SamBridge

Other than apparently you, I don't think there is anything wrong, my concerns about the paradox seem resolved. Ok well, do you have evidence that accelerating through space is the very exact same thing as space curving? I brought up two examples where they diverge. As I said, the link is that they both have acceleration, but one instance is that space-time is accelerating via curvature and the other is matter gaining velocity through space, they are different phenomena. With gravitational fields, it doesn't matter what direction you're approaching something or moving away from something, something entering a higher gravitational field will always appear to have a contracting temporal and spacial metric from an outside point of view, whereas with conventional velocity acceleration, you know direction does matter, the clock can speed up or slow down and in different amounts depending on the direction, Unless of course, I'm misunderstanding your ambiguity in which case I have no idea what you're talking about.

And yet scientific understanding continues to change. It's pretty much the old saying: The only thing that stays the same is change.

Oh, you don't know? That's just another trick relativity likes to play on you.

There is no "statistical appraoch" to choosing to believe a given model. A model appears to best suite the approximations for what we currently see in experiments and data, so people choose to believe it, regardless of how accurate the model actually is for its resemblance in what takes place in reality. It's this exactly principal that is why the community of science has gone through many huge changes throughout history. You should never be eager to settle on a given model, you should always be looking for something better and always question other models which ultimately makes them better by forcing them to try and reconcile gaps.

I don't think that has anything to do with the problem whatsoever, I've been familiar with the Lorentz transformation and the equivalence principal for several years and there's history of me on this forum explaining 4 dimensional rotation. Not that your notion is completely correct anyway, I've had several different physicists tell me that accelerating via change in velocity through space and a gravitational field are not 100% the same. In one instance, the acceleration happens through space with matter, and in the other instance, the acceleration happens within space-time itself, and effects happening within space-time itself can easily yield different results, such as with the ergo-sphere of rotating black holes and the projected expansion of space from dark energy which are predicted to allow super-luminal travel, a phenomena that could not happen via acceleration with the application of constant force into a massive object. As I said, the problem arose from the fact that 1-2 years ago I asked my college professor about a scenario similar to this where I said "the effects must work the other way in the opposite way in the other direction" and he said "no it doesn't it's the same," and I didn't feel like arguing any more with him (wow, NOT arguing was actually worse, who woulda thought...). So obviously there was some kind of misunderstanding because I have multiple people saying otherwise. Yes I believe we've established that already..........

If you read my posts, I said multiple times that I had a concern over the direction these relativistic effects were dependent on. What he's saying is that the contraction is different if you go directly towards something vs slightly towards something vs completely away from something which makes sense to create a relativistic Doppler shift with events in time since we only find out about events in time from photons and other forces that propagate at the speed of light which of course travel at a finite speed and have specific properties. It seems to suggest information itself has a limit at the speed of light.

Or you can not shamelessly strawman (which shows a completely disinterest in the truth) and both acknlowedge the context of what I said which is davidivad calling it "an explosion with no center" and also put any effort into reading my posts where I said in the first sentence of post #15 that the big bang was not an explosion which further illustrates the fact that you care not about the discussion but rather appearing like you're smart about something. Don't post if you don't have anything meaningful to contribute. You asked for some explanation, I gave you one that I thought of. I don't know if its correct, but I can't completely trust any other given model is completely correct anyway, we still have steps to make. Besides, stars do radiate microwaves even if its not as much as optical light. Why don't we see an optical light background and an ultraviolet background and an x-ray background and ect? The observable universe supposedly use to be a lot more energetic, so where did all the super-high energy gamma rays go? Some of them got redshifted I suppose, but then that means there should be an influx of at least ultra-violet light from that time period in the same manner as the CMWB. I agree that we observe many objects getting further apart from us from our own frame of reference, the extent and cause of which is not clear. Like I said, I think dark energy is "an" explanation to try and account for holes in other models and explain something which we don't know the cause and extent of, though not the only one. And we still can't even agree on how a universe might have actually been started, we just don't have enough information. If we treat that expansion linearly and we model the universe purely through the model you propose, we find the universe gets extremely hot and dense, but to what extent, for how long, and what was before that, and why wouldn't that all just be trapped inside a single black hole if it was so dense only to be so spontaneously radiated? Or was it radiated more gradually over millions of years? If it was, how do we see the galactic development we see so early on from the proposed big bang? Where did all the space come from? How exactly was it created? Is there a limit to space-time since it appears flat? You can go back in time indefinitely? If so, why? If not, why? So is the universe even older then? What could even cause a big bang? What medium was there to create one? It was a random fluctuation of what exactly? We have little to no observations to suppose claims dealing with those questions. Sorry to break it to you, but an actually accurate model is probably beyond you lifetime away.

