From: doug on


mluttgens wrote:

> On 22 sep, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 22, 7:33 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>>>>>>"mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:41d5a838-7be2-4786-8820-32048a494322(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>>news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 13 sep, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mluttgens wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual
>>>>>>>>>>>>Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both
>>>>>>>>>>>>twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on
>>>>>>>>>>>>a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>them. They don't even try to find a general solution for
>>>>>>>>>>>>the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special
>>>>>>>>>>> relativity really says. One cannot have more than one
>>>>>>>>>>> perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an observation
>>>>>>>>>>> that contradicts a prediction of special relativity.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform
>>>>>>>>>>translatory motion.
>>
>>>>>>>>>Fine
>>
>>>>>>>>>>According to SR, if A moves at v toward B,
>>>>>>>>>>reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A.
>>
>>>>>>>>>That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>SR obviously doesn't take into consideration
>>>>>>>>>>the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative
>>>>>>>>>>to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest
>>>>>>>>>>frame of the universe).
>>
>>>>>>>>>Why the fvck should it? It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the
>>>>>>>>>relative
>>>>>>>>>speeds of A and B
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Let v be the velocity of A wrt B.
>>>>>>>>>>From the dipole anisotropy it observes, B
>>>>>>>>>>determines that its velocity relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>CMBR is vB, whose direction is the same as v.
>>
>>>>>>>>>No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v
>>
>>>>>>>>Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed
>>>>>>>>in this scenario.
>>
>>>>>>>Not that it makes any difference to the relationship between A and B.
>>>>>>>you're wasting time discussing irrelevant nonsense.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>According to the CMBR observer (using c=1),
>>>>>>>>>>vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v)
>>>>>>>>>>tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2)
>>>>>>>>>>tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2)
>>>>>>>>>> = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v)
>>>>>>>>>>Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v).
>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2)
>>>>>>>>>>is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR
>>>>>>>>>>(vB = 0).
>>>>>>>>>>But even in this case, SRists falsely claim
>>>>>>>>>>that B moves at -v relative to A,
>>
>>>>>>>>>It does. You just don't understand basic physics
>>
>>>>>>>>You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative
>>>>>>>>to A.
>>
>>>>>>>Not indirectly .. Directly
>>
>>>>>>>>Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid.
>>
>>>>>>>Only you are so stupid to think that if I walk closer to a wall, that the
>>>>>>>wall stays the same distance away.
>>
>>>>>>================================
>>
>>>>>> There are walls, and then there are walls. There are those who are 'so
>>>>>>stupid' as to think if they walk long enough they will walk closer to the
>>>>>>horizon of Earth....that it will not stay the same distance from the walking
>>>>>>traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so stupid' as
>>>>>>to think that they can close with it. There are those who are 'so stupid' as
>>>>>>to think if they speed up they will speed closer to the universal horizon
>>>>>>constant of c (even getting closer to the distant Planck horizon of the
>>>>>>Universe), that it will not stay the same distance from the walking....er,
>>>>>>speeding....traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so
>>>>>>stupid' as to think that they can close with it.
>>
>>>>>> There are those 'so stupid' as to never realize that differences exist
>>>>>>between every constituent [local] universe and the overall entity that is
>>>>>>the [non-local] Universe. Differences that can be manipulated. Differences
>>>>>>that can't be manipulated. There are walls, and then there are walls.
>>
>>>>>>GL
>>
>>>>>They will not understand what you mean, being really
>>>>>brainwashed.
>>>>>Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun
>>>>>intended!).
>>>>>They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken
>>>>>into consideration,
>>
>>>>Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more
>>>>than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of
>>>>the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other
>>>>arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into
>>>>consideration.
>>
>>>Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were
>>>right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the
>>>Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR,
>>
>>Relative motion is a motion between TWO bodies, and a THIRD entity
>>(like the CMBR) does not NEED to be taken into account. I don't know
>>why you think relative velocity DOES need to take into account a third
>>body.
>
>
> The TWO bodies are not isolated in the universe, which is ignored
> by SRT.

