questions, since it is a relative movement, why it must be that the time on the spacecraft slow down? Why it can't be that is the time on earth get slower? Obviously, such a question has stepped into the difficult situation, in which there are only A, B two things to compare each other. So we need a third party, it is space-time, whose relative space-time is faster, whose time will be the slower one, and who will be younger, apparently the relative space-time movement of spacecraft is faster, so time of which will be slower. (The time runs slowly, and human body functions naturally work slowly, but as a client he does not feel the time slowdown.) We take a fish as an example, when the time comes to a complete stop, just as the fish are frozen, and we observe it, its time stopped at that time. And when it's thawed, its time starts again, and as the fish, it does not even know that time has stopped, and when it's thawed, it does not think that the time ever stopped. In its thoughts, yesterday was the day before today). The conclusion derived from the Lorentz transformation is completely consistent with the conclusion of the twins paradox. We must note this that the third party except A, B: space-time is a competent time judge.

 

Conclusion:

Above, I use the theory of relativity to explain the two hypothesis experiments. They have used the key reference SPACE-TIME. Without SPACE-TIME, we will not be able to deduce the correct conclusion. The theory of general relativity to SPACE-TIME is also a clear hint of the existence of SPACE-TIME, which is the most critical reference. Einstein said: "speed needs to overcome the resistance of time and space, the greater the speed, the more power to stop the progress of time, the slower the time." SPACE-TIME is the real reference. The migration of mercury orbit and the displacement of the total solar eclipse stellar position are good to verify the correctness of the generalized relativity theory SPACE-TIME. It can be said that general relativity makes me more firm in my view.

 

The biggest difference between my view and the mainstream view is the SPACE-TIME, which I think is the most critical reference. The mainstream view is that the above two hypothesis experiments can be correctly explained without the need of SPACE-TIME as a reference.

I hope that the mainstream view can give a tight logical deduction, not just tell us that they are the right one because they are the mainstream. Now is not the Middle Ages in Europe, "Heliocentric theory" eventually overthrew the mainstream theory of geocentric.

 

 

 

There is a real existence of SPACE-TIME. The relative speed of SPACE-TIME is the fundamental reason for determining the expansion of time.

 

Below is your place, show out of your muscles, let us convince.

TOM & JERRY RACE IN SPACE-TIME

From your point of view:

 

 

 

 

 

Twin paradox

From your point of view:

 

  

The researchers in science forums decide our victory or defeat.

If you are interested in this topic and vote on your understanding, please enter 1 or 2 for a reply.

1. support my point of view, SPACE-TIME is a key reference.

2. support the mainstream view, do not need SPACE-TIME.

 

Thanks.

Whether the special theory of relativity needs space-time(20180203).pdf

@swansont      I hope you have the courage to accept the debate.

In order to prove that A needs to use B, in order to prove that B needs to use A, this is the AB dead cycle. The mainstream understanding of the twin paradox is the typical AB dead cycle. It is hoped that researchers can jump out of this cycle and correctly understand the theory of relativity.

The theory of relativity is correct, but the mainstream is wrong in the twin paradox of interpretation.

NO SPACE NO COMPARE

My paper : The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox has been mathematically deducing this process, proving that SPACE is a key reference, if you have read my paper carefully.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113036-the-derivation-of-relativity-theory-from-twins-paradox/

To overthrow a wrong theory, its difficulty lies not in logical reasoning and mathematical calculations, but in the fact that you have moved their cakes.

 

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

It’s not a joke. The only thing that matters is their speed relative to each other. It doesn’t matter how fast they are relative to a track, the moon or Alpha Centauri. 

Faster is, by definition, their speed relative to some third reference. So without that third reference “faster” is meant less. But why does that matter?

You can say one is stationary and the other is moving. Or you can say the first one is moving and the other one is stationary. It makes no difference. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

 

The theory of relativity has been played out.  You can continue your AB dead cycle.

In front of physics, there is a difficult problem to be faced: why is the speed of light not changing? Let's go on. 

“you can only observe them away from them” need to be modified: You can only observe that they are far away from each other.

