SamBridge

 

BTW, there was no giant explosion.

:facepalm:

 

That's dealing with physics within the framework of physics. It's just an environmental factor.

Then think of the speed of information as an environmental factor.

I agree with the idea. My own ideas and science news blurbs I've read seem to fit well, though not all of my own ideas make sense.

Yes, black holes were once called "frozen stars" because time at the Schwarzschild radius is infinitely dilated, and light that is directed outward doesn't move in our coordinates. However, locally, to an inertial observer that light is traveling outward at the usual speed of light. If I understand that correctly it means that a black hole that is roughly fixed-size in our coordinates, can be expanding at the speed of light to an observer who enters, and maybe even faster to observers closer to the center. This is similar to how we measure the size of our universe. That alone suggests that from the inside, the observable size of the black hole is the same as that of their observable universe.

Well we don't know for sure what actually happens "at" the speed of light, tachyon physics suggests it doesn't matter much what's before or after the speed of light and that time may count in a different direction, just at the speed itself is what matters and not 100% before it because you still get a division by zero. Maybe there is some kind of infinite time dilation, but I don't think we'd actually measure it as such, we'd see them only indefinitely approach being frozen and red-shifted before some other variable we forgot to consider like event horizon growth swallows them. As far as I know, if you only consider classical relativity, gravity only propagates at the speed of light, so a change in the event horizon would otherwise never happen faster than light, but we also model black holes as changing in size from outside inertial frames because we need to in order to explain how black holes in the centers of galaxies got to be so big and also Hawking Radiation says they evaporate which scientists are now attempting to use in some fashion to explain how matter and energy we see came from a super-duper huge black hole-like object that was evaporating to create a big bang.

Instead of saying "infinitely dilated" I would just say 'indefinitely" dilated and that something redshifts enough that we can't see it anymore, but as you said a particle itself should measure everything normally and pass through the event horizon like nothing happened, except when they look back up, they will see the universe very differently.

On the interior of a black hole, if you look at the "ball on a net" model, do you think the curvature of space-time ever exceeds 90 degrees? In the ergoshere of a rotating black hole which is a lot more closely related to the geometry of space-expansion than a gravity field, it's a different type of curvature that does permit superluminal travel, one that apparently doesn't happen asymptotically like gravity does. If you have a really massive star, there is no amount of time that you can spend free-falling towards it that will get you past the speed of light, and that's due to the fact that the curvature of space caused by non-rotating gravitational fields is hyperbolic in nature.

Inside a black hole, we still don't know exactly how time would act. Why wouldn't someone in a black just observe the entirety of all events in the outside universe happening all at once if the rest of the universe is counting time that much faster? If you traveled at the speed of light, you could speculate a similar thing happens since you travel indefinite distance without time passing, supposedly, it's like saying finite velocity = infinite velocity, it's weird, it doesn't make sense, there's still some things to work out.

Your basically asking what would happen if the laws of physics did not apply. There is no teleportation, there is no time travel, there is no traveling faster than light, and to ask what would happen if there were is a question with no answer other than speculation.