So what? There is no need for a third body. You
are just confusing yourself.

>
>
>>>Occam's
>>>razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
>>>"recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces
>>>the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
>>>entities while still sufficiently answering the
>>>question".
>>
>>Sorry, but now you're grasping at straws.
>>Note that YOUR idea involves more assumptions, including a dependence
>>of relative velocity on an arbitrarily chosen third entity in the
>>universe, the CMBR.
>
>
> SR is based on a pure mathematical concept, and wholly neglects the
> fact that its objects are physically linked to the whole universe.

Well, no, it does not.
>
>
>>Just because you have a hard time understanding SR, does NOT mean that
>>it involves more complicated assumptions or postulates. There are only
>>two assumptions in SR. Two.
>
>
> Only two, that's why SR is wrong.

Well, a century of experiments says SR is correct. You
are overruled.
>
>
>>>Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR
>>>is taken into consideration
>>>(cf.http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm),
>>>SRists have a lot of different explanations,
>>
>>Yes, they are all different ways of saying the same thing. This is not
>>unusual in physics. Take a look at the classical Atwood machine, for
>>example. You can explain the behavior of that system by using Newton's
>>2nd law. You can also explain the behavior of that system using energy
>>conservation. You can also explain the behavior of that system using
>>momentum conservation. They all work, and all freshman students become
>>familiar with that. There does not have to be one and only one way to
>>analyze a physical system.
>
>
> A false analogy!
> The fact is that nothing can be considered independently of the
> rest of the universe. You seem to have a "hard time" realizing this.

This is your delusion but the universe does not care.

>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
>
>>>see
>>
>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...
>>
>>>"*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox.
>>
>>>*The Doppler Shift Analysis*
>>>Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's
>>>clock through a telescope throughout the trip;
>>>when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast?
>>
>>>*The Spacetime Diagram Analysis*
>>>Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with
>>>the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella.
>>
>>>*The Equivalence Principle Analysis*
>>>Pseudo-gravitational time dilation, and some matters
>>>of terminology."
>>
>>>End of the story!
>>
>>>Marcel Luttgens
>
>
From: Inertial on

"mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
news:78e6e3b1-8199-4b4e-859f-d6abe71de398(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>> > > >news:41d5a838-7be2-4786-8820-32048a494322(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> > > >> On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> > > >>> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >>>news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >>> > On 13 sep, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:
>> > > >>> >> mluttgens wrote:
>>
>> > > >>> >> > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of
>> > > >>> >> > Mutual
>> > > >>> >> > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical.
>> > > >>> >> > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why
>> > > >>> >> > "both
>> > > >>> >> > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider
>> > > >>> >> > normal
>> > > >>> >> > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance
>> > > >>> >> > on
>> > > >>> >> > a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't
>> > > >>> >> > bother
>> > > >>> >> > them. They don't even try to find a general solution for
>> > > >>> >> > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly.
>>
>> > > >>> >> > Marcel Luttgens
>>
>> > > >>> >> Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special
>> > > >>> >> relativity really says. One cannot have more than one
>> > > >>> >> perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an
>> > > >>> >> observation
>> > > >>> >> that contradicts a prediction of special relativity.
>>
>> > > >>> > Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform
>> > > >>> > translatory motion.
>>
>> > > >>> Fine
>>
>> > > >>> > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B,
>> > > >>> > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A.
>>
>> > > >>> That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of
>> > > >>> years.
>>
>> > > >>> > SR obviously doesn't take into consideration
>> > > >>> > the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative
>> > > >>> > to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest
>> > > >>> > frame of the universe).
>>
>> > > >>> Why the fvck should it? It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the
>> > > >>> relative
>> > > >>> speeds of A and B
>>
>> > > >>> > Let v be the velocity of A wrt B.
>> > > >>> > From the dipole anisotropy it observes, B
>> > > >>> > determines that its velocity relative to the
>> > > >>> > CMBR is vB, whose direction is the same as v.
>>
>> > > >>> No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v
>>
>> > > >> Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed
>> > > >> in this scenario.
>>
>> > > > Not that it makes any difference to the relationship between A and
>> > > > B.
>> > > > you're wasting time discussing irrelevant nonsense.
>>
>> > > >>> > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1),
>> > > >>> > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v)
>> > > >>> > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2)
>> > > >>> > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2)
>> > > >>> > = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v)
>> > > >>> > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v).
>>
>> > > >>> > Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2)
>> > > >>> > is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR
>> > > >>> > (vB = 0).
>> > > >>> > But even in this case, SRists falsely claim
>> > > >>> > that B moves at -v relative to A,
>>
>> > > >>> It does. You just don't understand basic physics
>>
>> > > >> You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative
>> > > >> to A.
>>
>> > > > Not indirectly .. Directly
>>
>> > > >> Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid.
>>
>> > > > Only you are so stupid to think that if I walk closer to a wall,
>> > > > that the
>> > > > wall stays the same distance away.
>>
>> > > ================================
>>
>> > > There are walls, and then there are walls. There are those who are
>> > > 'so
>> > > stupid' as to think if they walk long enough they will walk closer to
>> > > the
>> > > horizon of Earth....that it will not stay the same distance from the
>> > > walking
>> > > traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so
>> > > stupid' as
>> > > to think that they can close with it. There are those who are 'so
>> > > stupid' as
>> > > to think if they speed up they will speed closer to the universal
>> > > horizon
>> > > constant of c (even getting closer to the distant Planck horizon of
>> > > the
>> > > Universe), that it will not stay the same distance from the
>> > > walking....er,
>> > > speeding....traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They
>> > > are 'so
>> > > stupid' as to think that they can close with it.
>>
>> > > There are those 'so stupid' as to never realize that differences
>> > > exist
>> > > between every constituent [local] universe and the overall entity
>> > > that is
>> > > the [non-local] Universe. Differences that can be manipulated.
>> > > Differences
>> > > that can't be manipulated. There are walls, and then there are walls.
>>
>> > > GL
>>
>> > They will not understand what you mean, being really
>> > brainwashed.
>> > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun
>> > intended!).
>> > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken
>> > into consideration,
>>
>> Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more
>> than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of
>> the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other
>> arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into
>> consideration.
>
> Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were
> right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the
> Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR,

Which is completely irrelevant as the Earth and the CMBR don't even come
into it. They are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to what happens to a non-accelerating
twin compared to an accelerating twin

> Occam's
> razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
> "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces
> the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
> entities while still sufficiently answering the
> question".

Which is why SR is preferred over LET

> Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR
> is taken into consideration

It make ABSOLUTLEY NO DIFFERENCE if you take the CMBR into account .. seeing
the CMBR makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to what would happen.

End of story.


From: Inertial on

"mluttgens" <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
news:e15facd2-2851-4380-86e8-11921d2afabe(a)y20g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> The fact is that nothing can be considered independently of the
> rest of the universe. You seem to have a "hard time" realizing this.

If you want to include the minimal effect of every other body in the
universe .. go ahead. And make sure you take into account whether or not it
is raining on some planet orbitting a sun in in another galaxy. As
obviously that must be very important in working out what happens when
working out what the relative velocity is between to objects here.