How about from random stars radiating that energy from that time period and they've taken 26 billion years to reach us? Eactly, science doesn't "prove", it tests for information to use for a model. There's plenty of things that the BB can't explain with our knowledge like where the edge of the universe is, if it has one, if we're in the only universe, why/how space is expanding or why dark energy was even created, if it really was an event that created matter and energy, if matter existed before the supposed big bang, where the big bang could have even come from, how you could count back to before time, how such an explosion could even "start" time, ect. There's all sorts of problems with saying "a giant explosion was the start of everything," there's many things we don't have ironed out. The Big bang has some evidence, but depending on what type of big bang your talking about, it's not necessarily the best model, because all we can really confidently observe is galaxies in our local observable universe appeared closer together and what seems like the expansion of space that is itself accelerating, and that's it.

You're analogies don't help, but I was looking for confirmation that the effects of the Lorentz transformation are direction dependent anyway, and that's the key component that wasn't clear because I asked another physicists if it is direction dependent a year ago, a real physicists who teaches at college, and I thought they said it wasn't, which would have made the scenario symmetric. It makes a lot more sense now.

If he had a better solution, why did he ask you for an answer?

Consider it a science decision: Can you prove there even could be a center or not be a center? Can you even prove the big bang happened? If we can't even prove the big bang happened, then there's obviously gaps to fill in that model.

See ajb's questions.

Ok, so what it seems like you're saying is there is in fact a difference in the effects of the Lorentz transformation with different directions which could have been the most important point that was missing from the discussion if that's what you're actually implying. So when the rocket twin is heading towards Earth, Earth sees the rocket twin's clock tick faster, and the rocket twin doesn't see Earth's clock tick faster by the same amount because...you model the frequency that periodic events take place in time in the same way you model relativistic velocity and Doppler shifts, which are asymmetric? Or in other words, you treat events in time like frequency because the distinction of the changes of an object's position in space propagates at the speed of light, which allows events to blue-shift in one direction and redhift in the other?

Then stop pretending you answered it, jeez.

See I use to understand that, but somewhere along the line my understanding of why its not symmetrical broke down. So the rocket twin is traveling near the speed of light, their clock slows down from Earth's perspective meaning Earth should see the rocket twin age more slowly, correct?. BUT, as I said, the rocket twin sees Earth leaving them, so from the rocket twin's point of view, it's actually Earth that's traveling near the speed of light away from them, right? And thus the rocket twin should observe the same time dilation of Earth meaning the clocks should still sync up at the end of the trip, and so that's why I can' figure out where the anti-symmetry comes from. But somehow the turn around or journey towards Earth is what "changes inertial frames" even though you say supposedly that the turnaround event doesn't really matter, which is also why I was asking if whether or not time dilation and length contraction work the same whether you are heading towards or away from something.

We still can't say it was any sort of "explosion" even with today's models, that's just multi-media hype, and saying "the explosion is so big it doesn't have a center" doesn't make logical sense. Jupiter is big, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a center. The Sun is even more huge, but we can still calculate an approximate center. "You can pick any point and you are still at the center" is not indicative of flat space either, that proposition is modeled in curved space which is why science shows like Nova use the surface of a balloon to illustrate that model because 4-D space would only be the surface of a higher dimensional shape that can be modeled as a sphere which was a proposed theory within the last century, and the surface of a sphere itself has no "center". All we think we can say based on our evidence is that the matter and energy inside our observable universe appears to have spread out, and that it looks like this matter and energy use to spread out at a slower rate. We still can't even observe the fabric of space itself. We cannot prove there was or was not a center because we simply do not have enough information. There's too many gaps to fill and thus no reason to act like any part of describing the entirety of the universe is incontrovertible.

Then neglect whatever parts of SR that conflict. For all we know we could already be living in a universe where traveling in a straight line get's you to a previous point. Let's say it happens in a hypothetical universe where the inherent curvature of space that causes this looping is too small to be noticed with today's technology, which allows us to say it takes an arbitrarily but still very long distance to make one loop, like 30 billion light years, and everything else about this hypothetical universe is the same as our universe; we still have light as the limit and all the fundamental forces still give us the measurements we currently have in any given local space. There you go. Over light years, space-time can still be approximated as flat because the inherent curvature happens at such a slow rate.

But your analogy described absolutely nothing other than what I said it described. You haven't actually addressed a single point I made which I can further illustrate by the fact that you were not able to answer ajb's questions and said to him "you're guess is better than mine," so if not even ajb can answer them, then I know you haven't been able to answer mine which are similar because you defanitely don't know the answers, and thus I have no idea why you are continuing this charade of you actually pretending you answered anything. It's completely fine to say "I don't know" to random people who are not staff members, I do it all the time.