There use to not be relativity, newtonian physics, string theory, quantum physics, thermodynamics, ect. It's completely ridiculous to suggest people do not have the capability to imagine something different or explore other possibilities, there is absolutely zero reason to be afraid of exploring these things and simply saying "what if..." If people didn't say "what if..." science would not exist as we know it today. No one would have said "what if light had a constant speed" "what if time wasn't universal" "what if matter could act like a wave" "what if energy wasn't conserved" "what if c wasn't the universal speed limit" "what if you could bend space," what you're saying is just utterly ridiculous. It's completely possible to speculate on such things, make logical deductions and use mathematics, I already made a hypothesis with black holes and teleportation. In fact, I can do it with known physics itself. What if there was no speed limit like light? Mathematically as c approaches infinity, it takes noticeable longer when gaining velocity before you start seeing the effects of time dilation, so I can speculate that as the speed of light approached infinity, the effects of time dilation and length contraction when accelerating approach 0. It doesn't even have to be a physical phenomena that actually happens, it just has to explore something to see how certain variables work, how important they are, how things might be different, why we see things the way we do by observing contrasts. There's no way you're going to get away with saying "we can't speculate on anything," not with me around. What if gravity was 2 times stronger than it is now? You'd say its impossible to know anything because that's not happening in reality, not to suggest that such a phenomana is impossible anyway since higgs fields have different theoretical excitation states, but any real mathematician in the world would just plug in the numbers or just use simple intuition and see that it takes less mass for stars to super-nova, Earth would have a stronger gravitational field, it would take more energy to get to a greater height, ect. We have multiple models for the universe and how to model phenomena, they can't all be correct, but that doesn't stop anyone from exploring anything and playing around with physics and asking more questions and finding more answers.

http://www.intuitive-calculus.com/limits-and-continuity.html

 

Limits were developed because regular algebra can't view the "extra dimension" that exists. For example, 1/0 doesn't make sense. Therefore, we can define some form of it by using a limit to see what would happen. That isn't a loop-hole.

Physically, there is no see able potential, but mathematically there is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole

Its the mathematical law that 1/0 is undefined, yet we get close to an apparent answer with limits.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c22m025c/history.html

Saying "infinitely small number" didn't work, so limits were devised.

If mathematically there is but physically there isn't, then that just proves my point. Limits and real results and logical concepts can agree or disagree at different times, that's it, there's no pattern to generalize.

 

 

/quote]

 

Each observer measures the other clock's rate as compared to his own clock. So when the traveler says the Earth clock ticks slower, he means as compared to his own clock. And when the Earth clock says the Traveler's clock ticks slower it is as compared to his own clock. The point is that any comparison of clock rates have to be made from some reference frame, and how those clock rate compare depend on the reference frame. There is reference frame in which both the Earth clock and traveler clock tick slower than the local clock, but tick at the same rate as each other.

 

These comparisons of clock rates as measured from frames reference are the only comparisons of time rates that can be made. There is no "outside reality" from which you can view this which tells you which clock "really" is running slower than the other.

 

Even with the twin paradox, after the twins have reunited, and everyone agrees that one twin has aged more than the other, everyone does not agree as to why this is the case. Some frames will say it is because one twin aged slower than the other for the entire trip, while other frames will say that which twin aged slower than the other changed throughout the trip. And both are equally true. There is no one "truth" to what happened.

 

Such is the nature of space-time. You keep trying to invoke some kind of universal background by which time is "really" measured, and no such thing exists.

 

Even though I don't completely understand it, but It seems like you keep disregarding what everyone else went to great lengths to explain which is that only one twin actually accelerated and every frame inertial frame would know it, the principal of everyone of a certain frame not being able to agree on something only applies to inertial frames, it works different with accelerated frames. If you look at gravitational fields and something moving towards a black hole, every frame in the universe can agree that something is moving from a lower gravitational field strength to a higher one, even if they can't agree on when because of dilation and distance, and that's because a gravitational field creates an accelerated frame of reference from the curvature of space.

What's been suggested is that both twins can ultimately agree on which one underwent acceleration, and thus, which twin is younger. And, if time actually did travel slower at the same rate for both frames, that would imply they are in the same frame of reference and thus there should be no reason to see a difference in what they measured of each other

If you take away the acceleration and teleport back, I'm not sure what happens when they re-unite. One twin was traveling near the speed of light, so from Earth's frame and the traveling twin's frame, both twins will know that only one twin traveled a shorter measured distance to the star due to length contraction and dilation, that's all fine. What isn't clear is the teleportation thing or a way to analyze what is physically happening, which twin actually experienced less or more time if one happened to teleported back to Earth, if the effects of light travel remained in place but the rate they received information about each other was instantaneous.