General relativity has revealed how important space-time is. The distorted space-time is a kind of geometric effect, and we must attach importance to the existence of space. Let us continue, and my next topic will be general relativity. 

32 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In the real Universe example, in cosmic space you can observe that photons from stars are redshifted or blueshifted.

ps. Velocity is not the same as speed. Velocity is vector, speed is scalar.

Ok, thanks. I mean speed here. My English is not very good. 

You can observe the red-shifted and blue-shifted of light, which is because the speed of light is constant.

They can only show that they are close to each other, or are they far away from each other. But it doesn't know who is moving,
who is faster.

Let‘s see the essence of things. 

What is speed? Firstly speed is a relative value which can only be described by reference to something. 

For example: Tom and jerry run race, TOM faster than JERRY 2 m / sec. How does this figure come up? 
TOM speed-JERRY speed = 2 m / sec, their speed reference is runway. 

If the race field is in space without any other reference point, including space itself. TOM's reference is only JERRY .
Then you will never know how fast TOM JERRY is. Because you don't know their speed, you don't know how much time they expand
relative to our planet, and you don't know who TOM and JERRY are fast or slow, you can only observe them away from them.

At this point you want to analyze them whose time is slower and it's just a joke. 

There is no comparison without space. 

 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The derivation of the special theory of relativity and all the conclusions imply a reference object, which is space.

 

The twin paradox is very easy to explain. Why don't everyone see the existence of space?
The special theory of relativity is originally a paper that the middle school students can see, but many scholars who specialize in physics are unable to explain it.
Why? Because everyone ignores the existence of space,but they imply space in their mathematical derivation.
This is a very interesting phenomenon.

 

 

12 hours ago, Janus said:

1.We will start with AA.  As far as AA is concerned,  B simply travels out some distance at a set speed and then returns at that
same speed.  For our example, we'll use a distance of 8 light years and a speed of 80% of the speed of light. 
Thus for AA it will take 10 yrs to make each leg of the trip and 20 years for the round trip.  During which time, he will
measure B as undergoing time dilation, and aging 60% as fast as he is, and as a result aging a total of 12 years during the
trip. For AA, time dilation is enough to explain the age difference.

ME:

I agree with this view.

2.For B, things are a bit more more complex.   First off, he has to consider Length contraction.  This was not a concern for AA,
because the only length contraction involved as far as he was concerned, was that which effected B, and this had no effect on
either the time needed for the Trip nor B's aging during the trip.  B has to consider it because the 8 light distance between AA
and the point where B turns around, is the distance measured by AA.  B will measure this distance as being length contracted to
60% of 8 light years or 4.8 light years.  At 80% of the speed of light, it takes B 6 yrs by his clock for the distance between
AA and himself to reach 4.8 light years. at which point he makes an instant acceleration so that AA and he are approaching
again.  Note that the 6 years he has measured as passing between his separation from AA is the same as what AA measured for him
due to time dilation.

ME:

This paragraph and the above description are an meaning, and I didn't see anything else.

3.But what is happening to AA time-wise, according to B? AA is undergoing time dilation.  Thus AA is aging at 60% the rate B
measures himself as aging and has aged 3.6 years in the time it takes for their separation to grow to 4.8 light years.  Thus
just before making his turn around,  According to B, AA has aged 2.4 years less than he has.  But then AA makes his acceleration
and changes the frame of reference he is at rest with respect to.  In doing so, he has to take Relativity of Simultaneity into
account. 

ME:

This is to say that if B is a reference, then AA will also expand. You said, "when B arrives, AA's time has passed for 3.6
years, and B has been over for 4.8 years."
A mistake has been made here: 4.8 light years are calculated distances based on AA, and now you use B as a reference to
calculate A, and the data used 4.8 light years come from the data obtained by A for reference, so you will enter the dead circle
completely. Please think about it carefully.

