The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 00:54 On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric twin > >> >> >> > thought experiment? > > >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly to > >> >> >> show > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> cannot > >> >> >> be taken seriously > > >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in response > >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. > > >> >> I've shown you are wrong > > >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. > > >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. > > > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked > > repeatedly to show the > > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you > > cannot be taken seriously" > > Yeup. > > > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself > > cannot live up to? > > I am not making the claims against SR. You didn't answer the question. Why should I have to show the math for my claims when you are unable to show the math for yours, and you lie by saying that you have show it?
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:03 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric >> >> >> >> > twin >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? >> >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly to >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> cannot >> >> >> >> be taken seriously >> >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in >> >> >> > response >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. >> >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong >> >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. >> >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. >> >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked >> > repeatedly to show the >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you >> > cannot be taken seriously" >> >> Yeup. >> >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself >> > cannot live up to? >> >> I am not making the claims against SR. > > You didn't answer the question. Yes .. I did. You just dishonestly snipped it from your reply. You're trying to diverting away from your inability to support your claims. > Why should I have to show the math for > my claims when you are unable to show the math for yours, and you lie > by saying that you have show it? Because the burden of proof is on the person making the claims against the theory. That's you. I have shown where your math are wrong, when you posted it. Do you want me to post an analysis that shows you wrong .. if I do, will you apologise, admit you were wrong and go away? Or are you just going to dishonestly snip what I just wrote again.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:06 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric >> >> >> >> > twin >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? >> >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly to >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> cannot >> >> >> >> be taken seriously >> >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in >> >> >> > response >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. >> >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong >> >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. >> >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. >> >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked >> > repeatedly to show the >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you >> > cannot be taken seriously" >> >> Yeup. >> >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself >> > cannot live up to? >> >> I am not making the claims against SR. > > You didn't answer the question. Why should I have to show the math for > my claims when you are unable to show the math for yours, and you lie > by saying that you have show it? I did answer .. you snipped it. "You are the one making claims about SR. . the burden of proof of these is on YOU. So far , you've failed." Do you want me to show you an analysis .. and if so, will you admit you were wrong about what SR says and go away?
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 01:10 On Jun 21, 4:19 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 11:26 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, 11:35 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > > > > > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > > > > > > > No... > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an > > > > > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought experiment? > > > > > > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. > > > > > Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of SR.. > > > > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths > > > to an optical illusion and your interpretation > > > will change. > > ==========> > > > How do you think that works in the case of the symmetric twin paradox? > > It works with everything. You don't > get answers 'till you formalize your > question. How does additional rigor add anything to a test that is sufficient in determining the reality of the paradox? > > > > > > > In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each > > > > twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? > > > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the > > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, > > > among others. > > > No, that isn't what I'm referring to. Will you please answer my > > question? > > You haven't asked a question. Wrong. I asked you if you denied that SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg. > You formed > your scenario around what some think relativity > says, rather that what it actually says. No, I didn't.
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 01:18
On Jun 20, 10:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1a23b1f5-4139-4906-9464-0a92e5dc74e8(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, 11:35 > >> > am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > >> > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > >> > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > >> > > > No... > > >> > ================= > > >> > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an > >> > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought experiment? > > >> > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. > > >> Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of SR. > > > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths > > to an optical illusion and your interpretation > > will change. > > SR is NOT optical illusion. Again , ,Sue speaks from ignorance > > >> In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each > >> twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? > > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, > > among others. Well, two wrongs don't > > make a right. > > It may appear absurd .. but there is no contradiction or inconsistency > > > > >> If so, what do you think that SR does predict in this case? > > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > an imaginary magnitude > > > sqrt(-1) > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r le as > > the three space co-ordinates. >> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > Sue does NOT think .. she pastes the same old quotes over and over in the > hope they will be relevant > > > In other words, clock mechanisms can't > > detect coordinate systems to cooperate > > with either part of your thought experiment. > > That is certainl 'other words' .. it has NOTHING to do with what you quoted > .. just your own word-salad > > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > > for the performance of all physical experiments. > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > > That means candles, torsion pendulum, > > guns and even Rolex watches can't operate > > differently as the result of relative motion. > ============== > It doesn't say that. Again .. you don't understand what you copy and paste. Yes! It does say that. Now if you disagree you should not be posting to usenet but rather working on the implied replacement for airspeed indicators that is as reliable as an accelerometer. Just this year a faulty airspeed indicator contributed to a crash so your customers are already lined up awaiting your product. Sue... |