Rationalized SEMANTIC Methodist cartoons

Arguing with Rationalized SEMANTIC Methodists is providing a warehouse full of ideas for cartoons.  Here are some I've used in my Facebook group:

Here's another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

And another:

Ed

Bill Gaede's Misinterpretation of Time Dilation

When I checked the Rational Scientific Method ("RSM") Facebook group page this morning, I found that RSMer Bill Gaede has just created a brand new YouTube video in which he attempted to debunk Einstein's theory of velocity-based Time Dilation.

 It's interesting how professional the video looks.  Mr. Gaede is either very skilled in creating videos, or he has a very skilled professional working for him.  I strongly suspect it is the latter, since Mr. Gaede clearly has at least one other person handling the camera work when he gives his sermons before audiences.

Interestingly, the new video quickly shows where Mr. Gaede misunderstands Time Dilation.  Not surprisingly, it has to do with a definition of a word.  The word is "year."  At about the 2:15 mark in the 4¼  minute video, Mr. Gaede explains that "a year has always been defined as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun."  And he asks if the Earth went around the Sun one time or 50 times during the traveler's trip into space.  "It certainly couldn't be both," Mr. Gaede observes.  And then he preposterously argues that the traveling twin said that the Earth went around the Sun only once.   Of course, the traveling twin never said any such thing.  He said he aged one year.

The Earth went around the Sun 50 times for BOTH twins.  Using the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a clock is very much like the way I describe using a pulsar to keep time on my Time Dilation web page.  But, Mr. Gaede somehow seems to think that the Earth could only have gone around the Sun once if the traveling twin only aged "one year."  He concludes his new YouTube video with this: 

Someone might ask, "Where's the catch?  GPS would not work if the twin paradox were to be found to be wrong."

That "catch" lies in the fact that Relativity is offering an irrational physical interpretation to an observation.  Irrational explanations are the sole province of religion.  It does not follow that the Earth goes around the Sun fifty times for one sibling and one time for his twin simply because a clock runs slower or faster in outer space.     

It's more mumbo jumbo having to do with what is "rational" and what is "irrational" according to RSMers.  And it is suspiciously similar to the recent discussion I had with "Clapton" on my blog page about Time Dilation. "Clapton" also argued that Einstein and I were saying that Time Dilation is caused by a clock running slow.  "Clapton" wrote:

"The analogy is perfectly valid: if "Time Dilation" is caused by slowed down clocks, then "Space Expansion" is caused by a shrunken yardstick.
It's the same thing." 

Of course, no one claimed that Time Dilation is caused by "slowed down clocks." Previously, I thought that "Clapton" was "DXer" using a different name.  Now this new evidence seems to very strongly indicate that "Clapton" was actually Bill Gaede.  It seems highly unlikely two people could have that same bizarre misunderstanding about what causes Time Dilation while at the same time having a fixed and inviolate definition of the word "year."

No one said that the Earth went around the Sun a different number of times for one twin than the other.  Just the opposite.  Time Dilation says that the Earth went around the Sun the same number of times for both twins, BUT the traveling twin physically aged only one year while the stationary twin aged 50 years. 

For Mr. Gaede, however, his apparent word-based religion says the word "year" is sacred and a twin cannot "age" 1 "year" while the Earth orbits 50 times.  It is evidently blasphemous to claim the traveling twin "aged" 1 "year" when the word "year" decrees that he MUST have aged 50 years, just like his twin.

Yes, both twins aged 50 "years," based upon the number of times that the Earth went around the Sun, but the traveling twin could OBSERVE the Earth traveling faster based upon how time was measured aboard his space ship.  This is where "Clapton" argued that two different "standards" for one year were being used.  To Mr. "Clapton," fifty years passed for both twins, based upon the "standard" he uses for one year, and that is all that is important. 

I countered by arguing,

NO, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THE CLOCK THAT MOVED SHOWS LESS TIME HAS PASSED THAN THE CLOCK THAT DID NOT MOVE.

It EXPLAINS why clocks run slower on satellites than on earth. It EXPLAINS why muons traveling at high speed exist longer than muons traveling at slower speeds. It EXPLAINS why an atomic clock flown across the Atlantic on an airplane will show less time has passed than a clock that did NOT move.

