The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Koobee Wublee on 19 Jun 2010 03:32 On Jun 18, 7:22 pm, eric gisse wrote: > Are you stupid on a full time basis, or just part time? Gisse the college dropout is always stupid, with a loud mouth, just like the 24-hour darkness during the winter time in Alaska where the idiot resides. Ahahaha...
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:34 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:3f27a5b2-6fe9-4f52-9d45-033de8e4f473(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for you to >> > identify the errors in the article. >> >> The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math of SR. > > That isn't necessarily an error. Can you show how their math resulted > in coming to an incorrect conclusion? > >> Instead >> they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run >> slow" -- SR >> does NOT say that; > > The truth is not determined by what SR says The truth about what SR says IS determinets by what SR says > because of the paradoxes > which may arise from it's application. There are none. The paradoxes arise when you do NOT use SR > Is their description innacurate, Yes .. from what you have said > or are you resorting to an ad- > hominem? No need ..their incompetence says it all >> what SR says is that if a moving clock's tick rate is >> measured by using two SYNCHRONIZED clocks at rest in an inertial frame >> and >> pre-positioned along the moving clock's path, then between meetings the >> moving >> clock ticks fewer times than the inertial-frame clocks. In particular, >> the >> METHOD of comparing the clocks is important. > > How is the method important in the context of the experiment described > in the paper? So you don't understand SR. That explains it. Perhaps you should be asking more questions like this instead of asserting that a junk paper that you do not understand is free of error and that SR, after a century of testing and development is wrong.
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:35 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:b749abc2-bf69-46ea-a872-6ffab086ee05(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 4:18 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >B. Twin Paradox (Symmetric) >> >We shall set forth a new version of the twin paradox which is >> >truly symmetric and this will introduce a true paradox and we >> >shall provide a solution. Suppose Taurai unlike in the previous >> >version, decided to be adventurous too. He decides to rocket >> >into space and travels not with his twin brother but all by himself >> >and instead of Alpha-Centauri he travels at the same constant >> >relativistic speed as Taurwi [this speed is measured by >> >the Earth bound observers] to an imaginary constellation (call >> >it Constellation Alpha-Christina) which is equidistant and directly >> >opposite to Alpha Centauri along the line of sight joining >> >the Earth and Alpha Centauri. >> >> >On their day of departure, their family and friends bid them >> >farewell and wish thema safe travel. Withoutmuch say, on the >> >day of reunion, the family and friends [who all have studied >> >physics at university and understand very well the STR] have >> >no doubt that they [the Twins] will all have aged the same. >> >The big question is, will the twins agree with their family and >> >friends that they have aged the same? The truth is that, each >> >of the twins will see the other as having aged less than they so >> >they would not agree with their family and friends that they >> >must be the same age. Herein we have a paradox! Who is >> >older than who here? >> >> There is no paradox here! > > The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will be younger than > the other at the completion of the experiment. It doesn't. Saying that it does is your mistake.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 03:59 On Jun 19, 7:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:ac2dcf58-a9be-491f-8b59-b30fcf0285b7(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > Here are the relevant logical elements that I have used in this > > thread: > > > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > Yeup > > > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to > > age more quickly. > > Nope. Then what do you think the circumstances are in which SR predicts that a twin observes the other to age more quickly, and what mathematical relationship quantifies this? > You could say the same in the usual twins paradox .. yes differences > in synch make that happen and so the net effect is the one does age more > quickly than the other. In the symmetric twin case the net effect is that > the age the same as each other. In reality the twins age the same as each other, but SR does not predict that result if you examine the experiment from the point of view of either twin.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 04:03
On Jun 19, 7:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:3f27a5b2-6fe9-4f52-9d45-033de8e4f473(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 19, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >> > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for you to > >> > identify the errors in the article. > > >> The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math of SR. > > > That isn't necessarily an error. > > BAHAHAH .. Of course it is. How cam they show a contradiction in SR if they > didn't USE SR. It depends on the context of the question. Yes, they used SR math to show the contradiction in SR, but no, they didn't use SR math in exploring possible solutions. |