You missed my last post, I’ll copy it here:
1 Like
Thank you, that’s what I was looking for. I mis-read what your wrote the first time.
EDIT: That one comment by you made it worth my time to post my ideas here at PeacefulScience. I’m indebted to you for that comment.
I’m afraid this is not well explained in text because two frames that are unacelerated relative to each other during the experiment are considered inertial in the treatment of elementary explanations!
The history of acceleration of one frame relative to another is not usually stated in elementary treatments. The two frames are treated as inertial.
In the limit of infinite acceleration (which for ease, is usually what is presented in introductory textbooks), Rabbit (the moving twin) only becomes non-inertial at one point: the turning point. This is enough to break the symmetry in the twin paradox.
1 Like
But regarding these supposed intertial frames, how then do we deal with the supposed clocks in Supernova decay curves. Supernova at High Z supposedly evolve slower relative to our clock. Do their clocks really slow down or is that an illusion? I mean if we had an observer in this High Z supernova looking at us in our vicinity, would they think supernova near us had slower clocks. Assume the answer is yes, that means both clocks slowed down? That seems a logical contradiction.
Having high z supernova breaks the degeneracy, as the time dilation due to cosmological redshift is a GR (gravitational) effect that is non-symmetric. In other words, the frame of the high-z supernova is not inertial and cannot be treated with special relativity.
1 Like
Thank you, that’s what I suspected. That was immensely helpful.
Really? As opposed to space expansion? I am surprised at this response and need clarification.
It is due to the expansion of space. This expansion is a GR (gravitational) effect, and is what makes the frame of the high-z supernova non-inertial. In the picture with Hubble velocity, the velocity changes with distance, so there is acceleration, making the frame moving with Hubble velocity non-inertial.
@stcordova from what you said in the other thread: Teaching Christian Apologetics in a MegaChurch (McLean Bible) with TE's, OECs, YECs - #33 by stcordova it seems that you misunderstood or didn’t read this point (added emphasis):
The history does not matter in determining whether a frame is inertial or not. When a frame has no acceleration, it is inertial.
2 Likes
no, there is no such thing as gravity as some theorize. It is simply attraction. This attraction comes from single atoms, and they connect to us and us to other things, And lines of force I call filaments stick out of an atom allowing us to interact or know it exists.
Light is absorbed by atoms and then shot back out. While it might seem that light bounces off, it doesn’t. It just appears like that. instead emissions from atoms give us a geolocation as to where they are.
my main point about light is that it is not a wave. A wave is just points plotted on a graph showing the different amounts of energy plotted at any given time. Once this wave business is lost then the real discovery as to how light works will come forward.
Here is one of the worst misunderstanding of light.
That looks like a distinction without a difference. Gravity is the attraction between masses. You claim there are filaments, but you don’t explain what these filaments are or what they are made of.
If light is not a wave, then why does it behave like a wave?
If one squints in the right way one could see the virtual gravitons of a quantum gauge theory of gravity as his filaments.
Poe or crank magnetism?
If Poe’s law is correct, it is impossible to say. 