From: PD on
On Sep 22, 7:32 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
> On 22 sep, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 7:33 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
> > > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:41d5a838-7be2-4786-8820-32048a494322(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > >> On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >>>news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > >>> > On 13 sep, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> >> mluttgens wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> >> > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual
> > > > > > >>> >> > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical.
> > > > > > >>> >> > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both
> > > > > > >>> >> > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal
> > > > > > >>> >> > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on
> > > > > > >>> >> > a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother
> > > > > > >>> >> > them. They don't even try to find a general solution for
> > > > > > >>> >> > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly.
>
> > > > > > >>> >> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > > > >>> >>    Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special
> > > > > > >>> >>    relativity really says. One cannot have more than one
> > > > > > >>> >>    perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an observation
> > > > > > >>> >>    that contradicts a prediction of special relativity.
>
> > > > > > >>> > Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform
> > > > > > >>> > translatory motion.
>
> > > > > > >>> Fine
>
> > > > > > >>> > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B,
> > > > > > >>> > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A.
>
> > > > > > >>> That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years.
>
> > > > > > >>> > SR obviously doesn't take into consideration
> > > > > > >>> > the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative
> > > > > > >>> > to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest
> > > > > > >>> > frame of the universe).
>
> > > > > > >>> Why the fvck should it?  It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the
> > > > > > >>> relative
> > > > > > >>> speeds of A and B
>
> > > > > > >>> > Let v be the velocity of A wrt B.
> > > > > > >>> > From the dipole anisotropy it observes, B
> > > > > > >>> > determines that its velocity relative to the
> > > > > > >>> > CMBR is vB, whose direction is the same as v.
>
> > > > > > >>> No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v
>
> > > > > > >> Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed
> > > > > > >> in this scenario.
>
> > > > > > > Not that it makes any difference to the relationship between A and B.
> > > > > > > you're wasting time discussing irrelevant nonsense.
>
> > > > > > >>> > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1),
> > > > > > >>> > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v)
> > > > > > >>> > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2)
> > > > > > >>> > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2)
> > > > > > >>> >   = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v)
> > > > > > >>> > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v).
>
> > > > > > >>> > Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2)
> > > > > > >>> > is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR
> > > > > > >>> > (vB = 0).
> > > > > > >>> > But even in this case, SRists falsely claim
> > > > > > >>> > that B moves at -v relative to A,
>
> > > > > > >>> It does.  You just don't understand basic physics
>
> > > > > > >> You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative
> > > > > > >> to A.
>
> > > > > > > Not indirectly .. Directly
>
> > > > > > >> Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid.
>
> > > > > > > Only you are so stupid to think that if I walk closer to a wall, that the
> > > > > > > wall stays the same distance away.
>
> > > > > > ================================
>
> > > > > >   There are walls, and then there are walls. There are those who are 'so
> > > > > > stupid' as to think if they walk long enough they will walk closer to the
> > > > > > horizon of Earth....that it will not stay the same distance from the walking
> > > > > > traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so stupid' as
> > > > > > to think that they can close with it. There are those who are 'so stupid' as
> > > > > > to think if they speed up they will speed closer to the universal horizon
> > > > > > constant of c (even getting closer to the distant Planck horizon of the
> > > > > > Universe), that it will not stay the same distance from the walking....er,
> > > > > > speeding....traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so
> > > > > > stupid' as to think that they can close with it.
>
> > > > > >   There are those 'so stupid' as to never realize that differences exist
> > > > > > between every constituent [local] universe and the overall entity that is
> > > > > > the [non-local] Universe. Differences that can be manipulated. Differences
> > > > > > that can't be manipulated. There are walls, and then there are walls.
>
> > > > > > GL
>
> > > > > They will not understand what you mean, being really
> > > > > brainwashed.
> > > > > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun
> > > > > intended!).
> > > > > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken
> > > > > into consideration,
>
> > > > Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more
> > > > than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of
> > > > the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other
> > > > arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into
> > > > consideration.
>
> > > Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were
> > > right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the
> > > Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR,
>
> > Relative motion is a motion between TWO bodies, and a THIRD entity
> > (like the CMBR) does not NEED to be taken into account. I don't know
> > why you think relative velocity DOES need to take into account a third
> > body.
>
> The TWO bodies are not isolated in the universe, which is ignored
> by SRT.

Of course they're not isolated. This doesn't change the fact that the
relative motion only involves the two of them, and that the physics
depends only on the relative motion. It adds nothing to insist that an
arbitrarily chosen third reference point in the universe should be
taken into account, other than adding unnecessary baggage.

>
>
>
> > > Occam's
> > > razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
> > > "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces
> > > the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
> > > entities while still sufficiently answering the
> > > question".
>
> > Sorry, but now you're grasping at straws.
> > Note that YOUR idea involves more assumptions, including a dependence
> > of relative velocity on an arbitrarily chosen third entity in the
> > universe, the CMBR.
>
> SR is based on a pure mathematical concept, and wholly neglects the
> fact that its objects are physically linked to the whole universe.

