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: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 20:23 well, I kinda got bogged in that, but it looked OK, to begin with. perhaps, it'd be simpler than either that or the "symmetrical" version, just to have A go to the other place "relativistically," and then to have B follow him at any time, later, at the same speed. it seems that Kooblee and Androcles beleive that nothing changes, at all, at light speed, even if it is the ultimate speed. (or, they think that photons are rocks o'light with no mass nor momentum .-) of course, there is nothing unusual about the "symmetric twins, " and there was ne'er any paradox; even less than with Russell's illiterate, tenseless ones -- I'm just sayin', all Cretins are liars; me, three! > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > > "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose > > solution can not be found > > within the currently accepted provinces of the STR thus&so: doc Atlas, there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no phenomenon, including sub-atomic angular momenta, that"goes" faster than light. see, it was only a "twin paradox" til explained via Einstein et al's extension of Galilean relativity -- a strawman, really. are you going to argue Ole Roemner's dyscovery of the "retardation" of light, way back, when ever? your proposed "balancing" is almost cute, but iff they accelerate at the same average rate, there clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so, you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment" of no account. just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and you won't have to think too hard about it. > Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin > coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non- > zero speed. It should be very easy. In fact, intelligent ones would > not even attempt to because the mutual time dilation can be built up > fact depending on the time of coasting (with no acceleration > applied). --Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall Street, the City of London and George Soros et al ad vomitorium! http://larouchepub.com --Fermat's next theorem! http://wlym.com
From: Transfer Principle on 16 Jun 2010 21:16 On Jun 16, 12:21 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > In the symmetric twin paradox both twins leave Earth, > > setting out in opposite directions and returning to Earth at the same > > time. > Thanks, yours truly has brought this up earlier. <shrug> I usually don't post in these anti-Einstein threads, especially as they are crossposted to sci.math as well as the physics newsgroups. Still, I admit that I've once thought about this "symmetric twin paradox." I also once asked myself that if the universe is closed, the twins travelling in opposite directions might end up meeting at the other side of the universe -- then which twin would be older? (But then I always waved this off by saying, therefore, the universe _isn't_ closed...) Note that my posting in this thread does _not_ mean that I necessarily oppose Einstein, any more than my posting in one of AP's Atom Totality threads means that I am necessarily an Atom Totalitarian.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Jun 2010 21:19 GPS will function without any GR effect applied if indeed exists. You can google the previous few posts by yours truly to understand how GPS works. <shrug> ________________________________ That's funny. Are you claiming that the GPS system does NOT compensate for relativistic effects, and that the builders and designers of the system are lying about the mathematics they use?
From: Peter Webb on 16 Jun 2010 21:25 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:274f0c41-1ea7-486d-9e87-ab3a2e5b1ff3(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Jun 16, 10:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote: > On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that > > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical > > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug> > > Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic > clocks, say.. No experiments can support the existence of a paradox. In fact, there are not a single experiment that shows so. <shrug> ______________________________ Its not a "paradox" in the sense that it predicts conflicting outcomes, its just a non-intuitive result, which merely seems paradoxical to people with little or no knowledge of physics (such as your good self). When you understand it, there is nothing paradoxical about it at all. And relativistic time dilation is experimentally tested every day in countless laboratories around the world, and they all quite clearly demonstrate it happens. Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur? No? Thought so.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 22:10
On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does > not occur? The symmetric twin thought experiment (as described in the OP) is such an experiment. In the experiment SR predicts that the twins will both be younger than each other when they return to Earth, which is of course impossible. For the paradox to be resolved, each twin must observe the same amount of time compression of the other as time dilation, since the symmetry of the experiment demands that both twins are the same age when they return to Earth. Some solutions proposed by the relativists are: 1. Only consider one frame of reference, since SR fails when moving between inertial frames. 2. Ignore the paradox. Draw some timelines and say that everything is O.K. 3. Claim that the time dilation will be compensated for by acceleration, even though there is no experimental support for time compression arising from acceleration. 4. Feet stamping and name calling. |