4.Relativity of Simultaneity is the fact that observers in different inertial frame do not agree on the Simultaneity of events.  
Thus if we have two clocks at rest with respect to inertial Frame  which are synchronized to each other in this frame and
separated by some distance in the x direction.  Then according to inertial frame s' which has a relative motion with respect to
s in the x direction, the two clocks in s will not be in sync with each other, one of the clocks will read later than the
other.(though they will still both tick at the same rate)

ME:

You say:”This is to say that for S', the time of the two clocks on the S is different“. I think the speed of light transmission
requires time, not the relativistic effect.

5.With our twin example, we can illustrate this by assuming that in AA's inertial frame, there is a clock placed 8 light years
distant (at B's turn around point) which is synchronized to AA's clock. Thus, according to AA, when B reaches it Both it and
AA's clock reads 10 yrs.

ME:

I agree with this view.

6.According to B however in an inertial frame with a relative velocity of 80% of c to AA's frame, the clocks at these two points
are not in sync, but instead the clock at the turnaround point reads 6.4 years ahead of AA clock. AA's clock read 0 when B and
AA separate, and the turn around clock already reads 6.4 years.  By the time he reaches this clock, both it and AA's clock will
have advanced 3.6 years and the turn around clock will read 10 yrs, while AA's clock reads 3.6 years.

ME:

You say: "the turning point clock is 6.4 years ahead of the AA clock". This is very unreasonable. I have already explained
it.
You say, "the turning point clock is 10 years, and the AA clock is 3.6 years". You are wrong, AA is 10 years, and it can't be
3.6 years. Because the turning point clock does not follow the B movement

7.Then B makes its acceleration, and transitions to a new inertial frame of reference which has a velocity in the opposite
direction of his initial one.  Now, due to the Relativity of Simultaneity, the roles of the clocks of the clocks at AA and the
turn around point are reversed,  AA's clock is now the one that is ahead.  While the turn-around clock (the one he is still
right next to) still reads 10 yrs,  AA's clock (according to B's new inertial frame), reads 16.4 years.   AA's clock advance
another 3.6 years during the 6 years according to B for them to meet up again and reads a total of 20 yrs upon their meeting up
again.

ME:

Logical confusion.

 

 

In fact, Lorentz transformation has been clearly described space-time as the third party reference exists, why do we still
struggle with only A, B to compare?

In the absence of any reference object, A, B two objects stay away from each other, the question is, who is moving, who is
still, or both are in motion? If there is an alarm clock on A and B, who can say which alarm clock is slow? Is it clear?
It's not clear for anyone. Obviously, the two things refer to each other will just make more complicated. This is also a very
important reason why many researchers have troubles over the research of the twin paradox.

 

12 hours ago, Janus said:

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Similar topics merged. One thread per subject, please

 

I wish this topic can merged to sciences-->physics--->relativit. NOT HERE.Of course here is your place, you have the right to decide.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Good morning, Yuan.

I'm glad to see you are now fully participating in the forum process.

 

As regards my comments, they were not contradictions of your work.

They were, just as I said, comments on the text.
This means that I think something was not properly explained or defined at the point in the text I highlighted.

Or that it seemed at odds with something you wrote at another part of the text.

In fact at one point I think you have said the opposite of what you really mean.

It does not mean convey my opinion on the subject, that would come later.

I am trying to help you put your work into a coherent piece of English for presentation.

Then we can consider the truth or otherwise of it.

This is a normal process when someone writes a paper, as you have done.

 

So let us put something straight to begin with.

your title reads

"The derivation of relativity from the twins paradox."

But unless you accept relativity, the twins paradox does not arise.

You have it the wrong way round.

The twins paradox arise because we have observed relativity.

So the twins paradox is derived from relativity.

Hi, studiot

I'd like to hear how you use the relative theory to explain the twin paradox.

Let's focus on twin paradox.

 

 

4 minutes ago, YuanShenhao said:

Yes, these are the factors that we can generally consider, but in addition to these, it is necessary to consider the time slow effect caused by the satellite movement.

 

My paper has a clear description of how to interpret the twin paradox by Lorenz transformation.Wiki also has a twin paradox explanation, I think it is very funny.
Can you simply explain Janus's point of view?

 

The twin paradox is easily explained, Lorenz transformation is clearly illustrate this point

......