In fact why don't you answer it. If the traveling twin teleported back to Earth, how would both clocks be slower than each other? If someone went near a black hole and then teleported back to Earth, the black hole traveler's clock should still be slower because only that clock experienced a comparatively higher curvature of space and did not count time in the same metric length (yup) as a clock on Earth, so I know reality doesn't fall apart with teleportation, especially considering wormholes were seriously considered by the scientific community to be physically possible, I know there's potential answers.

 

Therefore, there is a potential for that sound wave to reach its point, which is my point. Which is similar to my limit example.

Physically, there isn't the potential, there's no physical way to have a sound wave of physically infinite frequency because that would require infinite energy. The limit and the predicted conceptual result of plugging in infinity can differ as much as they agree, you can't generalize 1/0 and 1+x = infinity for all situations, they are indeterminate results and so there's no concise pattern that you can draw, it depends on the situation.

It does. Why would you think it doesn't. The fastest observed galaxy is receding at 0.9880532 c.

Well we're trying to get a look at the early universe, but if space is expending away from us faster than light at the distance where we say we can see the early universe, no matter where we look from we can't get a visual confirmation of it, so how else are we suppose to prove it? If we travel 13.8 billion light years to where we think we can see the early universe, we just see the same effects on our previous position and a bigger observable universe, unless for some weird reason there just happens to be a line that somehow has nothingness outside of it and somehow Earth actually is the literal center of the universe. I just don't understand how scientists are eager to look at the early universe and act like we proved what happened with the big bang when according to our own models there can't be a physical way to prove it.

Because the furthest we've been able to see is 13.3 billion lys.

And at 13.3 it doesn't look like galaxies are almost traveling near the speed of light? And what about this one? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10400568/Furthest-known-galaxy-found.html

And, if things disappear after 13.8 billion years or whenever the hubble volume is, how are we suppose to view anything resembling a big bang? If we're really the center of the universe why don't we just look for remnants of the biggest black hole ever our solar system? But we don't actually model it like that, what it models like is anywhere we go, we observe things expanding away in a sphere, and that's probably because the big bang wasn't an "explosion" so much as a creation of space.

There is some slightly different notions at play here.

 

So if we consider the so called particle horizon which is the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached us in a given specific time, and we set that time to be the age of the Universe (forget surface of last scattering etc) then we get 14.3Gpc, which is the radius of our Observable Universe. This changes as we wait, we see more and more as light had more time to reach us.

 

The true event horizon would be defined as the largest comoving distance from which light could ever reach us. If the Universe just expands for ever then this distance would be infinite.

 

The third notion may answer some of your questions. In an accelerating universe, which we seem to live in there is also a de Sitter horizon. There are events that are truly unobservable to us. Recall that an external observer can never actually see something pass the event horizon of a black hole due to the red shift and time dilation effects. The external observer only sees the object get fainter and fainter but never actually disappear. Even if the object sends some special signal at the point he crosses the event horizon the external observer will never see this.

 

The same thing can happen in an accelerating Universe and I think this is why we have never really seen these objects disappear. They would be too faint to observe anyway and they would never actually totally disappear.

But this is somewhat different than a black hole because the gravitational pull of a non-rotating black hole doesn't cause things to accelerate past the speed of light, they accelerate space-time differently. At a certain distance from us, there should theoretically be an acceleration where space accelerates faster than light and thus photons can never reach us from that distance away, but this is not true of black holes, there is merely a distance where time dilation becomes so extreme it may appear to stop from an outside frame or 4-D curvature becomes enough that light waves can't travel outward.

But, if we teleported to that point that distance away where the expansion of space didn't permit photons to reach Earth, we would see the same thing happen to Earth where it started disappearing as it got further away, even though we know Earth isn't being ripped apart or traveling backwards in time from super-luminal travel. I mean of course we'd say the Earth is the center of the universe, that's the point where we'd spherically observe everything from, otherwise I also see no evidence to suggest the big bang happened as a spherical explosion few miles away from my house, and the same effects we observe from Earth should happen from any other point in the observable universe.