And the physics depends only on the pairwise linkages. But all the
pairwise linkages are of equal standing, and there is no reference
body whose linkages should be taken as special, preferred, or
absolute.

>
>
>
> > Just because you have a hard time understanding SR, does NOT mean that
> > it involves more complicated assumptions or postulates. There are only
> > two assumptions in SR. Two.
>
> Only two, that's why SR is wrong.

Well, gee, just a second ago you said that Occam's razor would drive
toward the one with the fewest assumptions, if it accounts for what's
observed. Now suddenly you're not so sure you'd want to go with
Occam's razor on this one.

>
> > > Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR
> > > is taken into consideration
> > > (cf.http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm),
> > > SRists have a lot of different explanations,
>
> > Yes, they are all different ways of saying the same thing. This is not
> > unusual in physics. Take a look at the classical Atwood machine, for
> > example. You can explain the behavior of that system by using Newton's
> > 2nd law. You can also explain the behavior of that system using energy
> > conservation. You can also explain the behavior of that system using
> > momentum conservation. They all work, and all freshman students become
> > familiar with that. There does not have to be one and only one way to
> > analyze a physical system.
>
> A false analogy!
> The fact is that nothing can be considered independently of the
> rest of the universe. You seem to have a "hard time" realizing this.

I didn't say the objects were isolated.
What is still true, though, is that there is nothing special about any
of the objects involved in those interactions. They are all pairwise,
with equal standing. And the physics only depends on relative motion.

>
> Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > see
>
> > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_....
>
> > > "*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox.
>
> > > *The Doppler Shift Analysis*
> > > Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's
> > > clock through a telescope throughout the trip;
> > > when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast?
>
> > > *The Spacetime Diagram Analysis*
> > > Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with
> > > the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella.
>
> > > *The Equivalence Principle Analysis*
> > > Pseudo-gravitational time dilation, and some matters
> > > of terminology."
>
> > > End of the story!
>
> > > Marcel Luttgens
>
>

