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: Androcles on 21 Jun 2010 18:26 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a62deaad-0ec7-4689-a0da-0a3a77c6dc9f(a)k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > k...(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. > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > discussion. > > > > snip > > > 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. > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > meanings of the words. > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > not the whole truths. > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > Furthermore, the are: > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > from another. > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > workings of the Natural universe. > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > true nature and workings of the universe. > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > truths. > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > theology > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > based. > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > ancient and modern theorists, > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > man cannot be true. > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > plausible. > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > D. Y. Kadoshima That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all. ================================================= Kadoshima doesn't have a monopoly on either evil or stupidity. Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? We establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. -- Einstein It does if A is at rest relative to B. If A and B move together in the empty space universal absolute inertial frame of reference stationary system of coordinates yada yada yada that is not preferred but the speed of light is c in that empty space, then the time of light one-way A to B is t = x'/(c-v) and from B to A is t = x'/(c+v). Stupid or a hoax? If Einstein wasn't a huxter then he was stupid, if he wasn't stupid he was a huxter. But Einstein goes on and claims 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v)) http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Having put his nonsense in the form of algebra he knowingly gave it fake credence; therefore he was not stupid, he was evil. His followers are stupid. It has nothing to do with philosophy, its a con. Kodashima is babbling.
From: kado on 22 Jun 2010 05:39 On Jun 21, 4:04 am, "sci.math" <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 2:43 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > k...(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. > > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > > discussion. > > > snip > > > > 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. > > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > > meanings of the words. > > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > > not the whole truths. > > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > > Furthermore, the are: > > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > > from another. > > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > > workings of the Natural universe. > > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > > true nature and workings of the universe. > > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > > truths. > > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > > theology > > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > > based. > > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > > ancient and modern theorists, > > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > > man cannot be true. > > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > > plausible. > > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > > D. Y. Kadoshima > > Dear D. Y. Kadoshim: > > If what you say is true then these two websites I have linked to are > twins: > > http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-...http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-... > > Because learning is symmetric, but why do my columns not line up > perfectly? snip > Who is keeping the knowledge out of place? Is it Google? > Just because mathematics is symmetrical, this does not equate to learning or knowledge, the software of computer programs, or time is symmetrical. D.Y.K.
From: kado on 24 Jun 2010 00:17 On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >snip > Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. > We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? > Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied? Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head. D.Y.K.
From: Michael Moroney on 24 Jun 2010 15:10 "kado(a)nventure.com" <kado(a)nventure.com> writes: >On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. >> We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? >> >Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied? >Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head. Never mind "Androcles" (John Parker), he's a senile old fart who has a (bad) obsession with Einstein, and he doesn't really understand relativity anyway. (space below is reserved for Parker to curse and cuss at me for pointing this out)
From: spudnik on 24 Jun 2010 18:32
you are only typing of a simple symmetry condition, that probably'd not violate Noether's theorem e.g. -- haven't done that math, either. now, it is quite obvious, in terms of Doppler shifts of the clock-signals (or what ever) of the two travelling Star Trek ephemera salesmen, what they'd perceive of the other's signals or clocks ... um, the signal could be a softcore movie with Jane Fonda, for purposes of slo-mo. of course, the same is true of signals & clocks and cheap GPS units from Southwest Asia -- or really expensive ones from Southeast Asia -- viz-a-vu smart stay-at-home twins, and dumb (fraternal) going-away at sublight twins. that is, "turnaround" makes no difference, at all, if the twins are accelerating symetrically (of course, doesn't have to be mirror-image or anything, as lont as their accelerations & decelerations are matched). > 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. thus&so: I forgot what a Lucas number is, though akin to Fibonaccis; a sum of the same-powered phi and 1/phi? > prime p, there are infinitely many > primes congruent to 1 mod p and the smallest one is no larger than > L(p) <= 1 + (phi^p), where > phi is the positive root of x^2 - x - 1 = 0. --Nationalize BP's USA ops in the Gulf, Alaska and ARCO! "Haiti did not have a single sewage treatment plant even before the earthquake. It has long been the victim of the globalization and free trade policies of London-centered financial predators." http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100222lar_haiti.html --le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt! http://wlym.com |