The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: train on 21 Jun 2010 17:47 On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of > > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether. > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > discussion. > > > > snip > > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the > > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled > > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in > > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and > > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > meanings of the words. > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > not the whole truths. > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > Furthermore, the are: > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > from another. > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > workings of the Natural universe. > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > true nature and workings of the universe. > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > truths. > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > theology > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > based. > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > ancient and modern theorists, > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > man cannot be true. > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > plausible. > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > D. Y. Kadoshima That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all.
From: Androcles on 21 Jun 2010 18:26 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a62deaad-0ec7-4689-a0da-0a3a77c6dc9f(a)k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did > > know of > > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions > > of aether. > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > discussion. > > > > snip > > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the > > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been > > boiled > > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary > > in > > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining > > and > > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > meanings of the words. > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > not the whole truths. > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > Furthermore, the are: > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > from another. > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > workings of the Natural universe. > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > true nature and workings of the universe. > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > truths. > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > theology > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > based. > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > ancient and modern theorists, > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > man cannot be true. > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > plausible. > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > D. Y. Kadoshima That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all. ================================================= Kadoshima doesn't have a monopoly on either evil or stupidity. Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? We establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. -- Einstein It does if A is at rest relative to B. If A and B move together in the empty space universal absolute inertial frame of reference stationary system of coordinates yada yada yada that is not preferred but the speed of light is c in that empty space, then the time of light one-way A to B is t = x'/(c-v) and from B to A is t = x'/(c+v). Stupid or a hoax? If Einstein wasn't a huxter then he was stupid, if he wasn't stupid he was a huxter. But Einstein goes on and claims 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v)) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Having put his nonsense in the form of algebra he knowingly gave it fake credence; therefore he was not stupid, he was evil. His followers are stupid. It has nothing to do with philosophy, its a con. Kodashima is babbling.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 19:59 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4c1ef878$0$14162$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > news:9e6fb557-ea0f-418c-bc55-cac3603ef6aa(a)o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 21, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "colp" <c...(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. > > And you just snipped it again > >> You lied about posting the math for the turnaround > > I didn't claim to have posted the analysis.. At least not of the turnaround. I did show the basis of the analysis in my reply where I pointed out the errors in your math (when you finally showed it to me), and showed that the total time for each click is the same. You can do that from the frame of either clock (as I did), or of the midpoint between them (even easier) .. or any other frame. You get same time for both clocks. I can post a more complete analysis if you want .. and if you want the explicit math showing what happens at the turnaround I can also do that.
From: Cosmik de Bris on 21 Jun 2010 20:04 On 22/06/10 05:55 , colp wrote: > On Jun 21, 10:56 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: >> colp says... >> >>> O.K. What remains from my previous post is the question of how you get >> >from the original premises of SR to a determination on when you should >>> apply the transformation for a single clock, and when you should apply >>> the transformation for the time coordinate in the case of the twins. >> >> It depends on the question. If you have a clock moving around on some >> path from event E1 to event E2, and you want to know the elapsed time >> on that clock, then you compute it like this: >> >> Elapsed time on the clock >> = Integral from t1 to t2 of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt >> >> where t1 is the time of E1, t2 is the time of t2, and >> where v is the velocity of the clock at time t. You can >> use any inertial coordinate system that is convenient >> to measure t1, t2 and v, and you'll get the same answer. >> >> The other kind of question is this: How old is one twin when the >> other twin's clock shows 200 seconds? >> >> That question is *not* a question about elapsed times on a single >> clock. You have to *also* answer questions about simultaneity. >> To answer the question, you need to know which events involving one >> twin are simultaneous with which events involving the other twin. >> To know whether two events are simultaneous, you have to pick >> a coordinate system. > > Thank you for your response. I'll repost it on sci.physics.relativity > in Uncle Ben's thread > > "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?" > > in order to stop crossposting to nz.general (nz.general members have > pretty much abandoned the thread and it's not that relevant to most of > them) Well, I was the one who asked you to post on nz.general and you haven't responded to my posts.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 20:06
"Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:R5TTn.40738$7d5.40128(a)newsfe17.iad... > On 22/06/10 05:55 , colp wrote: >> On Jun 21, 10:56 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> wrote: >>> colp says... >>> >>>> O.K. What remains from my previous post is the question of how you get >>> >from the original premises of SR to a determination on when you should >>>> apply the transformation for a single clock, and when you should apply >>>> the transformation for the time coordinate in the case of the twins. >>> >>> It depends on the question. If you have a clock moving around on some >>> path from event E1 to event E2, and you want to know the elapsed time >>> on that clock, then you compute it like this: >>> >>> Elapsed time on the clock >>> = Integral from t1 to t2 of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt >>> >>> where t1 is the time of E1, t2 is the time of t2, and >>> where v is the velocity of the clock at time t. You can >>> use any inertial coordinate system that is convenient >>> to measure t1, t2 and v, and you'll get the same answer. >>> >>> The other kind of question is this: How old is one twin when the >>> other twin's clock shows 200 seconds? >>> >>> That question is *not* a question about elapsed times on a single >>> clock. You have to *also* answer questions about simultaneity. >>> To answer the question, you need to know which events involving one >>> twin are simultaneous with which events involving the other twin. >>> To know whether two events are simultaneous, you have to pick >>> a coordinate system. >> >> Thank you for your response. I'll repost it on sci.physics.relativity >> in Uncle Ben's thread >> >> "colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?" >> >> in order to stop crossposting to nz.general (nz.general members have >> pretty much abandoned the thread and it's not that relevant to most of >> them) > > Well, I was the one who asked you to post on nz.general and you haven't > responded to my posts. Why would you ask him to post his lack=of=understanding of physics on a general nz newsgroup anyway ??? |