The above shows the entire process of Lorentz transformation, from which we can see, A, B 
two objects refer to each other, the time of moving objects slowed down. This is the conclusion 
that many scholars recognize, but is it true? Is it enough for A, B two objects refer to each other 
enough? Let us do an experiment: in the absence of any reference object, A, B two objects stay 
away from each other, the question is, who is moving, who is still, or both are in motion? Is it clear? 
It's not clear for anyone. Obviously, the two things refer to each other will just make more 
complicated. This is also a very important reason why many researchers have troubles over the 
research of the twin paradox. 

However, our deduction obviously points to a clear conclusion. The frame of reference for 
motion slowed down. Yes, nothing wrong. Let us start the analysis. The whole derivation is based 
on the speed of light, the constant speed of light, except that we must also pay attention to a very 
important point, which is (O, O ') point. Since the S coordinate system is not moving, when 
referring to O point, the time on S does not become faster nor slower. That is to say, the speed of 
time has not changed. While S' is in motion, observing S' from S time has slowed down. So here is 
the question, the time getting slower is compared with which one. Of course, it is compared with 
the time on S, and the time on S does not change, which is for the reference to decide? It is the O 
point, so we say that the time on S' become slower and which O point is also for the reference. 
What is O point? It is space-time, space-time point which is located on S. With the same principle, 
this could also be applied for the observation of S from S'. 

However, this space-time point will often be ignored by us, which is the third-party reference 
for the comparison between two inertia systems, without it, there is no above conclusion. I 
believe after the above analysis, you will have a sudden understanding about the twin paradox, 
we will describe in detail later. We can boldly put forward the conclusion that the speed of time 
requires space-time for reference. Without a third party, there is no way to compare A, B two 
subjects. 

 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not an additional fact, it is the first one I mentioned: "have to take into account both the relative velocity of the satellite and the receiver "

Special relativity.

Special relativity !  Well, if I can say so: twin paradox can be explained by science.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This is not true. GPS systems, for example, have to take into account both the relative velocity of the satellite and the receiver AND the different in gravitational potential. Ignoring either of these would give the wrong results.

It is explained by applying the rules of special relativity. You can find many explanations on line (there are some excellent ones by "Janus" on this and other forums).

Yes, these are the factors that we can generally consider, but in addition to these, it is necessary to consider the time slow effect caused by the satellite movement.

 

My paper has a clear description of how to interpret the twin paradox by Lorenz transformation.Wiki also has a twin paradox explanation, I think it is very funny.
Can you simply explain Janus's point of view?

 

Abstract: Relativity has been put forward in many scientific experiments, and has been 
applied in many fields. All these are enough to explain the correctness and greatness of relativity. 
However, the twin paradox of this hypothesis by experiment, the special theory of relativity to 
explain is caught in a dilemma, but the experiment itself is not so complicated, why? Is there a 
loophole in relativity? Is the theory of relativity so deep that ordinary people can't understand it? 
The answer is negative. Relativity can explain this experiment very easily, because the reason why 
we get into trouble is that we have not been able to understand the theory of relativity in a 
narrow sense. 

Keywords: twin paradox; light; relativity; Lorenz transform 

To study the theory of relativity, we begin with the Lorenz transformation. 
The theory of relativity is Einstein's greatest theory, including the special theory of relativity 
and general relativity, so how to correctly understand this great theory? First of all, we have to 
understand a very important mathematical deduction, Lorenz transformation, which is intended 
to prove the existence of the ether. 

1. Lorenz transform 
First of all, the introduction premise of Lorentz transformation is the constant speed of light. 
Then why can we set this premise? Is it a hypothesis? No, the scientists have been done various 
measurements on the speed of light, whether it's relatively static or moving, the ultimately 
measured results are turned out to be a constant speed of light, although they appear to be in 
contradiction with classical Newton's law, but from what we measured, the result is turned out to 
be a constant speed of light, the conclusions from the practices should be respected, so the 
theory “constant speed of light” has become an axiomatic existence. 