Also, of sorts our Universe is inside a black hole, that is we live inside a Hubble horizon!

How come we haven't actually seen galaxies moving at near or past the speed of light or disappearing into going past the speed of light at 13.8 billion light years away if space is expanding faster than light after the hubble volume? And so how is the observable universe exceeding the hubble volume?

 

I must clarify that his argument went more into depth about how if there was no creator then there is no time of causality of the Big Bang and therefore there are many paradoxes that arise. I'm still getting confused about how you came to the conclusion that he is saying that the Universe never had a time of non-existence.

Paradoxes don't have to rise if you treat it mathematically, or if you don't think of time as some special dimension that means everything. If before the big bang, time existed, then we just start counting into negative numbers on the timeline before the big bang and say all the matter and energy was some random fluctuation. If you say the big-bang was when time was created instead of just the matter and energy we see which there's no particular reason to believe, it only has paradoxes if you say it started at some arbitrary number like 0 and then imposed out of no where that it wasn't allowed to pass for a certain amount of time, since there's no real explanation for why it wouldn't pass. Everything we know says time does pass, if everything was in a singularity, then everything would have had the same frame of reference and time would have still passed for all the matter and energy inside that singularity. Saying when a mathematical construct (like the number line of time) was created can't really mathematically tell you about what went on before it was created. That's like asking "how did we calculate 1+1=2 before we had 1+1=2" the answer is we didn't, there was nothing to calculate. If time didn't exist prior to the big bang, there was no dimension to constitute any finite duration of time that the observable universe existed as a singularity for, and that's it, and but only comes from saying time had an arbitrary starting point, you're trying to apply it's own counting system to mathematics where it can't count, like saying "can you do something you can't do"? I don't think time likes it when you tease it like that, and on its 13.8 billionth anniversary too.

actually, lead ions as much as it sounds gimmicky are what the lhc use sometimes and how you make quark gluon plasma. that is why at the bottom of my post you will notice the qgp.

Ok, and so what?

in that case, if you had a secondary target it should function right?

and there is probably a way to rectify your gluons. If you can create them with lead ions there must be a way, maybe a different type of ion since they produce qgp

If you had a secondary "target" with color charge AND the gluonic fields could reach it like a magnetic field could between two pieces of metal, sure, but gluonic fields have limited range so in reality they never would do such a thing beyond a few fermtometers, which is why they are only transmitted between nucleons and quarks. And you can't loophole that range limitation either, not without some real hard-core sci-fi no-evidence-for physics. I also don't see what lead ions have to do with anything, sounds like an old cold-fusion scam.

Force has to be transmitted between two things, you can't just bombard something with gluons at a large distance and expect anything to happen, and that would be really hard considering gluons only have a range of a few fermtometers.

It's also impossible to isolate gluons as far as we know anyway because of color confinement. The gluons hold together quarks and nucleons so well and only amounts of energy strong enough to create more particles can break the bonds, so whenever you try and create free-gluons, you only end up creating more hadrons that they are attracted to.

Gluons don't "compose" atoms in the sense you think of, but they hold mass-full particles together through their color charge and also account for most of the energy that an atom has. The important thing to understand about bosons is that they don't "comprise" things, they mediate things, they interact between different fields in order to transmit a force from one field to another.

 

There would be a difference, which is why the two forms should be separate, where there is potential and actual. The potential and actual, at one particular time, cannot be equal. However, on a broad scale they are equal. For example, if you were to take a limit n->infinity of 1/n = 0, which is representative of potential, then if we chose a finite value n then it would not equal 0.This fraction has the potential to become 0, where the actual is 0, but the actuality of the fraction is it will only get closer and closer to 0.

