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: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 09:11

<kado(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.

of course. . That's the idea. You make predictions with the theory and THEN
you test them

> So was Einstein clairvoyant?

No .. he did physics

> Therefore I stand on my proposition that Einstein based SR and GR
> on gedankens, not empirical experiments.

No .. he based them on empircal results .. and then made predictions based
on it that could be further tested. That's good science.

> Hell, it's not hard to refute, and find where and when the Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not correlate to
> what really happens, whether during experiments or not.

Mainline science doesn't use classical Newtonian Mechanics .. except as an
approximation at relatively low speeds and similar gravitational potentials

> Mainline science has what Newton wrote and presented in Principia
> so screwed up that the applied scientists and engineers pay little
> heed to what is written the physics texts.
> They pay attention to, and study only the texts books of their
> particular fields of endeavor.
>
> This applies to both SR and GR, as well as Classical Newtonian
> Mechanics.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> I am not sure to which experiment you refer.
> If you are referring to the cosmic ray muon experiments, you do
> not seem to accept that it was these 'modern' experiment
> during the 1960s (not the original by Rossi and Hall in
> 1940-1941) that prompted relativists to come up with the idea of
> relativistic time dilation (i.e., dilated time) to replace Einstein's
> notion of time contraction.

Nonsense. It didn't change the theory at all. Just confirmed it. Einstein
had time DILATION (when measuring the ticking of a moving clock).. not
contraction. Where did you make up that nonsense?

[snip further nonsense .. read enough]

From: Tom Roberts on 19 Jun 2010 09:22

kado(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.

See the introductory material in the link I posted.

> Hell, it's not hard to refute, and find where and when the Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not correlate to
> what really happens, whether during experiments or not.
> Mainline science has what Newton wrote and presented in Principia
> so screwed up that the applied scientists and engineers pay little
> heed to what is written the physics texts.
> They pay attention to, and study only the texts books of their
> particular fields of endeavor.
>
> This applies to both SR and GR, as well as Classical Newtonian
> Mechanics.

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.

>> 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.
>>
> I am not sure to which experiment you refer.

So go to the link I gave and search for "Bailey". If you need to be spoon-fed
like this, you have A LOT of studying to do.

> If you are referring to the cosmic ray muon experiments,

I'm not. You need to READ what I wrote. The experiment by Bailey et al is
referenced in the section "Tests of the Twin Paradox". READ THEIR PAPER and
you'll see this is not cosmic rays....

> [... further nonsense and insults]

Tom Roberts

From: Peter Webb on 19 Jun 2010 21:51

<kado(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.

Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so
what is it? Or do you believe all predictions of SR are correct?

From: Koobee Wublee on 20 Jun 2010 00:54

On Jun 19, 6:11 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> colp wrote:

> > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more
> > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg.

One thumbs up.

> > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to
> > age more quickly.

Two thumbs up.

> > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at
> > the end of the experiment.

Applaud.

> All three of those are wrong.

Huh!

> You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says.

<shaking my head>

> That
> requires STUDY, not wasting your time posting nonsense to the net.

Self-styled physicists knows very little about the subjects in which
they are supposed to be experts in. <shrug>

Hint: You will become an Einstein Dingleberry if you continue to read
books smeared with fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. In another words, accepting books written
by Einstein Dingleberries will make you ever more mystified as if the
academics are not mystified enough. <shrug>

Truly unbelievable.

From: Koobee Wublee on 20 Jun 2010 02:02

On Jun 19, 5:07 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> My point is that the assertion that the twins show the same age is in
> contradiction with the fact that the twins have moved relative to each
> other. I cannot make it more simple than that

Your point is very well taken among the truly scholars of physics.
The simple logic is all in the yet also very simple mathematics of the
Lorentz transform. <shrug>

> The moving clock runs slow

According to SR, all moving frames have slower time flow relative to
an observer. Again, this is all in the Lorentz transform. <shrug>

> The stay at home twin ages faster means that all stay at home twins
> age faster than the all traveling twins that follow the exact same
> flight profile.

No, each twin should be observed to age slower according to the other
twin regardless of the stay at home twin or not. Noticing the
traveling twin has to accelerate away in the first place, Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar pulled out the nonsense that
acceleration breaks the symmetry. Well, as you have proposed earlier,
we can have the stay at home twin doing the traveling using the
acceleration profile as the traveling twin. In doing so, if there is
any effect of time dilation in would be nullify between these twins.
The result unmistakably, still shows the twin's paradox.

> oh maybe as AE said we have to give up common sense. And reason?

Einstein the nobody was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. It is
best not to listen to what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and this liar
has to say.

In his only book on relativity, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar was able to show two equations of the Lorentz transform
starting with two equations equating zero with zero. Any true
scholars would brush this aside as nonsense but not the Einstein
Dingleberries.

The same Einstein Dingleberry known as PD said the following

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ec9892eae720ee0e?hl=en