For the constant speed of light, we can also observe from the spread of electromagnetic 
waves. When the signal source is away from the observer, the observer can observe the 
phenomenon of redshift, the so-called redshift, that is, the wavelength of the electromagnetic 
wave is elongated, and the speed of electromagnetic waves has not changed. This is already a 
basic common sense of modern communication, light also belongs to an electromagnetic wave, 
also with its features, so we should unswervingly believe that constant speed of light, do not 
doubt. But note that there is a very important concept, we are talking about is the constant speed 
of light, we are not saying that the light speed is the fastest, in the future we will know that the 
speed of information delivery can be far greater than the speed of light, and may even exist 
matters which are beyond the speed of light. But, these are not important. What we want is the 
constant speed of light. We do not want the one which is fastest. This is the real reason for the 
speed of light entering into our field of vision. If the sound can achieve a constant speed, then we 
can introduce the sound into the derivation of Lorentz transformation. Why? The following 
derivation process can be easily understood by high school students. 

The constant speed of light, we can regard it as the characteristics of light. So, what are the 
objects around us, which also do not change their own characteristics of exercise performance 
with the outside world? Try to observe the spring, we put the spring on the car with uniform 
movement and put it still on the table, their frequency of vibration will be the same? The answer 
is it will be the same, this is only an example to illustrate that there are always some things that 
they do not interfere with certain external factors, there is no relationship with light, just to show 
that the light has the feature of constant speed, and the spring has the characteristics of constant 
frequency, these are only the unique properties of the materials. 

Well, with this big premise, we can do mathematical derivation. 

The first thing is to explain a term: inertial coordinate system, any reference system 
established by Newton's law of motion, known as the inertial reference system, with the short 
name inertial system. In a word, it refers to those which are in line with the classic Newtonian 
mechanics. 

It is conceived that there are two inertial coordinates S system and S'system, the origin O' of 
the S'system is relative to the origin O of the S system, which moves along the X axis in the 
positive direction of the rate v. The space-time coordinates of any event in the S and S'systems 
are (x, y, z, t), and (x', y', z', t'). t and t'are the time of S system and S' system, respectively. When 
the two inertial coordinate system is reconnected, the timing starts respectively. 
If x= 0, then x'+vt'=0. This is a necessary condition for the transformation to be satisfied, so the 
transformation of the coordinates of any event from the S'system to the S system is conjecture. 
x=γ（x'+vt'） (1) 
The constant γ is introduced in the formula, named Lorenz factor. 
The principle of relativity is introduced, that is, the form of physical equations in different inertial 
systems should be the same. So the transformation of the above event coordinates from the S 
system to the S'system 
x'=γ（x－vt） (2) 
The transformation of y with y', z and z' can be directly obtained, that is, 
y'=y (3) 
z'=z (4) 
Replace (2) into (1) and solve t' 
t'=γt +(1－γ2) x/γv (5) 
On the basis of the above derivation, the principle of the constant speed of light is introduced to 
seek the value of γ. 
The coincident origin O (O') sends out a beam of light along the direction of the X axis, and the 
wavefront coordinates of the beam are (X, Y, Z, T), (X', Y', Z', T'). According to the principle of the 
constant speed of light, there is 
X=cT (6) 
X'=cT' (7) 
The principle of the relativistic light constant is that the coordinate value X is equal to the speed 
of light C multiplying time T, and the coordinate value X'is equal to the speed of light C 
multiplying time T'. (1) (2) multiplied 
xx'=γ2(xx'－x'vt+xvt'－v2tt') (8) 
With the event of the wave front as an object, (8) 
XX'=γ2(XX'－X'VT+XVT'－V2TT') (9) 
(6) (7) substitution (9), reduced Lorenz factor 
γ= (1－（v/c）2)－1/2 (10) 
(10) substituting (5), simplifying 
t'=γ(t－vx/c2) (11) 
Put (2), (3), (4), (11) together, that is, the Lorenz transformation of the S system to the S'system 
x'=γ(x－vt)， 
y'=y， 
z'=z， 
t'=γ(t－vx/c2) (12) 
According to the principle of relativity, From (12) we can get the Lorenz transformation from the 
S'system to the S system 
x=γ(x'+vt')， 
y=y'， 
z=z'， 
t=γ(t'+vx'/c2) (13) 
 

