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: 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
From: train on 20 Jun 2010 06:09 On Jun 20, 9:54 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Well that may be true but not the "theory" - SR predicts that the there will be no paradox. In case of a paradox reword or rework the system until no paradox occurs. You can use mathematics, words or a combination. See the theory cannot be incorrect, otherwise it would not be a theory. For those who accept it. Those who do not accept it are er... outside the mainstream scientific community ... that the polite way they put it. T > 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: kado on 21 Jun 2010 03:00
On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <k...(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. > > > 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. > So in response to your statement (b): The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all it did was empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe effects of the Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of light. Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 arc-seconds of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' occurred well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out that the mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le Verrier did not agree with the so called actuals. AFAK, no one ever ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true values demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the 'planet' Pluto had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like Halley in predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his name, Le Verrier could not have calculated in all the very small perturbations of even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the orbits of the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations of the center of mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that everyone concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the effect, not the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not in the context of SR. > Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so > what is it? YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass increase tenet of SR. There are a lot more, but other than the idea of time symmetry, these have not been addressed as much as the subject of relativist mass. (i.e., there is no current need to get all the relativists further all bent out of shape on this thread.) So in response to (a): You are just like a lot of other relativists on this newsgroup. A relativist responds to an OP. Another relativist responds to the same OP with a statement that is contradictory to that of the first relativist. So anyone that responds to either relativist must by its very nature, be wrong in the eyes of the other relativist. So grow up, I stand by my position that SR and GR were conceived from gedankens, and your argument is with your fellow relativist Tom Roberts, not me D.Y.K. |