You appear to be arguing that you do not want any explanations. The only thing you seem to care about is that the clock that did not move is the "CORRECT" time.

No one is arguing against your belief. I'm just trying to EXPLAIN the scientific concept of Time Dilation and why it happens. Time Dilation EXPLAINS things that happen in the universe. If you do not care about such things, then why argue with people who want to understand science?

It appears that this is an "irrational physical interpretation" for Mr. Gaede.  To be "rational" one can have only one definition for "year" and one definition for "aged."  Definitions are sacred and to use them incorrectly is blasphemous and "irrational."  A NEW WORD is needed to describe the physical change and the different view of Time the traveling twin experienced.  Thou shalt no use "year," and thou shalt not use "age," since RSMers hold those words to be sacred and their definitions cannot be violated.

Among truly "rational" people, of course, some common ground could be found.  But the RSMers have blocked me from posting to their Facebook page, and the ability to post comments has been disabled for the new video.  That way they do not need to discuss anything or answer any questions.  On the RSMer Facebook page, Mr. Gaede wrote this:

Einstein's Twin Paradox should be used to measure the level of idiocy of people. If you accept that a traveler will be 50 years younger than his twin brother simply because he travels fast, we violate not only the definition of the word 'twin', but more importantly of the word 'year'. Anyone believing this nonsense is really hopelessly hypnotized by authority.

He makes it very clear: To RSMers, words are sacred and inviolate.  Period.

"Idiots" like me and Albert Einstein should have used different words.  Of course, RSMers have the final authority on how every word is defined.  So, in effect, all explanations of real science are forbidden by the RSM word priests.

How can you communicate or discuss anything with a Truther who believes his definition of a word is the only valid definition (i.e. "the truth"), and he creates his own definitions for key words used in science?


Ed

Rational Scientific Method Analyzed

A description of "The Rational Scientific Method" (RSM) can be viewed by clicking HERE.

The more I think about the RSM, the more irrational it seems.  So, I've created this blog page to see if any RSM advocate can answer questions about their "method."  From recent experiences, it appears that they would rather pull out their fingernails than to explain anything.  They feel it is all explained at the above link.  I attempted to ask some questions on their Facebook page HERE, but they just started attacking me personally, and then they deleted the entire discussion (claiming I had somehow deleted it).  That left me with lots of questions but no way  to ask them.  So, I'll ask them here, with the hope that some RSM advocate will respond.  If not, maybe someone else can figure it out.


What is the RSM supposed to accomplish?

The "mainstream" scientific method is for finding answers to questions. You BEGIN with a question. That is Step #1.

Step #1 in the RSM is to create an hypothesis. An hypothesis about WHAT? Just any old hypothesis for the fun of it?

It appears that the RSM "hypothesis" is the first step in coming up with a BELIEF. But, from what I see from RSM advocates, it could also simply be a way of coming up with an alternative argument to a scientific finding by "the establishment." If so, Step #1 should be "Find an establishment theory to dispute."

Obviously, the objective is NOT to find a BETTER theory. No attempt is made to explain how or why the RSM theory is better. It is only to find a theory that the theorist can VISUALIZE, believe in, and use to ARGUE against "the establishment."

The value of such a "method" appears to be ZERO. It accomplishes NOTHING except to create a basis for endless arguing against "the establishment."

The Rational Scientific Method" seems neither rational, nor scientific, nor a method.

To be a method, the STEPS should be described. What is "Step 1"? The word "step" isn't even used in "The Rational Scientific Method." It first appears in the introduction to "The Gaedean Scientific Method" where it seems to say that the "GAEDEAN method" "consists of three steps: 1) hypothesis, 2) theory, 3) conclusions." It's anyone's guess what the steps are in the "Rational Scientific Method."

In the "mainstream" scientific method, Step #1 is to "Ask a question." Step #2 is to do research into possible answers to the question. Step #3 is to construct an hypothesis answer to the question based upon the research. Step #4 is to TEST the hypothesis with experiments. If it fails the experiments, you go back to Step #3 and revise the hypothesis. Only when you pass all experiments do you go to Step #5 which is to publish the "theory" that answers the original question.