You keep saying potential as if it's a real thing, but all you're really saying is "we didn't confirm it yet." or "we didn't get to it yet." Limits deal with infinities because infinities and divisions by zero are often indeterminate on their own, they could literally yield any answer, you could literally put 0 into a something else any amount of times you want, but, there's no mathematical property to determine how many times 0 actually goes into something. So, the specific equations that involve those things use limits as a loop-hole to see what happens at infinity and divisions by zero in specific circumstances, that's all they are, loop-holes. And I also don't see the value in what you're saying. So what if a finite number never gets to 0? So what if an infinity small divisor does? The limit and the proposed value agree. We say but can't prove it's infinite, and we also say the limit approaches infinity, so two different engagements agree, so we might as well treat them as the same thing if we have no more evidence to consider. Or what about sin(x)/x? Visually and philosophically, it looks like the ratio approaches 1 when x approaches 0, and mathematically, we define that limit as approaching 1 anyway, so we have some evidence to suggest that sin(0)/(0) = 1 for that specific circumstance if we express those numbers as directly relating to the scenario we proposed. On its own, sin(0) would just be another random constant, but the difference is that we assign meaning to those numbers and what they represent when we use a limit on a visual reference, like angles and ratios.

Similarly, we say space extends indefinitely because we can't find a boundary, but also say it could be mathematically infinite because flat space doesn't loop back in on itself and "nothingness" has no dimensional size. We see no boundary, we keep counting distance with ease, so we just assume it's infinite, we don't have a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. "Potential" is more like a test, like a limit, a loop-hole to see what the answer likely will be since we can't just plug in values, so it can easily agree with a logical concept or result. Physically, we say based on our observations, the universe appears to get denser back in time. You could say it has a "potential" to be infinitely small because the limit of its density as time approaches present time minus 13.8 billion years approaches infinity, so that combined with our knowledge of black holes, we say the observable matter and energy was some nearly infinitely small, singularity-like sphere or point.

If you talk about "potential energy" that's a whole different thing.

And here is what the crux of the problem is. You think the phrase "they can't both be younger at the same time" actually has meaning in this situation. It doesn't. There is no Absolute, Universal meaning to "at the same time". "At the same time" is frame dependent. "At the same time" in the Traveler's frame is different than "At the same time" in the Earth frame. There is no way to apply this term to both frames universally. In the traveler frame the Earth twin really is younger than him at the moment before turn around, and in the Earth twin frame, the traveling twin is really the younger. I know that this seems contrary to the way we seem to experience time, but it is the way that time works in our universe.Each will see the other twin's clock as ticking slower than their own by the same rate as long at they see the other receding.The instant you try to throw instantaneous travel or transfer of information into the mix, you invalidate SR, so there is no SR based answer to this question.

I use to think it could work like that too, then I saw this topic and got involved. Regardless of simultaneity, as you said which was my exact point I was trying to confirm or deny, "Each will see the other twin's clock as ticking slower than their own by the same rate as long at they see the other receding." I think I'm starting to see that the problem with THAT is that you'd need some other frame of reference, otherwise how could you know that they both tick slower by the same rate? Earth certainly doesn't think its own clock ticks slower.

That's the point of potential and actual infinity. There is the potential of the universe's existence through time moving forward, but the actuality of the matter is it has not reached that state. The actual infinity would arise from the universes's existence through time moving forward. Is this what you are asking about?

Well if there's no physical space that's not a "potential infinity", it's simply not infinite space. But, we don't really have enough information to determine what type of situation the universe was created from anyway, I just thought it seemed weird to use that explanation to say that the universe wasn't infinite because it would imply the universe was never nonexistent which is sort of paradoxical because then you should have infinite space if there was no amount of time that passed where space wasn't in existence. Is there an actual difference in this scenario between saying "infinite space" and "space extends indefinitely, we keep counting units of distance with no end in sight" since we don't have any reason to put a boundary on space?

To repeat, yes THAT situation is symmetric.

