The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 02:35 On Jun 21, 2:28 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 21, 5:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > The doppler effect predicts that. > > It's clear that you won't answer a straightforward yes/no question > about SR. You haven't asked a straightforward question. << 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 rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Now what is your question about that? > > Is it because you know that the implications of a truthful answer will > lead to being faced with the reality of the paradox? Kindly describe where the above statment results in paradox. Use a cheat sheet if it helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number Sue...
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 02:36 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:4dcf2f52-b59d-4be7-92ad-f1ec145ccd1b(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > >> > > > > > 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. >> >> The doppler effect predicts that. > > It's clear that you won't answer a straightforward yes/no question > about SR. She can't > Is it because you know that the implications of a truthful answer will > lead to being faced with the reality of the paradox? No .. its because she doesn't understand it. She has a list of quotes and links that she copies and pastes almost at random as replies, and then adds a bit of word salad at the end to give the impression she understands. She doesn't. There is no point at all discussing physics with her.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 02:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:a5b04be6-1ec9-420a-b3a2-887643379813(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 2:28 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> On Jun 21, 5:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> > > > > > > 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. >> >> > The doppler effect predicts that. >> >> It's clear that you won't answer a straightforward yes/no question >> about SR. > > You haven't asked a straightforward question. [snip same irrelevant quote] > Now what is your question about that? He wasn't posting questions about that .. you're diverting again >> Is it because you know that the implications of a truthful answer will >> lead to being faced with the reality of the paradox? > > Kindly describe where the above statment > results in paradox. he wasn't tlaking abut the same old quote you've mined and dumped on us again > Use a cheat sheet if it helps: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number Event more irrelevant. No complex numbers required for the issue colp is posting about.
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 02:38 On Jun 21, 2:31 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: [...] > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > Who cares. You understand neither LET nor SR .. os you posting the same old > links over and over doesn't impress anyone. Talk is cheap. Show us Bell's spaceship in four-vector calculus if you really think that is true. Cheating is permitted so copy from the book as much as you please. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html Sue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
From: kado on 21 Jun 2010 03:00
On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > snip > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented > > experimentally, and > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not > > been > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a > > straightforward > > extension of the usual one. > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > > experimentation! > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm > > various > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. > > ___________________________________ > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the > theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments > conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science. > > > snip > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented > > experimentally, and > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not > > been > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a > > straightforward > > extension of the usual one. > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > > experimentation! > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm > > various > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. > > ___________________________________ > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the > theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments > conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science. > So in response to your statement (b): The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all it did was empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe effects of the Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of light. Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 arc-seconds of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' occurred well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out that the mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le Verrier did not agree with the so called actuals. AFAK, no one ever ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true values demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the 'planet' Pluto had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like Halley in predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his name, Le Verrier could not have calculated in all the very small perturbations of even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the orbits of the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations of the center of mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that everyone concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the effect, not the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not in the context of SR. > Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so > what is it? YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass increase tenet of SR. There are a lot more, but other than the idea of time symmetry, these have not been addressed as much as the subject of relativist mass. (i.e., there is no current need to get all the relativists further all bent out of shape on this thread.) So in response to (a): You are just like a lot of other relativists on this newsgroup. A relativist responds to an OP. Another relativist responds to the same OP with a statement that is contradictory to that of the first relativist. So anyone that responds to either relativist must by its very nature, be wrong in the eyes of the other relativist. So grow up, I stand by my position that SR and GR were conceived from gedankens, and your argument is with your fellow relativist Tom Roberts, not me D.Y.K. |