The Symmetric Twin Paradox [Physics]

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: Koobee Wublee on 18 Jun 2010 18:05

On Jun 18, 8:27 am, Tom Roberts 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. Instead
> they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run slow" -- SR
> does NOT say that; 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.

You are confusing interpretations with math again. You can interpret
(thus more hand-waving) whatever you want, but at the end of the day,
the math of the Lorentz transform undeniably shows the twins
paradox. <shrug>

> In particular, the
> METHOD of comparing the clocks is important.
>
> Note that using this method the turn-around is important, and what
> happens during each twin's turn-around resolves the inconsistency
> you think is present -- a correct analysis shows no inconsistency..

The turn-around can be nullified if these two traveling twins have the
same acceleration profile. <shrug>

> If either you or the authors of that paper had actually bothered to use SR in
> the analysis, you would find the two twins return with identical ages. But the
> comic-book you and they used gets it wrong.

Like any typical post of yours, you have criticized the usage of
mathematics but yet offered no mathematics to refute so but only with
more word salad. <shrug>

You are discussing physics using philosophy as always. <shrug>

From: Koobee Wublee on 18 Jun 2010 18:17

On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> 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,

These two statements contradict each other. You are saying the twins
paradox is already and is not yet resolved by experiment(s) at the
same time. Correct me if I am wrong. That is not a good way of
confirming a theory by claiming that theory can predict just about
anything possible even if the results contradict each other. <shrug>

> but can be considered as a straightforward
> extension of the usual one.

So, brushing it under the carpet again. <hand-waving>

> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various
> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Not. <shrug>

> In particular, there are several experiments that DIRECTLY implement the "twin
> paradox", and which confirm the prediction of SR.
>
> The experiment by Bailey et al is a particularly appropriate one.

Notice you are using word implement instead of prove and putting
the twins paradox in quote to attempt to raise more mysticism.
<shrug>

> It is true that the meaning of "mass" has evolved
> since 1905, and now means an invariant quantity intrinsic to objects [#]. But
> the basic theory known as SR is the same as Einstein presented in 1905 -- only
> the vocabulary and mode of presentation is different.
>
> [#] This is the most straightforward updating of the meaning of
> "mass" from Newtonian mechanics to SR; "relativistic mass" was not.
> That's basically why "relativistic mass" is now an anachronism.

More word salad in which you cannot prove your point with simple math
as usual. <shrug>

> Before attempting to criticize SR, you need to learn what the theory ACTUALLY IS.

Your own interpretations of the bible is always more correct than
someone elses. <shrug>

From: Peter Webb on 18 Jun 2010 21:16

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2a227db-259a-41ab-9999-1baecf366c6e(a)u20g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> 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,

These two statements contradict each other. You are saying the twins�
paradox is already and is not yet resolved by experiment(s) at the
same time. Correct me if I am wrong.

________________________________
You are wrong. The Twins paradox has been tested by experiments on numerous
occassions. In fact, you have been provided with the experimental evidence,
and in a previous post you have agreed that moving objects experience time
dilation exactly as predicted by SR.

So given that you agree that the time dilation is real - and you agree it
has been confirmed by numerous experiments - what is your problem, exactly?

Are there *any* experimental predictions of SR that you believe to be wrong?
What are they?

From: Koobee Wublee on 19 Jun 2010 03:29

On Jun 18, 5:55 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> colp says...

> >The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will be younger than
> >the other at the completion of the experiment.
>
> No, it doesn't. The prediction of relativity is that
> for a clock traveling at speed v for a time t, the
> elapsed time on that clock is given by:
>
> T = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) t

Wrong! The correct equation is

** dT = dt / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Where

** v = the speed of t relative to T or vice versa

As an example, if

** v^2 / c^2 == 3/4,

then

** dT = dt / 0.5

If time has elapsed by 0.5 sec in t frame, it has elapsed by 1 sec.
Thus, the t frame is observed to be slower by the T frame.

Similarly due to the symmetry of the Lorentz transform which satisfies
the principle of relativity, the following is also true.

** dt = dT / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

In doing so, the T frame is observed also to be slower by the t frame.

Thus, the is the nature of the twins' paradox. Calling it gedanken
and brush it under the rug is not dong science.

It is interesting to witness the desperate attempts by these two men
to nullify the deadly nature of the twins' paradox to SR.

** Mr. McCullough chooses to blindly throwing mathematics around and
hopes it would work.

** Professor Roberts knows it is hopeless in the mathematics to
support SR. In doing so, he is looking for specialty words to add to
his piles of word salad in hoping the mysticism will continue to
proliferate.

Both approaches are not scientific in nature. Both approaches are
just plainly stupid and embracing mysticism. <shrug>

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...