Ok, that's what I wanted to confirm. Maybe they don't agree on how long it takes to get to the star, but now I want to ask, can I extrapolate that they still observe the same time dilation of each other for that first half if they had good enough telescopes to constantly observe each other? Then, I think the explanation to that one will help, because that's really a main component that I've been asking about the whole time.

Now maybe if all the previous stuff is good, we can move on to one other scenario which will hopefully make it clear. Let's say out of sheer coincidence, every atom of the traveling twin spontaneously teleported back to Earth as per their indefinite mathematical probabilistic boundaries hypothetically mathematically allowing them to do so even though that would probably never happen. Who will have aged less?

And then, let's say they repeated the experiment, but the traveling twin only teleported after the turn around, no room for Doppler shift and illusions of light waves piling up or being in further intervals apart. If this happened would they observe light from them and say they are in two places at once? Sure, the spacial part of relativity isn't going to like being cut out, but I think isolating only what happens to the time is the most important because that's what the paradox is ultimately addressing and it might also show why the relativistic Doppler effect is important and more than just an illusion, why the times are different despite the symmetry in the first half of the experiment, how the clocks match up during the entirety of the experiment.

Let's even ask this just to see the effects of the teleportation. If one twin went near a super-massive black hole, then instantly teleported back before any photons got to Earth, would they still be younger? Would being in contracted space have physically caused the clock to actually tick slower? If the answer is yes, we can take it to the next level with when one twin is traveling since we could fall back on the equivalence principal anyway.

No.......................................

 

ONLY the first half of the experiment where no initial acceleration is considered and we're not talking about the turn-around, only twin A and twin B, no one else and no initial acceleration is considered, just only that, don't comment on anything else yet. Is THAT situation situation of only Twin A and Twin B observing each other traveling nearing the speed of light symmetric? An as a separate question to make it very clear to and to answer in a different paragraph that does not try to relate to the first paragraph, is there any physical reason in that scenario why they would not observe the same dilation effects of each other?

Another way to put it is that each twin observes the turnaround happening halfway through the experiment, but the duration of half the experiment isn't symmetrical.

Ok, so, if in the first half of the experiment, both frames of reference can agree on how much time has passed up to the turn-around event, but not after, so can we agree that the duration of the trip prior to any turn-around is symmetric? Because otherwise, it's still the same problem as before where I don't see a physical phenomena to account for the physical age difference of why A and B don't observe the exact same dilation effects of each other in just the first part of the experiement. Like I said before if twin B moves away from A at 80% the speed of light, twin B observes twin A moving away at 80% the speed of light instead. Where is the asymmetry in just, only and purely in that scenario with no turnaround even? Let's just make sure that's established. Twin A says twin B is moving 80% c away, so twin B says twin A is moving 80% c away, no one has turned around yet. Is only that scenario symmetric? Or will they both observe the same dilation effects of each other or not?

I will explain you how to measure Doppler Effect.

 

Imagine we have laser with well know frequency (so also energy/momentum/wavelength is known).

And container with atoms which are reacting for this frequency.

If we will place laser on vehicle, airplane or rocket. And laser will be pointing to container with above atoms. We can see transition.

Then when we will start moving it in direction to/from container, transition will stop happening - frequency will be higher or lower than needed for transition to happen.

 

In the case of external source of photons, such as Sun or star, we have to rely on well known absorption/emission spectral lines to calibrate

 

Similar method was used in measurement of gravitational shift, but laser was pointing down and it was failing down.

I'm talking about a single photon though, a laser is many many photons or even charged particles which would only make the ambiguity of the situation easier to brush off as a classical notion. As I said, from a classical stand-point it could at first make sense, but the problem with that is the fact that photons aren't completely classical, there's phenomena that don't act like waves on the beach, you don't run into the rest of an individual photon over time, as soon as its definitely absorbed and not just decohered, it collapses to a measured point, the rest of the proposed physical component of the photon is subject to the quantum eraser effect whereby the probability of its spacial distribution instantaneously disappears with the determining of its exact properties and it no longer has any wave-like nature. Originally, it would have made sense to me, but after reading through a debate and looking at particle physics, Swan and the rest of the internet made it really clear that photons don't work completely like waves on a beach.