It appears the both the "Rational Scientific Method" AND " The Gaedean Scientific Method" skip those first two steps and go straight to creating an hypothesis.

It appears that the hypothesis is really a BELIEF, which is then justified with exhibits, definitions of terms used, and a statement of facts and/or assumptions.

Somehow, the hypothesis is then turned into a "theory" Step #2 is to create a theory based upon the exhibits, the definitions and the assumptions. How the "hypothesis" differs from the "theory" is not clear. There's a diagram missing, but it seems that SPECULATION is added to the "hypothesis" to turn it into a "theory."

The key point in creating a "theory" using the "Gaedean method" seems to be to create something that is "VISUALISABLE." It appears that that means it CANNOT be a mathematical equation, it MUST be an illustration or a series of illustrations, i.e., "the Universal Movie inferred from assumptions and reasoning." My attempt to decipher "The Rational Scientific Method" results in the same thing: The result MUST be "visualisable."

The final "step" is not called a "step," for some reason it's called "Stage 3" in the Gaedean method. Stage #3 is "CONCLUSIONS." And it says reaching this point "Tells us what experimentation or data we may need to verify the theory."

So, evidently tests and experiments are done AFTER you have come up with a theory. That seems to confirm that all you have is a BELIEF that your personal logic accepts as valid.

"Stage 3: Conclusions" also contains this point: "Multiple opinions may be formed and debated over, given that both parties forming these opinions accept the theory."

There's no explanation for what that means. But, "The Rational Scientific Method" ends with this: "Once the theory is presented, science is done! The conclusion is left up to each individual." And this is stated earlier, "Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves."

That would appear to an outsider to be neither scientific, nor rational. Scientists do not decide for themselves if something is possible or not possible. They produce EVIDENCE to show whether something is possible or not possible.

The Rational Scientific Method says, "Belief, truth, evidence, and proof are not part of the [rational] scientific method."

If there is no need for evidence, the Rational Scientific Method is NOT rational nor scientific.

Ed

Science Truthers

I looked into the "scientific" theories believed by various "Science Truthers," i.e., people who believe that only they know "the truth" about some scientific subject.  My 13 years of research into the anthrax attacks of 2001 had shown that each Anthrax Truther seems to have his own theory explaining who was behind those attacks. The only thing they have in common with other Anthrax Truthers is that they all disagree with the "established authority" (in that case it is the FBI).  So, I wanted to see if the same holds true with Science Truthers.  They clearly all disagree with the established scientific authorities (in this case it is Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, etc., etc.).  But, does that mean they also all have their own unique scientific theories?  Apparently so.

The first Science Truther I had researched was Bill Gaede, who did presentations of his theories at the 2rd annual "Rational Physics Conference" in Salzburg, Austria, in April 2014.  In one of the videos of the presentations, he explains his theory that the moon held in orbit by invisible "ropes" instead of by gravity.

The next Science Truther I researched was "Mr. W," who sent me an email to make me aware of his theories and his blog.  One of his theories is that the earth is a "dead sun" that was wandering through the universe and just happened to join together with other "dead suns" to form the solar system.  According to Mr. W's theory, the Sun was the last or one of the last objects to join the solar system, which is evidenced by the fact that it is still glowing and is not yet "dead."

Then I researched Dr. Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla, who I had come across when I was doing research for my web page about Time Dilation.  He has his own web page on the subject.  Like most Science Truthers, Dr. Srinivasa rants on and on about how all the "mainstream scientists" who accept Albert Einstein's theories are "stupid."  But, I never tried to figure out what theory Dr. Srinivasa promotes that is not accepted by those "mainstream scientists."  One of his theories is that the long-abandoned theory that space is not empty, but is filled with a medium known as the "ether" (or "aether").  Dr. Srinivasa believes that ancient theory is totally valid and should be resurrected. 

