-
#1000
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 16:01
-
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.
The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.
As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.
Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.
That is a reasonable choice, but you cannot draw conclusions about different frames when your equation only works in the one.
When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,
Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
No, of course it isn't rubbish, it is trivial to derive, but it is rubbish if you try to conclude "work is the same in all frames" by applying it in reference frames where it is wrong.
As is clear in your Major Tom example, an emDrive that works as described would trivially be used as an energy generator, either breaking conservation of energy, or requiring some sort of new physics explanation (such as Mach effect, degradable quantum vacuum, etc.) A basic principle of any such new physics explanation is that it would introduce a meaningful external reference frame.
-
#1001
by
Bob012345
on 24 Aug, 2017 16:13
-
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.
The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.
As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.
Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.
That is a reasonable choice, but you cannot draw conclusions about different frames when your equation only works in the one.
When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,
Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
No, of course it isn't rubbish, it is trivial to derive, but it is rubbish if you try to conclude "work is the same in all frames" by applying it in reference frames where it is wrong.
As is clear in your Major Tom example, an emDrive that works as described would trivially be used as an energy generator, either breaking conservation of energy, or requiring some sort of new physics explanation (such as Mach effect, degradable quantum vacuum, etc.) A basic principle of any such new physics explanation is that it would introduce a meaningful external reference frame.
It's easy to see that different observers see the work done by a force different for each frame. They see the force act over a different distance thus generate different work which exactly matches the different gains in kinetic energy each observer sees. The Work Energy Theorem translates between frames. In principle, different observers could extract such energy and use it quite aside from the EMDrive example. Trivially, you negatively benefit from such an effect if your relative velocity is higher to an object about to collide with you. The impact on you is real.
-
#1002
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 17:07
-
We could say any mass in another inertial frame is OU. The space rock that hits another space rock delivers energy to it that was not imparted to it in the frame of the impacted space rock.
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
So for Major Tom, using the last rest frame to measure his ships velocity increase is perfectly valid and doing the burn calcs using just N, mass and time will see his ship's dV vs the spin station drop to zero as he docks and enjoys his cold beer,
-
#1003
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 17:17
-
We could say any mass in another inertial frame is OU. The space rock that hits another space rock delivers energy to it that was not imparted to it in the frame of the impacted space rock.
There is no frame where at least one of the rocks wasn't already moving, so there is always kinetic energy present, and if you added it all up, you would never find a case where the total energy changed.
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
By "in its frame" do you mean the accelerating frame, because you have to do extra math when trying to do energy calculations in an accelerating frame and you have never done this.
So for Major Tom, using the last rest frame to measure his ships velocity increase is perfectly valid and doing the burn calcs using just N, mass and time will see his ship's dV vs the spin station drop to zero as he docks and enjoys his cold beer,
Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
-
#1004
by
RonM
on 24 Aug, 2017 17:23
-
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.
-
#1005
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 17:25
-
Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
You clearly have not been following what I have shown. During acceleration, as the KE climbs, the force generated drops, acceleration drops and velocity increase drops.
There is no OU when you understand the dynamics and do the maths.
-
#1006
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 17:31
-
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.
Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) works fine.
Is based on the rest frame of the mass just before acceleration started. Only need to know N, kg & sec of acceleration.
-
#1007
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 18:26
-
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.
Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) works fine.
Is based on the rest frame of the mass just before acceleration started. Only need to know N, kg & sec of acceleration.
What about the sentence "Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame." did you not understand?
Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
You clearly have not been following what I have shown. During acceleration, as the KE climbs, the force generated drops, acceleration drops and velocity increase drops.
There is no OU when you understand the dynamics and do the maths.
You are the one who needs to do some math.
You have not provided any equation describing how the acceleration changes with velocity (and I can't come up with one myself, because it is a logically inconsistent idea, since you can just stop the drive, restart it, and the efficiency comes back anyway.)
From your talk of pulsing before, there shouldn't be much change in the force produced over 1 second right?
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)
-
#1008
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 18:48
-
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)
I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.
Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.
What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
-
#1009
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 19:24
-
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)
I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.
Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)
Are you still denying that the emDrive as described generates energy? 100kJ in this situation produces 312.5 kJ.
You also have not in fact provided a calculator for the force reduction versus time, because the last excel sheet you provided was one that assumed constant force. You have not explained what math is behind the recent graph you posted.
Also, I already told you that using units like "kg" instead of variables like "m" is something that you should not do unless you are deliberately trying to confuse or misinform. I therefore conclude that you have no interest in real communication.
What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
What amazes me is that you still don't get that while the kinetic energy of an object is obviously frame dependent, conservation of energy is something that holds in any frame, and an emDrive as described by you or Shawyer breaks this in every frame.
-
#1010
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 20:41
-
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)
I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.
Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)
Are you still denying that the emDrive as described generates energy? 100kJ in this situation produces 312.5 kJ.
You also have not in fact provided a calculator for the force reduction versus time, because the last excel sheet you provided was one that assumed constant force. You have not explained what math is behind the recent graph you posted.
Also, I already told you that using units like "kg" instead of variables like "m" is something that you should not do unless you are deliberately trying to confuse or misinform. I therefore conclude that you have no interest in real communication.
What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
What amazes me is that you still don't get that while the kinetic energy of an object is obviously frame dependent, conservation of energy is something that holds in any frame, and an emDrive as described by you or Shawyer breaks this in every frame.
As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.
It would seem that if Major Tom does a long burn, when his ship has moved 30,000km, the dV change will only be aporox 50% of what he needs as attached.
This plot is based on over 500k points.
BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.
-
#1011
by
wicoe
on 24 Aug, 2017 21:09
-
As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.
No, KE is a totally different beast as it is frame dependent, while forces are not. KE increasing in one frame is KE decreasing in another. Non-KE (i.e. battery) power cannot be converted into motion for the center of mass - it can only be used to push things apart.
BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.
CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame. Why is this so hard to accept?
-
#1012
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 21:25
-
As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.
No, KE is a totally different beast as it is frame dependent, while forces are not. KE increasing in one frame is KE decreasing in another. Non-KE (i.e. battery) power cannot be converted into motion for the center of mass - it can only be used to push things apart.
BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.
CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame. Why is this so hard to accept?
Energy loss per cycle vs total cavity energy defines Q, which factors into EmDrive force being N = 2 * Q * Pwr * Df / c.
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Yes Work, KE and increasing velocity are conserved betwern the various local frames of Major Tom ship's mass. Ie initial pre acceleration inertial frame (v = 0) vs post acceleration inertial frame (v = dV).
However Work, distance moved and KE are non invarient between frames where initial velocity is not = zero.
-
#1013
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 21:41
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
-
#1014
by
Rodal
on 24 Aug, 2017 21:52
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using
"prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have
experimental data showing this phenomenon ? ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)
-
#1015
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 22:00
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy, due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.
Ie there is only one fixed size pie. As increasing KE takes an increasing slice of the pie, the remaining pie is less capable of producing force.
Not complex, just real world physics.
As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
-
#1016
by
meberbs
on 24 Aug, 2017 22:08
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy, due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.
In its instantaneous rest frame at any point it is not moving, and there is literally nothing different about it so there is no reason it would be producing less thrust. You have described no mechanism that would in any way be capable of tracking "time since it last was off."
As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
Telling me the resolution and number of samples tells me nothing about the equation you are using. What velocity do you claim his ship is moving at after 1 second, and how exactly do you arrive at that answer?
-
#1017
by
TheTraveller
on 24 Aug, 2017 22:20
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ? ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)
There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.
During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.
The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.
Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle, Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.
-
#1018
by
Gilbertdrive
on 24 Aug, 2017 23:36
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ? ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)
There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.
During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.
The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.
Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690
Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle, Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.
If I understand correctly, the position that you support now is that the relevant Kinetic Energy has to be considered in the reference frame where the drive speed was zero before it started. And if the drive stops and start again, the reference frame is replaced by a new one where the speed start again to zero.
Is it OK, or did I miss something ?
-
#1019
by
dustinthewind
on 25 Aug, 2017 01:05
-
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.
Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.
Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ? ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)
There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.
During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.
The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.
Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690
Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle, Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.
This discussion on resolving FTL paradoxes "
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1709370#msg1709370 " led to an interesting conclusion for me which I felt some what applies in this situation also. I don't think you can just say, "I stopped accelerating so my frame is now a standard reference frame." WarpTech brought up a good example of this problem by asking what we thought about the Twin Paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradoxMy take on it is when two twins exist on earth and one accelerates to near the speed of light and returns later one twin should be older than the other, and time should run slower for the twin near the speed of light. In actuality the twin that accelerates tilts their time space cone and travels through time. The twin that does not accelerate to near the speed of light does not tilt their space time cone and travel through time. This suggests either one is traveling near the speed of light, or they are not.
If the universe could just "forget" what frame you were in you would go back to having a flat time space axis after you stopped accelerating but in relativity this is not the case.
Also the universe seems to know how fast we are moving with respect to the CMB here:
By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
From this site notice the difference between the frame not moving at near the speed of light (top) with respect to the (middle) image of some one moving near the speed of light that has a tilted time space axis. [i.e. traveling through time. x-axis space tilts into the y-axis time] (bottom image for reference between the two frames) I personally feel resolved one can not use ftl jumps to use relativity to move backwards in time so no paradox for me.
This preservation of frames is one reason why I disagree that your frame can not just reset after not accelerating. http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
and