 

I think so he was talking about that we know nothing about photon until it's absorbed, and when it's absorbed, it's gone from the system.

Exactly, so how do you constantly measure physical oscillations over time like waves in the water? As soon as its observed you get a quantum eraser effect, my moving towards the photon shouldn't have any impact on the photon at all while its traveling, and that's why there's no measured energy gain in the photon from an outside frame. It simply does not make physical sense to model it as if you're on the beach, neither the ocean nor its waves spontaneously disappear when one wave takes the time to hit the shore. In fact, even after a single wave hits the shore, the energy continues dispersing through the rocks.

You can ignore this part or really any answer until you understand the basics, but if the twins start symmetrically with a relative velocity, and one turns around after a proper time of tau, then the situation is symmetrical up to a proper time of tau for either of the twins. For example with gamma=2, and twin B turning around at tau=1 unit of time, up till then B calculates A aging 0.5. Symmetrically, up till A ages a proper time of 1, it has that B ages 0.5. But for A the situation isn't symmetrical "up until the time of the turn around", because for A that happens at local time 2, when B has aged 1. Twin A experiences aging from 1 to 2 without a turnaround, and B never experiences that in this setup, so it is not symmetrical beyond local time of 1. As an example, if the setup is "the twins depart symmetrically with relative velocity v=0.866c. At local time of 1, exactly one of the twins will receive a signal to turn around. Who will turn around is unknown at the start." Up until time 1, there is no distinguishing features between the twins; the situation must be symmetrical. However if a twin passes a time of 1 and hasn't got the signal, it knows that it isn't the twin that turns around, EVEN THOUGH the other twin has only aged 0.5 units of time and it is only halfway to the time that it will receive the turn-around signal. There is nothing odd about any of this unless you reject relativity of simultaneity.

 

So how can the first part of the experiment be symmetric if A doesn't actually observe the same effects as B and only one experiences a greater specific time dilation? I thought both you and swan said that it actually was symmetric in the first half, then you said But for A the situation isn't symmetrical 'up until the time of the turn around'" which implies it's symmetric after the turn-around and "Twin A experiences aging from 1 to 2 without a turnaround" si it's not symmetric prior to the turn around? What do I do with what you said there? It's like you threw away what you said in the first paragraph.

But, assuming the part of what both said is correct which is that it's symmetric in the first half, and we have two twins that are constantly trying to observe each other, you're saying the asymmetric comes at first from the fact that traveling twin B has already turned around hours ago by the time Earth twin A has observed the photons that suggest the twin has turned around, so B says the turn around happened at a later time than A, and by that time, A is already well on it's way back to Earth, so A should arrive there somewhat before B says it should have, making A younger?

 

I would much prefer that you quote me (or better yet provide a link) rather than summarize what you think I said, because there's a decent chance the two are not the same thing, or there is a missing bit of context in one discussion that doesn't apply to the other. if I was feeding you wrong information, others here would call me on it, just as they've pointed out errors of mine in the past.

I'm not going to bother looking through a year of topics, you know what you know, and I know you know your description isn't fully accurate according to your own past explanations. Sometimes I said stuff that I know isn't 100% is current but could do for the situation and no one called me on it, so that doesn't really mean anything if no one calls you on it, you're not even considering the fact that people wouldn't question you because they'd assume you're correct. I know you know that you can't model a photon just like any macroscopic substance, and I'm sure most others with knowledge in the field like some of the staff members would agree but simply didn't bother to say it because they don't want to argue with someone else who's a staff member. Your description contradicts what you specifically said, you specifically said it wasn't the thing you just said it was in this topic, it specifically doesn't physically work like that according specifically to what you said. This is just a case of you not taking the topic seriously, nothing more.