Another Science Truther whose name I'd come across when researching Time Dilation is Mr. Bernard Burchell.  I discovered he believes in something he calls "Propellantless Propulsion."  It seems a little like "perpetual motion," but my purpose wasn't to debunk his theory, it was only to figure out what unique theory he is promoting.

Another Science Truther whose name I'd come across while researching Time Dilation is Dr. Thomas Smid.  His web site is very difficult to wade through, and he doesn't seem to have any specific page where he explains some primary and unique theory that conflicts with "the establishment's" theories, but he writes a lot about an "intergalactic plasma," which, among other effects, causes the "red shift" that the "establishment" says is caused by galaxies moving away from one another (the original discovery behind the Big Bang Theory).  I found a web page about "Alternative Cosmology" which says: 

Plasma Redshift Theory

The Plasma Redshift Theory has been advocated by a number of independent researchers. It is most notably supported by Ari Brynjolfsson in a number of papers in fringe physics journals describing his theory (see here and here). Thomas Smid has a variant of the theory based on the activity of plasma fields. Robin Whittle also has a website describing the theory. The theory should not be confused as a "tired light" interpretation of the redshift. The plasma redshift theories deny the need for black holes, dark matter and dark energy. The only supporters of these theories seem to be Electric Universe theorists, such ideas are considered fringe physics by the scientific community.

Stephen J. Crothers was another speaker at the 2nd Rational Physics Conference in Salzburg.  A little more research found that he doesn't believe that black holes exist.  That belief might not be totally unique, but it's short enough to fit one of the "talk balloons," so I used it.

Dr. Hartwig Wolfgang Thim was another speaker at the conference in Salzburg.  His unique theory is that Albert Einstein's light speed postulate is illogical.  In a video HERE, he explains that Time Dilation is also not logical.  His reasoning is a strange misunderstanding of Einstein's Theory of Relativity that seems to be shared by many Science Truthers.  (I created a blog page about it.)  He incorrectly argues that, according to Einstein, either twin in the "Twin Paradox" could be moving, so it is not logical that one can end up older than the other.

That left one last "talk balloon" to fill in my cartoon.  So, I researched Alexander Unzicker, another person who gave a talk at the conference in Salzburg.  His big unique belief appears to be that String Theory is nonsense, and all the scientists who believe in it have been "brainwashed."  At the conference in Salzburg, his talk was titled "The Higgs Fake – How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee."  The belief that String Theory is fake fitted the space available in my cartoon, so I used it.

The resulting cartoon is shown at the top of this thread.

What my research showed me was that I could easily have added a couple dozen more unique theories to the cartoon, if there was room.  Judging by what I see on the Wiki page about "Alternative Cosmology," and on their page about "cranks," I could probably add a few hundred more theories to the cartoon.

They don't seem to believe in any conspiracies, and they don't seem to think there is any kind of sinister organized plot to try to convince the world to believe what the Truthers see is nonsense.  The Science Truthers just think all the mainstream scientists in the world are stupid.  And they probably believe their fellow Truthers are screwed-up about some things, too.   Each Truther apparently sees himself as the lone exception, the only truly gifted person with a unique and brilliant theory that the "mainstream scientists" stupidly refuse to accept as the gospel truth. 

Ed

Time Dilation: Reality versus Relativity

In my arguments with people who do not believe that Time Dilation works, I've discovered that they do not seem to be able to distinguish between reality and Relativity.

Reality is about what is actually happening.  Relativity is about what is perceived to be happening.

Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" was intended to show that reality can be very different from what is perceived.  The purpose of the paper was to explain two things: (1) The laws of physics are the same throughout the known universe, and (2) the speed of light is fixed and does not change if someone is moving.  He was disproving a theory that the laws of physics can change under certain circumstances and the theory that the speed of light can change under certain circumstances.  He explained that it is only one's perception that changes under those circumstances.

Time Dilation works in reality.  If a clock, person or object moves very fast (or moves closer to a massive gravity source), time will slow down for that clock, person or object.