The above shows the entire process of Lorentz transformation, from which we can see, A, B 
two objects refer to each other, the time of moving objects slowed down. This is the conclusion 
that many scholars recognize, but is it true? Is it enough for A, B two objects refer to each other 
enough? Let us do an experiment: in the absence of any reference object, A, B two objects stay 
away from each other, the question is, who is moving, who is still, or both are in motion? Is it clear? 
It's not clear for anyone. Obviously, the two things refer to each other will just make more 
complicated. This is also a very important reason why many researchers have troubles over the 
research of the twin paradox. 

However, our deduction obviously points to a clear conclusion. The frame of reference for 
motion slowed down. Yes, nothing wrong. Let us start the analysis. The whole derivation is based 
on the speed of light, the constant speed of light, except that we must also pay attention to a very 
important point, which is (O, O ') point. Since the S coordinate system is not moving, when 
referring to O point, the time on S does not become faster nor slower. That is to say, the speed of 
time has not changed. While S' is in motion, observing S' from S time has slowed down. So here is 
the question, the time getting slower is compared with which one. Of course, it is compared with 
the time on S, and the time on S does not change, which is for the reference to decide? It is the O 
point, so we say that the time on S' become slower and which O point is also for the reference. 
What is O point? It is space-time, space-time point which is located on S. With the same principle, 
this could also be applied for the observation of S from S'. 

However, this space-time point will often be ignored by us, which is the third-party reference 
for the comparison between two inertia systems, without it, there is no above conclusion. I 
believe after the above analysis, you will have a sudden understanding about the twin paradox, 
we will describe in detail later. We can boldly put forward the conclusion that the speed of time 
requires space-time for reference. Without a third party, there is no way to compare A, B two 
subjects. 

2. Theory of relativity 
Well, let's go to the theory of relativity. First let us derive special relativity from the twins 
paradox: that is the story of one of the twins on earth travels to space, and when he comes back, 
he finds out that his brother has become an old man. The special theory of relativity explains this 
phenomenon. It has been many years after the spacecraft was returned to earth, due to the 
slowdown of time on the spacecraft. 

So, I believe many people will have such questions, since it is a relative movement, why it 
must be that the time on the spacecraft slow down? Why it can't be that is the time on earth get 
slower? Obviously, such a question has stepped into the difficult situation, in which there are only 
A, B two things to compare each other. Let us first come back to reality, there are two women on 
earth are competing which one is more beautiful, either of them won't step back (completely 
controversial to clear out), in the end what we should do? The introduction of a third-party 
referee, by the third party to determine who in the end is more beautiful. Then who will be older 
for our twins? We also need a third party, it is space-time, whose relative space-time is faster, 
whose time will be the slower one, and who will be younger, apparently the relative space-time 
movement of spacecraft is faster, so time of which will be slower. (The time runs slowly, and 
human body functions naturally work slowly, but as a client he does not feel the time slowdown.) 
We take a fish as an example, when the time comes to a complete stop, just as the fish are frozen, 
and we observe it, its time stopped at that time. And when it's thawed, its time starts again, and 
as the fish, it does not even know that time has stopped, and when it's thawed, it does not think 
that the time ever stopped. In its thoughts, yesterday was the day before today). The conclusion 
derived from the Lorentz transformation is completely consistent with the conclusion of the twins 
paradox. We must note this that the third party except A, B: time and space is a competent time 
judge. 

