The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Math]
|
Prev: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
Next: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty
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: 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 |