In the famous (or infamous) "Twin Paradox" hypothesis created by Paul Langevin (but usually blamed on Albert Einstein), one twin travels in a space ship at speeds near the speed of light while the other twin remains stationary on Earth.  When the traveling twin returns to earth, he is much younger than the stationary twin.  That hypothesis was based upon Albert Einstein's clock hypothesis in his 1905 paper which says,

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B 

In other words, you start with two stationary clocks (A & B) that show the exact same time.
Clock A is moved at high velocity to be beside Clock B.
Clock A no longer shows the same time as Clock B.  Clock A shows less time has passed.
How much less time has passed depends upon the velocity of the move. 

This experiment works in reality and has been repeatedly demonstrated with atomic clocks of various kinds.  Click HERE, HERE and HERE for examples.
 
Relativity is about how effects like Time Dilation are perceived while moving very fast.  The twin who took the trip at speeds near the speed of light would have perceived that everything aboard the space ship was working normally at normal speeds.  If he has no windows on his space ship, he would not perceive any of the effects of the slowing down of time.  That does not mean the traveling twin will believe that he is standing still or that time is passing at the same rate for him as for his brother.  He'll know what is actually happening, just as, in today's world, if he was in an airplane flying at 550 miles per hour, time for him would be running slower a fraction of a microsecond per hour than for someone on the ground.  These examples are just illustrations to show that someone can be moving very fast on a space ship while the visible evidence may indicate that he is not moving at all.  And time may have slowed down for him, but he'll perceive no effects of it while knowing that the effects will be very apparent when he returns to earth.   

The people with whom I've been arguing seem to become confused when a scientist explains how things are perceived when one person is moving and the other is stationary, or when two people view each other while both are moving. The problem seems to be that scientists make no attempt to explain what is actually happening when discussing Relativity.  They only talk about what is perceived to be happening.  And they let those listeners who are confused fall by the wayside.

The biggest arguments are over an imaginary event where two space ships pass each other in some remote and empty part of space.  Each pilot perceives his ship as stationary and the other ship as moving.  Each pilot perceives the clocks aboard his ship as working normally, while the other ship's clocks may be perceived as running slow.  In reality, of course, each pilot would know his speed relative to earth (and to the speed of light) and he'll be able to calculate the other pilot's speed.

Each pilot will also know that, even though all the clocks on his ship are perceived to be operating normally, they are all running slow relative to clocks on earth.

He'd know that even though the beam of light in his light-based clock is perceived as going straight up and down, in reality it is traveling at angles, making a \ as it goes down and / as it goes up because of the high speed of his space ship and the fixed speed of the beam of light.  He would also know if he was aboard an aircraft flying at 550 miles per hour, and if he tossed a ball into the air and caught it again two seconds later, he would perceive the ball as going straight up and down.  That doesn't mean he would believe the ball went straight up and down.  He would know it went up at an angle and came down at an angle, moving about 1,614 feet laterally with the airplane during those two seconds.

And he'll know the pilot on the other space ship is perceiving similar things aboard his space ship.

At least, that's how I understand Time Dilation and Special Relativity.

Ed

The "two moving space ships" Time Dilation problem

Problem: When two moving space ships pass each other in space, why do they BOTH see the other's clocks as moving slower?

Here's how Wikipedia's article on Time Dilation describes the "problem":

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation.
For instance, two rocket ships (A and B) speeding past one another in space would experience time dilation. If they somehow had a clear view into each other's ships, each crew would see the others' clocks and movement as going more slowly. That is, inside the frame of reference of Ship A, everything is moving normally, but everything over on Ship B appears to be moving more slowly (and vice versa).

It is understood that people aboard space ships going at high velocities will view everything moving at "normal" speeds aboard their own ship.  I.e, their clocks will appear to be ticking and measuring time "normally."

If there are two space ships, the people on both ships will view their own clocks as operating "normally." 

In a situation where there is only one space ship, a person aboard that space ship would see a clock next to a stationary person on earth as moving faster. (However, this may be viewing Time Dilation without the "special relativistic" factor.)

In a situation where two space ships are moving in parallel at the same speed, they would all view each other's clocks as all working "normally."

So, the question is: When the two space ships are not in synchronous movement, why do they see the other space ship's clocks as moving slower regardless of what speeds or directions they are moving?