We have been talking about inertial movement all the time, then how about we get rid of 
this inertial system? This is also the question Einstein focused on at that time, so he put up with 
general relativity, so what is general relativity? Is there any contradiction with the special theory 
of relativity? In a word, the general theory of relativity is the existence of the quality of the object 
which leads to a distortion of time and space, this distorted space-time is fully in line with the 
surface geometry. This must had been starting a conjecture, but later scientists validated this 
geometric effect through experimental observations. Since it was verified, then things get simpler, 
our space is no longer a flat carpet, the time and space are distorted, the straightforward 
calculation is no longer adequate, and the motion of an object requires calculus to calculate. 
Under the calculus, the general relativity appears as a special theory of relativity. At a low 
speed, the special theory of relativity shows in a very Newton way. We have unified these theories? 
I think so. However, we must note that the descriptions of the special theory of relativity and the 
general theory of relativity over the slowdown of time are not the same. According to the 
deduction of special theory of relativity, time is related to speed v, but for general relativity time is 
also related to the degree of distortions in time and space (called as gravitational field in Newton 
way). Whose space-time distortion is greater (greater gravitational field), whose time will run 
more slowly, for a material that will be reflected in the acceleration, whose acceleration is bigger, 
who will run the time more slowly. How can this be related to the time and speed of special 
relativity? I am wandering that if you have noticed, the so-called acceleration, in the calculus state 
will appear as speed. (The acceleration affects the time only when the acceleration affects the size of the speed.) 

Let us return to reality, for example, we drive a car on Earth, the faster we drive the more 
fuel-efficient it will be; the faster the speed boost the more fuel will be cost (all reflected in 
resistance), that is, who encountered a bigger resistance from distortion of time, who will run 
slower, the faster the relative space-time the greater the resistance will be, the greater the 
acceleration the greater resistance will be. The laws of nature are always so similar, why not our 
universe? 

The special theory of relativity generally explains common small physical phenomena, for 
the interpretation of celestial bodies we usually adopt general relativity. Since the bigger the 
mass is, the more distortions will occur to space and time, these two are unified. We have used a 
lot of scientific experiments and engineering cases to prove the correctness of the special theory 
of relativity and general theory of relativity. Science is always based on the experiments, from the 
experimental phenomena we can deduce the science behind and derive the hidden truth behind, 
which is the theories have been experimentally proved, they are worthy our trust. 

The following are two typical experiments and applications: 
The cancellation of GPS's slow-bell effect is a good example of the application of special 
theory of relativity and we would not be able to use GPS without considering the special 
relativistic slow-bell effect of high-speed satellites. 

The observations of the solar eclipse of the solar ecliptic star also well prove the validity of 
general relativity. This experiment can in further verify the speed of light, believing that light will 
be merely deflected and its speed will not change (I do not know if this observation has been 
done or not). 

3. Conclusion 
Based on the above, we can put forward the following points: 
1. No third parties can not be compared, and no way to explain the twins. 
2. There's space, speed, and then time. L/V=T 
3. The resistance of space-time distortion and speed is the root of time slow. 
4. The effect of space-time distortion is the geometric effect (general relativity conclusion) 
5. The special theory of relativity and general relativity are unified. 
6. Newton's law is relativism under specific conditions, Newton's law + light speed constant 
+ space-time distortion = relativity theory 
When we want to compare two things, we must find a reference of third parties, otherwise 
we will lose the meaning of comparison. Maybe this reference is so obvious, maybe it's hidden 
behind your back and waiting for your discovery silently. 

 

On 2018/1/25 at 1:31 AM, Janus said:

It may just be your wording here, but it seems to indicate that you are operating under a common misconception here,  that gravitational time dilation is related to the local strength of the gravity field, and that by extension, differing values of acceleration will cause different rates of time dilation.  This is not the case.  Gravitational time dilation is due to a difference in gravitational potential.  The clock at the higher potential runs faster.  This is an important difference in that it is theoretically possible to have two clocks which experience exactly the same force of gravity and yet be at different potentials and run at different rates.

My viewpoint:

Yes, if acceleration affects the size of the speed in a certain period of time, then the acceleration will affect the time. Speed is the impact of the key time, from Lorenz transformation can be seen.

As far as acceleration goes there is the "Clock postulate" which state that acceleration does not add any extra element to time dilation. (outside of the fact that it can increase relative velocity.)   The proof of this come from the fact that you can have acceleration without a change of speed, such as in the case of circular motion. 

