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 16 Jun 2010 03:21 On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and > deaccelerates). 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> > 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> > The conventional explanation for the classic twin paradox is > since only one twin accelerates, the ages of the twins will be > different. In the symmetric case this argument cannot be applied. That is true. Not to mention that twins with the same acceleration profile can also coast away without any acceleration for some random time. This will enter into the time dilation in which there is absolutely no mathematical remedy or resolution for that one. <shrug> > The paradox of the symmetric twins is that according to special > relativity (SR) each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly > both on the outgoing leg > and the return leg, so SR paradoxically predicts that each twin will > be younger than > the other when they return to Earth. Don't expect the self-styled physicists to understand that one. They are indeed morons who cannot even understand or comprehend the most basic of logics. <shrug> > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully in the following > paper: > > 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 if one adopts the > currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible > for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion." I wonder how many times this has come up in the past 100 years. Each time, it would be left under the rug. Some would call that science, but true scholars of physics would call that fraudulent. <shrug> <sigh> It helps the scientific approach if the self-styled physicists possess any intelligence to comprehend the most basic of logics. <shrug> Oh, some Einstein Dingleberries have already hypnotized themselves into believing that SR does not matter, but GR will come to rescue as that knight in white armor. That is another chapter of discussions. Anyhow, these are a bunch of delusional nincompoops who worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god, and zealously gulping down servings after servings of fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> Tragic in the academic world if you ask me. <shrug>
From: Dave Doe on 16 Jun 2010 08:56 In article <fff81c16-7451-420a-a943-fa07db675ae8 @h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com says... > > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on > > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and > > deaccelerates). > > 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> Don't be silly! - this is routinely proven - and used everyday in the GPS system... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Special_and_general_relativity -- Duncan.
From: hagman on 16 Jun 2010 13:12 On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on > > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and > > deaccelerates). > > 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.. The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's theory. > > 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> > > > The conventional explanation for the classic twin paradox is > > since only one twin accelerates, the ages of the twins will be > > different. In the symmetric case this argument cannot be applied. > > That is true. Not to mention that twins with the same acceleration > profile can also coast away without any acceleration for some random > time. This will enter into the time dilation in which there is > absolutely no mathematical remedy or resolution for that one. <shrug> > > > The paradox of the symmetric twins is that according to special > > relativity (SR) each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly > > both on the outgoing leg > > and the return leg, so SR paradoxically predicts that each twin will > > be younger than > > the other when they return to Earth. > > Don't expect the self-styled physicists to understand that one. They > are indeed morons who cannot even understand or comprehend the most > basic of logics. <shrug> In order to level out the effects of the intermediate period of acceleration each twin will be better off, calculation-wise, to resort to some inertial system. Why not the point they started from and meet again? > > > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully in the following > > paper: > > >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 if one adopts the > > currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible > > for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion." > > I wonder how many times this has come up in the past 100 years. Each > time, it would be left under the rug. Some would call that science, > but true scholars of physics would call that fraudulent. <shrug> > > <sigh> It helps the scientific approach if the self-styled physicists > possess any intelligence to comprehend the most basic of logics. > <shrug> > > Oh, some Einstein Dingleberries have already hypnotized themselves > into believing that SR does not matter, but GR will come to rescue as > that knight in white armor. That is another chapter of discussions. > Anyhow, these are a bunch of delusional nincompoops who worship > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god, and > zealously gulping down servings after servings of fermented diarrhea > of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug> > > Tragic in the academic world if you ask me. <shrug>
From: Androcles on 16 Jun 2010 13:18 "hagman" <google(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote in message news:cbe25fc1-05df-4c97-a27f-284d43188533(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on > > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and > > deaccelerates). > > 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.. The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's theory. =============================================== Handwaving bullshit. You are a LIAR.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 17:07
On Jun 17, 12:56 am, Dave Doe <h...(a)work.ok> wrote: > In article <fff81c16-7451-420a-a943-fa07db675ae8 > @h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on > > > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates and > > > deaccelerates). > > > 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> > > Don't be silly! - this is routinely proven - and used everyday in the > GPS system... In Einstein's paradigm an orbiting satellite does not accelerate - it travels in a straight line through curved space. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment The Hafele-Keating experiment considers inertial frames and the effect of different gravitational potentials, not acceleration. |