Another question:  If people aboard a moving space ship see clocks that are stationary as moving faster, why doesn't the crew of a fast moving ship see the clocks on a slow moving ship as moving faster?

It seems the answer must be in what is perceived versus what is actually happening.  The person doing the viewing perceives time as "normal" and they perceive time on the other ship as moving slower.  This subject is typically illustrated with clocks that bounce light beams up and down off mirrors. 

A person beside such a clock will perceive light going straight up and down, which is "normal."   They will perceive the light beams on the clocks on the other ship as moving at angles, tracing out longer V or W patterns as the ship moves relative to the observer.  Since the speed of light is fixed, longer paths for the light beam means slower time.

However, there seems to be no way to perceive time as moving faster when bouncing light straight up and down perceived as "normal" and light bouncing at angles is perceived as "slower."

Is that why light-based clocks are used?  It it a purely hypothetical Relativistic situation that is dependent entirely on using light based clocks?

Or is there some way to relate this to mechanical clocks?  Why would mechanical clocks on the other ship also be perceived as running slower?  Why wouldn't mechanical clocks on the slower ship be perceived as running faster?

The best description I've seen of light-based clocks can be viewed by clicking HERE.  It also describes why mechanical clocks would work just like light-based clocks when they are side by side.  Here's the illustration they use at the section about this:

But I still do not understand why the mechanical clock on the slower moving space ship would not be perceived as running faster than the clock on the faster moving space ship.

And, it seems to me that if I'm aboard a fast moving space ship and we pass a slower moving space ship on the left side of my ship, the slow ship will pass moving right to left, and the light beam clock would create a V moving from left to right.  If I am aboard a slow moving space ship and a faster moving space ship passes me on the left, the ship will move from left to right, and the movement of the bouncing light beam would create a V moving right to left.   

There should be some way to translate the left to right creation of the V on the slower ship's clock as an indicator that the clock on that slow ship I passed is running fast.   

What is it I am not understanding?

I suspect that, while I understand Time Dilation very well, I am not understanding Special Relativity and Special Relativistic Time Dilation.  I suspect that Special Relativity is best described using mathematics.  I suspect Special Relativity involves things in the mathematical realm that are counter intuitive to human visual experiences and therefore cannot be easily described in human experience terms.  I suspect that is why, when teachers try to describe aspects of Special Relativity in visual terms, their descriptions make little sense to people who do not know and understand the mathematics.  They are "counter intuitive."  That is probably why teachers are always apologizing and telling their students that it would all make more sense if they studied the mathematics.

Ed

Subject: Time Dilation Explained

Albert Einstein supposedly once said, “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”  I think I understand Time Dilation, and I think it can be explained relatively simply.  And I don't need to use complex mathematics (which mainly help prove and compute Time Dilation) or incongruous, fantastical examples, like somehow viewing a clock on a space ship that is a kazillion miles away moving at a kazillion miles per hour while at the same time they are looking at the clock on their kitchen wall on Earth.

I'd like to explain Time Dilation in a somewhat different way.  

First, it is very important to understand that Time Dilation has only to do with the movement of an object or person relative to the speed of light or to a stationary object.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the movement of a moving object or person relative to another moving object or person.

Second, instead of two people using different clocks that the other person cannot possibly see, let's use a single natural clock -- a pulsar that both can see.  We just need to pick a pulsar that pulses at an easy-to-use rate -- say one pulse every 10 seconds.  Using such a "clock," 

     1 pulse every 10 seconds = 6 pulses per minute. 
     6 pulses per minute = 360 pulses per hour, or
     8,640 pulses per day, or 
     3,153,600 pulses per year, or 
     31,536,000 pulses in TEN years, or 
     31,553,280 pulses when you include 2 leap year days.

Next, let's assume that, on January 1, 2500, a pair of astronomers who also happen to be 25-year-old twins, decide to perform a Time Dilation experiment.  The two astronomer's names are Homebody Jones and Traveler Jones.

The experiment will involve Traveler Jones and his wife taking a space ship on a journey to Alpa Centauri.  Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away from Earth, and it is one of the nearest stars to our Solar System.  Homebody Jones will wait back home on Earth.