My viewpoint:

No mistake, if the acceleration does not change the speed and only changes the direction of the velocity, it does not affect the time expansion. That is to say, the two clocks of the same velocity, their time expansion is the same. This is also an example of the size of the velocity that affects the time. If the acceleration does not increase the speed, the acceleration will not affect the time. The same is true of the acceleration caused by the gravitational field.

An object traveling in a circle at a constant speed in under a constant centripetal acceleration.     The value of the centripetal acceleration depends on both the radius and tangential speed of the object.  Thus, by varying the radius, you can subject an object to various combinations of speed and acceleration.  You could, for example, vary the speed while keeping the acceleration constant or keeping the speed constant and vary the acceleration.

My viewpoint:

Yes, we have learned this content in high school. The satellite needs to stay at its orbit, and it needs the speed of response. If there is a clock on the satellite, the time of this clock will only be related to the speed of the satellite, and the gravity is not directly related to the time of the earth. The effect of gravity is already reflected in the speed of the satellite.

Such experiment have been done by putting radio-isotope samples on very high speed centrifuges capable of creating accelerations of 1,000's of gs.  They have all shown the clock postulate to be valid.  The time dilation measured for the samples only depended on the sample's speed relative to the lab and was independent of the acceleration values.

My viewpoint:

It is true that speed is the key to influence time.  Acceleration can reflect the effect of time if acceleration  affects the size of the speed. This effect is calculated by calculus. 

 

This is not to say that acceleration cannot play a role in time dilation, but only that its role is more in line with that of gravitational time dilation.   One can imagine two clocks one behind the other and accelerating such that in the frame of the clocks, their distances remain constant.   They are both experiencing the same acceleration, however, the clock in the direction of the acceleration will run faster than the trailing clock.  Being in different positions relative to the acceleration is the equivalent of being at different gravitational potentials and causes a like time dilation between the clocks.

If I misinterpreted your meaning, then please excuse my interruption. 

So I think my view is exactly the same as yours. Your speech is more affirmative of the correctness of my theory.

Thank you very much. Let's continue our discussion.
 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

On 2018/1/24 at 7:17 PM, studiot said:

You need to explain exactly what you mean by ‘constant’ speed of light because just stating it is constant or observed to be constant could mean several different things.
My viewpoint: 
The velocity of the light we measure is a constant

I beg to differ. Even in Newtonian theory the frequency of the spring will vary with position in the gravitational field. This simple (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/shm2.html) form of solution takes g as independent of x and therefore constant (note yet another use of the word constant).  But strictly g is not the same on the floor and on the table.
My viewpoint:
I totally agree with you, and I mean that the spring is compared in two cases of static and uniform motion, which implies that the other conditions are the same.

This is too wide a definition of inertial. Newton’s laws still apply to in non inertial frames, just differently.
My viewpoint:
Yes, I finally set out that Newton's law and relativity are unified.

Einstein introduced the third frame to define an unknown function (and show that it is equal to unity) he introduced for the sake of mathematical completeness. You have omitted this step, so the third frame is unnecessary.
My viewpoint:
I don't do the evaluation for the third frame Einstein, if Einstein understood the physical meaning of Lorenz transformation, I believe he would agree with me

not speed, but relative speed. Speed by itself requires reference to a particular frame. The point is that relative speed is the same in both frames.
My viewpoint:
I think that your explanation is just a conjecture, or a mathematical model, a hypothesis introduced in order to explain a phenomenon.

The rest of this paragraph has the seed of a correct point but is garbled and needs rewording. In particular speed is not acceleration.
My viewpoint:
I've already said that in the differential case, the acceleration is the velocity. V=delta t*a

Really? So driving my car at 100mph is more fuel efficient than driving it at 50 mph?
My viewpoint:
This is only an image of the explanation, to explain the truth: the greater the speed, the greater the resistance to be overcome

I want to know how you explain the twin paradox.

 

What is space-time? Distance / Velocity = Time

First there is distance and speed, and then there is time.

You can read the attached file "The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox.pdf" carefully, then you can understand what is space-time, can understand the twin paradox

The twin paradox, a theory of relativity must cross experiment, let us begin to analyse it correctly.

 

 

The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox.pdf