# Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

## Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

It sounds good to me. I posted a copy of his post at
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15847&p=118872#p118872

Here's Nevyn's explanation that there is no actual paradox, but just a peculiarity involved in measuring time or distance with photons that have limited velocity (from http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=69 ).

The Twins Paradox is not a paradox and is not even a problem once you treat Relativity in a mechanical manner. Relativity is a theory of measurement, not existence. Therefore, it only applies to measurements and not time or distance itself. That is why you have to pick a single reference frame and are not allowed to change that (which the Wiki argument does). The reference frame is the point that measurements are made and they will not be the same measurements if made from a different location.

What Einstein realised is that we use light to measure everything, astronomically speaking, therefore if light has a finite speed then that will affect our measurements. This is both profound and extremely important. Unfortunately, he didn't completely unravel it and his contemporaries were barely able to understand him, let alone advance on his work, and it has ended up in the mess we have today. But it can be unraveled quite easily, and all you need to do it is the definition of velocity.

We start out on the Earth. That is our reference frame because that is where the measurements are made. Whether we are talking about the age of each twin or the space craft on its journey, the measurements are made on the Earth (or starting position). Now, we can't actually see anything important by looking at the age of the twins, it is the journey that matters, not the start and end points. The short answer for the age is that they are the same age. Before and after the journey. Now let me show you why that is.

In essence, time does not slow down and length does not contract. They only appear to do so in our measurements. Our data is time dilated and length contracted, but the actual times and lengths are not. I will only deal with time here, as that is enough for this problem.

In order to see time dilation, we need some clock on the spaceship that is sending a signal back to the Earth. It does this by emitting a photon every 1 second. The receiver on Earth knows that the clock will emit every second and, ignoring Relativity, that is what it would expect to measure. However, light has a finite speed so it takes time for it to travel back to the Earth before it can be measured. That in itself just creates a time offset between emission and reception of a single photon.

The spaceship is traveling at the speed of light, though, so when it emits the next photon, it has moved 300,000km. That is 300,000km more that this photon has to travel than the last one did, so it will arrive later than expected. It will arrive 1s later than expected because it takes the photon 1s to travel the extra distance. So the receiver gets a signal at time N, and it expects another signal at N+1, but it actually receives it at N+2. Time has not slowed down, the source of photons has moved. That is all there is to it.

Now, let's have a look at the return journey. We are still measuring from the Earth and the first question is: What data do you expect to receive during the return journey?

The answer is: None!

We are now looking at a spaceship that is very far away and traveling towards the Earth. We assume it reaches light speed instantly so it emits a photon at the moment it turns on its engines. One second later it emits another photon, but the ship has traveled 300,000km during that second and the previous photon has also traveled 300,000km in that second. So the second photon is in the same position as the first photon when it is emitted. Every photon emitted during the entire journey is in the same location at every stage of that journey. The receiver will receive them all at the same time (along with the spaceship) and that is only once the journey has ended.

If the spaceship was not traveling at c then we would actually measure time contraction and length dilation. Each photon on the return journey has less distance to travel than the last photon emitted, and that would appear as time speeding up to the receiver. There is less distance between each photon and it is that distance that we measure as time.

You can see this in action in an app I developed at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/Relativity/Special/sr-vel.html .

That app (which works in your browser, you don't need to download and run anything) only uses the definition of velocity and it shows time dilation. It only shows the first part of the Twins Paradox, but once you understand Special Relativity in this mechanical, dare I say physical, way, you can see what will happen on the return journey.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

Lloyd, what have you gotten me into?

I was already feeling apprehensive about the first forum (some of those guys are professionals) and now I am on the TB forums as well. I'm fighting on two fronts! Oh well, there's no better way to learn than jumping in the deep end.

Oh, and this needn't be in the Non-MM Topics area as this is pure Mathis. It's not worth changing but I don't want to take credit for Miles work, only its promotion. I didn't mention Miles in that post because I wanted people to look at the concepts and not right write them off without thinking about them. If it gains any ground, then I will surely mention where it comes from.

Last edited by Nevyn on Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)

Nevyn

Posts : 1026
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

I didn't know Miles wrote that. By the way you wrote "right" instead of "write". I did read Miles' explanation of length contraction, I think. He gave an example of a long train moving toward or away from the viewer just off of 0 degrees. He said the photons from all parts of the train reach the observer at the same time, so the train looks shorter than it really is. If you got your understanding from that same paper, I understood your explanation better than Miles'. I almost understand Miles' explanation, but I don't quite see the details, whereas your explanation makes the details clear. I know Miles wrote a lot of papers on Relativity, but I don't remember if he wrote about the Twins Paradox. If he did, maybe that's where you got your detailed explanation from. I only read probably two of his papers on Relativity. The subject never seemed very important to me. And it seems like Miles suggested the same.