From: mluttgens on
On 23 sep, 14:23, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 7:32 pm, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 sep, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 7:33 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > On 21 sep, 14:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 21, 5:59 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 19 sep, 20:37, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:003e775f$0$2915$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
> > > > > > > > "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >news:41d5a838-7be2-4786-8820-32048a494322(a)o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > >> On 19 sep, 02:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> "mluttgens" <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > >>>news:756d9890-f435-4e91-b813-48c6c697cbc4(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > >>> > On 13 sep, 15:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> >> mluttgens wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>> >> > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual
> > > > > > > >>> >> > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical.
> > > > > > > >>> >> > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both
> > > > > > > >>> >> > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal
> > > > > > > >>> >> > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on
> > > > > > > >>> >> > a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother
> > > > > > > >>> >> > them. They don't even try to find a general solution for
> > > > > > > >>> >> > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly.
>
> > > > > > > >>> >> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > > > > >>> >>    Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special
> > > > > > > >>> >>    relativity really says. One cannot have more than one
> > > > > > > >>> >>    perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an observation
> > > > > > > >>> >>    that contradicts a prediction of special relativity.
>
> > > > > > > >>> > Let's consider two objects A and B in uniform
> > > > > > > >>> > translatory motion.
>
> > > > > > > >>> Fine
>
> > > > > > > >>> > According to SR, if A moves at v toward B,
> > > > > > > >>> > reciprocally, B moves at -v toward A.
>
> > > > > > > >>> That's not just SR .. its been known physics for hundreds of years.
>
> > > > > > > >>> > SR obviously doesn't take into consideration
> > > > > > > >>> > the velocities vA and vB of the objects relative
> > > > > > > >>> > to the CMBR (sometimes rightly called the rest
> > > > > > > >>> > frame of the universe).
>
> > > > > > > >>> Why the fvck should it?  It makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE to the
> > > > > > > >>> relative
> > > > > > > >>> speeds of A and B
>
> > > > > > > >>> > Let v be the velocity of A wrt B.
> > > > > > > >>> > From the dipole anisotropy it observes, B
> > > > > > > >>> > determines that its velocity relative to the
> > > > > > > >>> > CMBR is vB, whose direction is the same as v.
>
> > > > > > > >>> No .. it wouldn't necessarily be in the same directions as v
>
> > > > > > > >> Sure, but it is what B (which could be the Earth) observed
> > > > > > > >> in this scenario.
>
> > > > > > > > Not that it makes any difference to the relationship between A and B.
> > > > > > > > you're wasting time discussing irrelevant nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > >>> > According to the CMBR observer (using c=1),
> > > > > > > >>> > vA = (v-vB)/(1-vB*v)
> > > > > > > >>> > tB = tCMBR * sqrt(1-vB^2)
> > > > > > > >>> > tA = tCMBR * sqrt(1-((v-vB)/(1-vB*v))^2)
> > > > > > > >>> >   = tCMBR * sqrt1-vB^2)*sqrt(1-v^2)/(1-vB*v)
> > > > > > > >>> > Hence, tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2) / (1-vB*v).
>
> > > > > > > >>> > Clearly, the SR formula tA = tB * sqrt(1-v^2)
> > > > > > > >>> > is correct only when B is at rest in the CMBR
> > > > > > > >>> > (vB = 0).
> > > > > > > >>> > But even in this case, SRists falsely claim
> > > > > > > >>> > that B moves at -v relative to A,
>
> > > > > > > >>> It does.  You just don't understand basic physics
>
> > > > > > > >> You are indirectly claiming that the CMBR moves relative
> > > > > > > >> to A.
>
> > > > > > > > Not indirectly .. Directly
>
> > > > > > > >> Only brainwashed SRists can be so stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > Only you are so stupid to think that if I walk closer to a wall, that the
> > > > > > > > wall stays the same distance away.
>
> > > > > > > ================================
>
> > > > > > >   There are walls, and then there are walls. There are those who are 'so
> > > > > > > stupid' as to think if they walk long enough they will walk closer to the
> > > > > > > horizon of Earth....that it will not stay the same distance from the walking
> > > > > > > traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so stupid' as
> > > > > > > to think that they can close with it. There are those who are 'so stupid' as
> > > > > > > to think if they speed up they will speed closer to the universal horizon
> > > > > > > constant of c (even getting closer to the distant Planck horizon of the
> > > > > > > Universe), that it will not stay the same distance from the walking....er,
> > > > > > > speeding....traveler as from the standing observer left behind. They are 'so
> > > > > > > stupid' as to think that they can close with it.
>
> > > > > > >   There are those 'so stupid' as to never realize that differences exist
> > > > > > > between every constituent [local] universe and the overall entity that is
> > > > > > > the [non-local] Universe. Differences that can be manipulated.. Differences
> > > > > > > that can't be manipulated. There are walls, and then there are walls.
>
> > > > > > > GL
>
> > > > > > They will not understand what you mean, being really
> > > > > > brainwashed.
> > > > > > Talking to them is like talking to a wall (no pun
> > > > > > intended!).
> > > > > > They will not realize that the CMBR must be taken
> > > > > > into consideration,
>
> > > > > Actually, no it doesn't NEED to be taken into consideration, any more
> > > > > than the Sun needs to be taken into consideration, or the center of
> > > > > the galaxy needs to be taken into consideration, or any other
> > > > > arbitrarily chosen artifact of the universe needs to be taken into
> > > > > consideration.
>
> > > > Even if the SR analysis of the twin paradox were
> > > > right, which it is not, because it doesn't take the
> > > > Earth's velocity relative to the CMBR,
>
> > > Relative motion is a motion between TWO bodies, and a THIRD entity
> > > (like the CMBR) does not NEED to be taken into account. I don't know
> > > why you think relative velocity DOES need to take into account a third
> > > body.
>
> > The TWO bodies are not isolated in the universe, which is ignored
> > by SRT.
>
> Of course they're not isolated. This doesn't change the fact that the
> relative motion only involves the two of them, and that the physics
> depends only on the relative motion. It adds nothing to insist that an
> arbitrarily chosen third reference point in the universe should be
> taken into account, other than adding unnecessary baggage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Occam's
> > > > razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
> > > > "recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces
> > > > the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
> > > > entities while still sufficiently answering the
> > > > question".
>
> > > Sorry, but now you're grasping at straws.
> > > Note that YOUR idea involves more assumptions, including a dependence
> > > of relative velocity on an arbitrarily chosen third entity in the
> > > universe, the CMBR.
>
> > SR is based on a pure mathematical concept, and wholly neglects the
> > fact that its objects are physically linked to the whole universe.
>
> And the physics depends only on the pairwise linkages. But all the
> pairwise linkages are of equal standing, and there is no reference
> body whose linkages should be taken as special, preferred, or
> absolute.
>
>
>
> > > Just because you have a hard time understanding SR, does NOT mean that
> > > it involves more complicated assumptions or postulates. There are only
> > > two assumptions in SR. Two.
>
> > Only two, that's why SR is wrong.
>
> Well, gee, just a second ago you said that Occam's razor would drive
> toward the one with the fewest assumptions, if it accounts for what's
> observed. Now suddenly you're not so sure you'd want to go with
> Occam's razor on this one.
>