Since there is no way for either party to see what is happening with the other party via some magical TV signal, Time Dilation will be measured by counting pulses from that distant pulsar.  On Earth, Homebody Jones can observe the pulsar's pulses occurring at the rate of 1 pulse every 10 seconds as described above. 

The planned route to and back from Alpha Centauri is within the plane of the rotating beam from the pulsar, and the route will be at a right angle to the oncoming beam from the pulsar, so there will be no effect on pulse counts caused by the speed of light. 

The experiment is expected to take 10 years, Earth time.  From the point of view of the two people traveling on the space ship, however, things are soon very different.  They have determined that, aboard the space ship, Traveler Jones will have to travel very close to the speed of light before the effects of Time Dilation will enable him to observe the same pulsar pulsing at an average of 1 pulse every 1 second.

As the space ship begins to accelerate, the number of pulses per minute from the pulsar appears increases due to Time Dilation.  Traveler and his wife record the pulses as arriving more and more quickly until the ship reaches its cruising speed where the pulses are recorded as arriving at a rate of slightly more than 1 pulse per second (to compensate for the time spent accelerating). 

Life and time aboard the space ship, however, will seem to be ticking along normally.  The two passengers feel no effects from the slowing down of time aboard the ship.  They still go to bed at 11 p.m. as measured by the clock aboard the space ship, they still get up at 7 a.m., Traveler Jones still has to shave every morning, they eat breakfast at 7:45 a.m., etc.  To them, it doesn't seem like time is slowing down, it appears that everything outside of their space ship is going faster.  They can see that the pulses from the pulsar are coming at a faster rate.  They can also see that planets orbiting distant stars are orbiting at a faster rate.

One month into their voyage, as measured by clocks aboard the space ship, Mrs. Traveler Jones unexpectedly (or maybe according to plan) becomes pregnant.

When they reach a point just beyond Alpha Centauri where they calculated they would need to turn around, they decelerate down to a stop.  When they've done that, they also see that the pulses from the pulsar have slowed down and are once again arriving at 1 every 10 seconds.

Then they accelerate again to return to earth.  Very soon, the pulses from the pulsar are again reaching the space ship at the rate of just slightly more than one per second (in order to compensate for the acceleration and deceleration).  

On the voyage home, Mrs. Traveler Jones has a baby boy right on schedule, at the end of a nine month gestation period as measured by her "body clock" and by all the various kinds of clocks aboard the space ship.

Then, on January 1, 2501, according to the clocks aboard the space ship, they arrive back on earth.  Traveler is now 26 years old and his son is 2 months old. 

They meet Homebody Jones and find that on Earth it is January 1, 2510.  From Traveler's point of view, he and his wife traveled forward in time nine years.  Only one year passed for them while, from Homebody's point of view, Traveler and wife were gone for ten years.  During that time, Homebody aged 10 years.  He is now 35 years old -- nine years older than his twin brother.

They compare the results of counting pulses from the pulsar, and both counts are exactly the same.  From Traveler Jones's point of view:
 

1 pulse (on average) every second = 60 pulses per minute.
60 pulses per minute = 3,600 pulses per hour, or
86,400 pulses per day for 365 days, plus
17,280 pulses to compensate for 2 leap year days equals
31,553,280 pulses counted during the ONE year trip.

There were 31,553,280 pulses measured by both devices during the experiment.  From his perspective, it took Traveler just 1 year to record that number of pulses.  From Homebody's point of view, it took 10 years to record the same number of pulses.  Neither twin counted more pulses than the other.  And that means,

     No one was ever ahead of or behind the other in time.

The experiment confirmed "time dilation."  Time slows down for a person who is traveling very fast.  But the person doing the traveling sees and feels no effects on himself or his ship.  To people on Earth, it would appear that time had slowed down for the traveler.  It took 90 months for them to have a baby.  For Traveler Jones, it would appear that time had sped up on Earth and in the rest of the universe, as evidenced by the increase in the rate the pulses from the pulsar were received.

For a longer explanation that includes WHY time slowed down, go to my Time Dilation web page by clicking on the link HERE.

Ed