By the way, do you think you'll get time to participate on the CNPS forum? Maybe

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

So I did! I fixed the post.

Length contraction is a bit more complicated than time dilation, but essentially the same thing. You have to introduce a second emitter to see length contraction (the back of the ship and the front of the ship). Length contraction (and dilation) occurs because you measure photons at the same time, but those photons were emitted at different times. I should work on an app for that. I have a desktop app for it, but haven't started a browser version yet. It shouldn't take too long to build since I already have the time dilation app.

Miles has mentioned the Twins Paradox, but I don't think he has a paper dedicated to it. Probably because it is a waste of time. There really is nothing to it once you treat Relativity mechanically. Most of what I wrote comes from the Relativity as a Concept paper.

I'm not sure about the CNPS forum just yet. I like what they are trying to do by formalizing discussions and finding usable definitions. There doesn't seem to be much traffic at the moment though. Probably because they are in a transition phase. I'll see where it goes.

Nevyn

Posts : 1026
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

Regarding the CNPS forum member count, I imagine the present number could probably get things going pretty good, if they're motivated. The TB forum started back in 2007 with probably a similar number. They were invited from the Thoth yahoogroup I think and maybe from elsewhere. Thoth had about 1,500 members at that time. But the TB forum wasn't structured innovatively. Hopefull, CNPS's innovations will prove superior and popular.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

.
Here are two Miles papers containing the Twin Paradox.

13. An Algebraic Correction to the Transformation Equations (The Lorentz Equations) of Special Relativity. http://milesmathis.com/long.html This is my first paper on Special Relativity. It includes new first- and second-degree transforms, as well as new transforms for movement toward an observer and at an angle to an observer. In addition, it explains the interferometer, discusses the Hafele-Keating experiment, and suggests a solution to the Pioneer Anomaly. 48pp.

292. Is Time Travel Possible? http://milesmathis.com/travel.html In a limited sense, yes, but nothing like the twin paradox or science fiction claim. 3pp.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 796
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

.
Returning to Nevyn’s discussion of the Twin Paradox which Lloyd posted at the top of this thread; from the Thunderbolts forum, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15847&p=118927#p118872

Nevyn wrote. … once you understand Special Relativity in this mechanical, dare I say physical, way, you can see what will happen on the return journey.

webolife wrote.  I'm having a problem with that logic... according to Einstein, the light being "emitted" on the away journey will travel away from the ship at "c" but also toward the earth at "c". If the ship is at velocity "c" away then the light signals should be "stopped" in space, but in Einstein's picture they are not; this is a logical contradiction, euphemistically described as a "paradox". Likewise, those signals being "stacked" together in the above description of the ship's return journey should be leaving the ship at velocity "c" --- No mater how you look at it, nonsense ensues if "c" has the properties endowed upon it by Einstein. If this were only a problem of measurement dilation and contraction, there would be no theory of relativity.

Nevyn wrote. Webolife, you have given a single photon 2 different linear velocities. It can not have 2, only 1, so the photon can not travel away from the ship at c. It can only travel at c, irrespective of the ships velocity. Einstein stated that light is a special case. It always travels at c. You can not add the emitters velocity to the velocity of light. You must be misinterpreting Einstein if you think the light travels with a velocity relative to the ship. The important thing to remember is that lights travels at c but it doesn't need to be emitted at c.

The question to ask is: Light travels at c with respect to what?

With respect to its previous position. Let's say it starts at (0, 0, 0) and it has a velocity in the X dimension. Then, after 1s, the photon will be at (300,000km, 0, 0). If it isn't, then the speed of light has no meaning. If you allow actual time and length to dilate and contract, then the speed of light has no meaning either. However, if you allow measurements of time to dilate (and contract), then you have a logical framework with no contradictions that adheres to the definition of velocity.

I should also point out that in these scenarios, the Earth, or receiver, is assumed to have no velocity.

On the return journey, the photons will not be stopped in space, but they will be stopped with respect to the space ship. How could it be any other way? The photon is traveling at c and the ship is traveling at c, in the same direction. For every meter the photon moves, the ship moves the same meter. After 1 second, the ship emits another photon and that photon is now in the same location that the first photon is, at this point in time (not the original location that the first photon was emitted at and I am also ignoring the fact that 2 particles could not be in the same location for simplicity).

Even in this redefinition of it, Relativity is still important and needed. That is because all of our data is affected by Relativity and we must deal with that if we want to interpret that data correctly. We could get around it a little bit by using digital signals with the data encoded in it, rather than directly measuring light, but we still use light to encode that digital signal, and that signal will be affected by time dilation and it will manifest as a frequency shift. That is, if you expect a bit every ns then you will receive them either before or after that ns depending on the direction of travel. You can't get around it, just change what it affects.