The cosmic microwave background isn't "proof", it's that we use it to model what we think was a more dense state of the universe which as I said could have been a purely local phenomena and could have any number of explanations which is true. At the end of my "rant", I'm acknowledging that what I assume is "special relativity" and general relativity" was build after people like you said time was universal and that it was ridiculous to think otherwise, and then said people said "it's ridiculous to think you can go past the speed of light" and even. No one's saying relativity is flat out wrong and that honestly seems like a strawman to dismiss other possibilities you don't like. The best scientists always doubt previous information to keep an open mind in order to make new discoveries, and its ridiculous to not be open minded. We don't have enough information to completely determine anything, and when we look billions of years into the past with telescopes, we don't see any border to the universe and we still see randomly isolated galaxies. If I have a telescope that can see 15 billion years of space, do you think I am going to see a big bang? Because we can see over 13 billion years of space and no one sees anything resembling a giant explosion. On top of that, a giant explosion being the start of everything doesn't seem make physical sense in the first place, so if anything, you should be eager to have a better model. We simply do not have enough information to confirm anything, it's not more complicated than that. And that's how you should know not to automatically assume any model is 100% correct.

Ok, so there's some differences, but still to this very minute that you're reading this post, I am not clear on what "causes" the turnaround to have such a great impact and why everything before then is negligible. What is the "fictitious force" that creates the anti-symmetry that resolves the paradox? Is it just that events in time themselves act like a blue-shift, making measured events of the rocket close together which is equivalent to time dilation? But doesn't time dilation and length contraction work the same no matter what direction you're going including tangent to any given direction while you are traveling in a circle? So why would the turn around matter? it's just this tiny part of the entire trip, but somehow that acceleration changes everything? It doesn't matter if I give details, the scenario is the same regardless of how I describe it. If I say "return to Earth without turning around," physics doesn't just suddenly not exist, I only used a hyper-doughnut for your sake as piece of mind for how it might work. In reality I really don't care what would explain it, and neither should you. It's no different than saying "suppose we have a perfect sphere," in reality we're never ever ever ever ever going to see a "perfect sphere" at least not on the macroscopic scale, but that doesn't mean you can't apply physics to that situation or pose it as a hypothetical. The question remains the same regardless of how it arises: would anything resembling the twin paradox occur if you could return to Earth without turning around in apparently flat space?

You're basically not saying anything other than "waves move at a constant speed through a given medium," you did't explain anything like why the interaction with the higgs field distorts space and why that distortion happens in just the right way to keep mass-ful objects from accelerating to the speed of light, why does the interaction with the higgs field become strong just because you accelerate, why time slows down and why length contracts. If I look at waves in the air or water where there's also no noticeable time dilation or length contraction, an object can accelerate right past the sound barrier, but this is not true of near-luminal travel.

So if coupling with the field doesn't cause mass, what about it does? You have quantized portions of the field, higgs bosons, and together they are all apart of a higgs field, and the interaction or the coupling within the field in excited states or "disturbances" via higgs particles and its the interaction that creates mass, or in other words higgs particles are mediators for the coupling with the higgs feild that causes mass. I don't remember seeing that on Nova, so what's missing? You're later description doesn't make sense me either. Measurement systems can very, but they will still all agree the speed of light is a constant, no matter what that constant is. But, what is making it a specific constant for a given measurement system. We have curvature of space and we have higgs fields, and now you're saying its just some trick of measurement?

I was thinking about the equivalence myself and that gravitational red-shifts and blue shifts aren't symmetric, but still don't see how the gaps are filled in. A system with multiple objects accelerating has the potential to be symmetric, but gravity doesn't, they have some differences, they aren't 100% the same. it's just that Einstein used the mathematical extrapolations and the elevator scenario you mentioned to say gravity is merely an acceleration in the curvature of space time, and that's why there's similarities between going through space and space itself curving. When you get "pushed back into the seat of your car", it is a fictitious force, there isn't suppose to be anything pushing you back, the car is suppose to be accelerating into your body and that's it.

Not quite. If the history of science has taught us anything, it's that we're always further from the truth than we think. We have some measurements of a few galaxies which we think can potentially model a time that frankly no one we know has been around to observe. We still can't confirm if a big bang happened at all, and if it did, whether or not it was a purely local phenomena or the actual start of "everything," not that it being a "start" would make physical sense either, any visible or testable quantity of dark energy, proof that acceleration can't be described from intrinsic curvature of space over large distances, a consistent and proven of what gravity or really any other force actually is, what space even is and if it's quantized, why time appears to only move forward, ect, there's plenty of room to make changes. With new theories, we even could theorize three different ways to travel faster than light despite that for a period in science, the speed of light was the limit.

I think the only way to really confirm some type of dark energy is to have a telescope powerful enough to see far enough away that the acceleration of space is greater than light or at least fast speed, which must be trillions of miles away at least. How else could it really be confirmed? People make it in a lab?