Hereafter are a few quotes from the introduction:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_intro.html

"SR does not declare that all frames of reference are equivalent,
only so-called inertial frames.
It seems passing strange that Terence could age several years
just because Stella engages her thrusters. The Time Gap and
Distance Dependence Objections put a sharper edge on this
uneasy feeling.
These cast doubt on how relevant the acceleration is in the
usual version.
Finally, what about the Equivalence Principle? Doesn't that say
that Stella can still claim to be motionless the whole time, but
that a huge pseudo-gravitational field just happened to sweep
through the universe when she hit her "thrusters on" button?
The EP viewpoint is nearly mandatory for understanding some
of the twin paradox variations.
The time gap objection:
Here we have let the turnaround become instantaneous.
On the Outbound Leg Stella uses one frame of reference,
and one notion of simultaneity. On the Inbound Leg she switches
to another. The "gap" (the section of Terence's worldline devoid
of blue lines) is a consequence of this abrupt switch.
I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see
Section 6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points."

How can you prefer the simple explanation of the absence of
paradox by using the CMBR to the multiple tentatives made
by SRists in order to get rid of it?
Is it due to brainwashing? I have no other explanation for your
position.

Marcel Luttgens

>
>
>
> > > > Whereas there is no paradox at all when the CMBR
> > > > is taken into consideration
> > > > (cf.http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/twinpdx1.htm),
> > > > SRists have a lot of different explanations,
>
> > > Yes, they are all different ways of saying the same thing. This is not
> > > unusual in physics. Take a look at the classical Atwood machine, for
> > > example. You can explain the behavior of that system by using Newton's
> > > 2nd law. You can also explain the behavior of that system using energy
> > > conservation. You can also explain the behavior of that system using
> > > momentum conservation. They all work, and all freshman students become
> > > familiar with that. There does not have to be one and only one way to
> > > analyze a physical system.
>
> > A false analogy!
> > The fact is that nothing can be considered independently of the
> > rest of the universe. You seem to have a "hard time" realizing this.
>
> I didn't say the objects were isolated.
> What is still true, though, is that there is nothing special about any
> of the objects involved in those interactions. They are all pairwise,
> with equal standing. And the physics only depends on relative motion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > see
>
> > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...
>
> > > > "*The *acceleration analysis* of the twin paradox.
>
> > > > *The Doppler Shift Analysis*
> > > > Suppose Stella and Terence each film the other's
> > > > clock through a telescope throughout the trip;
> > > > when does Stella see Terence's clock run fast?
>
> > > > *The Spacetime Diagram Analysis*
> > > > Where we take an Olympian view, and gaze with
> > > > the Fates upon the world lines of Terence and Stella.
>
> > > > *The Equivalence
>
> plus de détails »