Actually, you can get around it, in this scenario, by encoding the data at a frequency that subtracts the effects of the emitters velocity. Suppose our ship is traveling away from the receiver at 0.5c. It knows that if it emits a photon every second, then the receiver will receive those every 1.5s. So the ship actually sends them out every 0.5s. Now the receiver will receive them at 1s intervals. This allows many different ships to communicate with the same receiver because each ship takes care of dealing with the Relativity issues because the ship knows its own velocity with respect to the receiver.

webolife wrote.  I hear you Nevyn, and follow your thinking.
But Einstein's view was that light travels at "c" with respect to any observer, thus the observer on the ship "sees" the signal depart at "c" and I sitting at home here by my computer "see" that same light traveling at "c" --- "how can it be any other way" indeed?! That is the contradiction which is Einstein's relativity! I'm perfectly fine with Galileo's relativity, as that defines the real world of observation quite adequately.
The "c" problem is resolved for me by [my claim] that light has no [longitudinal] velocity. Acting instantly at both centroid and periphery of its field, vectored in the direction of the centroid ["centropic" pressure], light is rays [actually "beams"] of force [er, pressure]. Not infinitely fast, an oxymoron, rather it is a collapsing [contracting/compressing/decaying/entropy] field effect, an energy level drop at the centroid [or surface of the centroid, such as the dropping of an electron into lower energy state] detected by a frequency resonant sensor [photoreceptor/film/thermocouple/et.al.] at a peripheral point in the field.

Nevyn wrote. I am of the opinion that we don't have to adhere to everything Einstein said (or Newton or anyone), we just have to make sense of it. Einstein was not very strict in his variable assignments and this has caused many problems since. He was dealing with a complicated topic, to be sure, but I think it has been over-complicated, for what-ever reason. I find it best to break things down to the lowest levels, which in this case is positions and velocities. That allows you to see things much clearer than high level abstract concepts.

The statement that light travels at c to any observer is just not physical. It is not possible. It is a contradiction and therefore false. But I can make some sense of it by changing it to light will be measured at c to a slow observer and that is because the speed of light is so large that the difference becomes negligible. The further you go or the faster you go, the less negligible it becomes. But you can't measure light from a distance, you can only measure light that comes straight at your measuring device. Therefore you can't measure the same photon from two different positions. We don't see light, it collides with our measuring device, which means there is no way to actually determine if two observers see the photon moving at c. It is not falsifiable, except through logic, reason and the definition of velocity, and therefore it is not scientific.

That's how I see it, anyway. Others can take it or leave it. I don't mind. I've made sense of it and managed to model it with only the definition of velocity and that produces time dilation and contraction and I have also modeled length contraction and dilation with the same premise. I'll take that over 'Einstein said ...' any day.

webolife wrote. Now I am 95% with you.
I felt you were misrepresenting Einstein, which was likely true; you were just presenting your own take, which is quite akin in several respects to mine.
We cannot "see" light, for all light [incl colors] is utterly invisible, and cannot in any way be measured "along the way". Only a resonant detector can tell it is there. Furthermore, when it is detected, it is there, not moving somewhere. Femtophotographic processing presents an illusion of seeing light travel.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 796
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

Thanks for posting that, Airman. I haven't revisited that thread. Webb has been talking about his theory of light and centropic pressure for years, but I was never able to make sense of it. Do you guys have an idea what he means? You might have to visit all of his threads in which he mentioned light or centropic on the TB forum to understand better. I don't know that that would be productive. Maybe it's better to ask him where to find his best explanation of it.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

Since I am already in a conversation with him, I will ask for that. He suggested that what I had written was in line with his thoughts, but not quite there, so it would be good to ask what he means by that.

Nevyn

Posts : 1026
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

This is the link that I was given: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5265.

I can't make much sense of it, to be honest. Too many abstract terms and not enough mechanics. He seems like an intelligent person, and I give anyone credit for trying to figure all this stuff out, but it didn't look too promising to me.

Do you guys realise how much clearer our discussions are than most other forums? That's the beauty of being mechanical. You can explain things at a very low level and they make sense. Well, most of the time they do, and when they don't, we have a solid foundation to figure them out. On the rare occasions that I have a look around, it just makes me appreciate what we have here.

Nevyn

Posts : 1026
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Nevyn Explains the Twin NonParadox

Nevyn wrote:This is the link that I was given: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5265.

I can't make much sense of it, to be honest. Too many abstract terms and not enough mechanics. He seems like an intelligent person, and I give anyone credit for trying to figure all this stuff out, but it didn't look too promising to me.

Do you guys realise how much clearer our discussions are than most other forums? That's the beauty of being mechanical. You can explain things at a very low level and they make sense. Well, most of the time they do, and when they don't, we have a solid foundation to figure them out. On the rare occasions that I have a look around, it just makes me appreciate what we have here.

That's right Nevyn! And this is the most exciting place on the internet...and I'm dead serious.

Cr6

Posts : 956
Join date : 2014-08-09