Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 19:30
On Jun 17, 5:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote:
> On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on
> > > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and
> > > deaccelerates).
>
> > Let me chime in.  There have been no experiments showing that
> > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation.  So, the classical
> > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar is totally bullshit in the first place.  <shrug>
>
> Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic
> clocks, say..
> The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving
> at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's
> theory.

References?
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:33
On Jun 16, 9:45 am, Mike_Fontenot <mlf...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> Here's another way to word it...maybe it'll be clearer to some readers.

I doubt it. The self-styled physicists cannot understand the basic
mathematics. <shrug>

> It helps, in distinguishing between the two twins, to identify twin A
> as a "he", and twin B as a "she":
>
> Twin A will conclude that twin B ages slowly on his (twin A's) outbound
> leg, then she ages quickly during his (twin A's) turnaround, and then
> she ages slowly on his (twin A's) inbound leg. When twin A adds up
> those THREE components of twin B's ageing, he (twin A) will get the same
> total ageing for twin B as his (twin A's) own total ageing.
>
> And twin B will conclude the same thing about twin A's THREE components
> of ageing.
>
> So they each will conclude (as they obviously must, because of the
> symmetry) that they are both the same age when they are reunited.

In addition, the self-styled physicists cannot understand logics.
<shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:38
On Jun 16, 5:56 am, Dave Doe <h...(a)work.ok> wrote:
> koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com says...

> > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that
> > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical
> > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug>
>
> Don't be silly! - this is routinely proven - and used everyday in the
> GPS system...

You are confusing gravitation as acceleration. Remember that in GR,
there is no such thing as acceleration but curvature of spacetime.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

This one-way trip does not prove the symmetry. In fact, it supports
Larmor’s transform not the Lorentz transform. The link below will
help you understand the differences are.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Special_and_general_relativity

GPS will function without any GR effect applied if indeed exists. You
can google the previous few posts by yours truly to understand how GPS
works. <shrug>


From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:49
On Jun 16, 10:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote:
> On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that
> > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical
> > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug>
>
> Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic
> clocks, say..

No experiments can support the existence of a paradox. In fact, there
are not a single experiment that shows so. <shrug>

> The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving
> at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's
> theory.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit came up
with nothing original and innovative.

Under Larmor’s transform, it manifests no twins’ paradox. Only under
Poincare’s work now called the Lorentz transform that it does. Below
is a link explaining the differences.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en

> > That is true. Not to mention that twins with the same acceleration
> > profile can also coast away without any acceleration for some random
> > time. This will enter into the time dilation in which there is
> > absolutely no mathematical remedy or resolution for that one. <shrug>
>
> > Don't expect the self-styled physicists to understand that one. They
> > are indeed morons who cannot even understand or comprehend the most
> > basic of logics. <shrug>
>
> In order to level out the effects of the intermediate period of
> acceleration
> each twin will be better off, calculation-wise, to resort to some
> inertial
> system. Why not the point they started from and meet again?

Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin
coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non-
zero speed. It should be very easy. In fact, intelligent ones would
not even attempt to because the mutual time dilation can be built up
fact depending on the time of coasting (with no acceleration
applied). <shrug>


From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 20:13
doc Atlas, there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no
phenomenon,
including sub-atomic angular momenta, that"goes" faster than light.
see,
it was only a "twin paradox" til explained via Einstein et al's
extension
of Galilean relativity -- a strawman, really.

are you going to argue Ole Roemner's dyscovery of the "retardation"
of light, way back, when ever?

your proposed "balancing" is almost cute, but
iff they accelerate at the same average rate,
there clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so,
you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment" of no account.

just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and
you won't have to think too hard about it.

> Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin
> coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non-
> zero speed.  It should be very easy.  In fact, intelligent ones would
> not even attempt to because the mutual time dilation can be built up
> fact depending on the time of coasting (with no acceleration
> applied).

--Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall
Street,
the City of London and George Soros et al ad vomitorium!

--Fermat's next theorem!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision