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 17 Jun 2010 10:27 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b2e29c7c-b43a-4ce4-bd04-b8082581f7c9(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 12:10 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I have pointed out SR is a mathematical mistake of Poincare based on a >> > more robust Aether-centric Larmor's original transform. Thus, SR will >> > not correctly predict ALL experimental results. >> >> OK, which experimental results are not correctly predicted by SR ? > > All. <shrug> > No, you already said that time dilation and the twins paradox *was* correctly predicted by SR. Changing your story every post ... crank.
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 10:30 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3448c5c1-c107-4587-97fc-f468a38181a7(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 12:08 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Sorry, I meant "without" instead of "with". You know it is a late >> > night thing in my time zone. <shrug and yawn> >> >> So your position is that the GPS system does NOT take into account >> Relativistic effects? > > My position is that the GPS can function with or without the effects > of GR. Claiming GR as an application of the GPS is a total lie. > <shrug> > So why won't you answer my question? According to you, did the designers of the GPS consider Relativistic effects in the design of the GPS or not?
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 10:36 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:a36bbc65-85c5-46dd-b6bd-6b2d388603bf(a)v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 17, 5:56 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > When > > this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger. > > In the symmetric paradox that I spoke of in my previous post, both > twins travel and they are the same age, despite the predictions of SR. > I'm not going to argue about the classic paradox because the paradox > is much easier to show in the symmetric case. > > ________________________________ > If the situation is that both twins travel, and this is symmetric, then SR > predicts that they will have aged the same amount when re-united into the > same inertial frame. Wrong. SR predicts that one twin will observe time dilation of the other both on the outgoing and incoming legs. In no case does SR predict that that a twin will observe any kind of time compression of the other twin that would be necessary to compensate for the theoretically observed time dilation. Without such compensation for the observed time dilation, SR predicts that a twin will be older than the twin he observes, which contradicts with logical result of the twins being the same age. ______________________________________ That simply is not how the equations go, or what they mean. If you have two twins blasting off with equalt velocity in opposite directions, both see the same thing - the other twin ages more slowly when they are separating, but more quickly when they are approaching, so that when they rejoin they are the same age. > If you do believe SR predicts anything different, then > you are wrong about the predictions of SR. If I am wrong and you understand SR then why are you unable to identify any error in my reasoning? ________________________________ THe time compression - as you put it - does occur when they are approaching each other. That is the error in your reasoning. > > Can you produce a single experiment which shows that SR is wrong? Yes, I have described the thought experiment that shows that SR is wrong, and you have been unable to show any flaws in my argument. The experiment is described in full at the following page: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N _______________________________ There are no logical flaws in SR in the sense of paradoxes or inconsistencies. It may be an incorrect theory, but that can only be determined by real experiments, not thought experiments.
From: Daryl McCullough on 17 Jun 2010 10:50 Transfer Principle says... >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...) No, a closed cylindrical universe is no more a problem for Special Relativity than the existence of cylinders is for Euclidean geometry. For a flat infinite sheet, all directions are equivalent, but if you wrap that paper into a cylinder, then there is suddenly a big difference between the direction around the circumference and the direction parallel to the axis. Similarly for a cylindrical universe in SR. For a flat infinite universe, all inertial frames are equivalent. But if you wrap the universe into a cylinder, there is a difference between the inertial frame of an observer traveling out the circumference and the inertial frame of an observer traveling parallel to the axis of the cylinder. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: eric gisse on 17 Jun 2010 11:50
Peter Webb wrote: [..] Would it kill you to use a newsreader that can properly quote? |