The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jeckyl on 21 Dec 2007 07:03 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:90bd5f23-519a-4046-ab9f-9c16550f7195(a)n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >Student's of physical phenomena don't typically distingush >themselves in spelling or typing skills so great latitude >is normally offered in these areas. > >Go post to some right-wing blog 'till you sober up. And yet again .. more nonsense from Sue .. she just doesn't have the ability to discuss relativity rationally. Doesn't even understand the twins paradox ... no even what is meant by a paradox .. and has the gall to comment on it. Pathetic.
From: Bryan Olson on 21 Dec 2007 07:13 Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: > [Sue wrote] >>> That is your *belief*. >>> If you read the whole webpage, you *belief* may change. >> I had done that much, but reading Daryl's response, I see >> I had misread that bit. It means sensible as in detectable >> by sensors, not as in making sense. > > You have a URL to Einstein's lecture (~page8) You can > decide for youself if Daryl gives a fair interpretation > of Einstein's view of Mach's principle. Daryl posted good stuff here, and I've become convinced of f Einstein's theory despite my former disbelief. Sue, if you want to off about tangential issues, I suggest you first issue all those retractions you owe for the what you falsely contradicted already. > If you are selling Newton's inertial ether you might > say the inertial ather is "affected". Any pitch for "Newton's inertial ether" in our discussions is all your own. > Daryly, Jeckly, Bz, Paparios have taken a position > suggesting violations of PoR and other effects that > can only occur in the inertial ether of Newton > which was undeteced by MMX and undetetected to date. You tell not the truth. Jeckyl concluded that you are a liar, and though I understand his anger at you making up a wrong position for him after he so carefully explained how things are, I give you the benefit of the doubt; I suspect you are honestly self-deluded. > I have taken Einstein's position using his own > words and the two most widely accpeted experiments > supportive of his theory. No Sue, that's not how it is in this thread. Einstein held that the twin paradox is a consequence of relativity. You had it as the "twins myth". [...] > "ALL inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of *ALL* physical experiments. " > [spatially and *temporally* as mathpages points out] > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html So retract all that nonsense you wrote about how we need to consider a bunch of different clock types, and even specific biological mechanisms. *All* temporal phenomena are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. Once again your references agrees with me and contradicts yourself. > Citing what you were taught in a class carries no weight > in science. Hey, I referenced university curricula just because you did, and I checked out the ones you chose to cite. I showed the very schools you named teach as science what you called myth. If you did not think what MIT teaches to be relevant, maybe *you* should not have brought it up. -- --Bryan
From: Sue... on 21 Dec 2007 07:50 On Dec 21, 7:13 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: [...] > > So retract all that nonsense you wrote about how we need > to consider a bunch of different clock types, and even > specific biological mechanisms. *All* temporal phenomena > are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. Once > again your references agrees with me and contradicts > yourself. Newton's ether is required to compute any effect. 0 = 0 I only stated that a light_clock could detect motion if it included a path through the dielectric of free space. (Doppler effect) Einstein says the same in his 1920 paper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html That is not an inertial effect because light is massless and it is not a violation of PoR as Fitzpartick explains: <<...where and are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle these experiments must yield the same values for and in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html > > > Citing what you were taught in a class carries no weight > > in science. > > Hey, I referenced university curricula just because you > did, and I checked out the ones you chose to cite. I showed > the very schools you named teach as science what you called > myth. If you did not think what MIT teaches to be relevant, > maybe *you* should not have brought it up. There is plenty of old teaching material still using the *twins paradox* and even Newton's corpuscular light. You might inquire directly of the institutions why Fitzpatrick's course differs from Guth's material with regard to the twin's paradox. Fitz's stuff is subject to intense peer review because is it used both in-class and online at the graduate and undergraduate level by aspiring atrophysicits, plasma physicists and health-care workers etc. etc. It is no basketweaving course if you didn't notice from the rigour and detail in the derivations. Your question re: MIT vs. UTexas is also worth posting to sci.physics.research where a few *real* physics professors post and the drunkards and spammers will be squelched by the moderators. Sue... > > -- > --Bryan
From: Jeckyl on 21 Dec 2007 08:17 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:680bda49-7c35-45d6-a854-72f3d70fbb3b(a)y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >On Dec 21, 7:13 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: >[...] >> >> So retract all that nonsense you wrote about how we need >> to consider a bunch of different clock types, and even >> specific biological mechanisms. *All* temporal phenomena >> are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. Once >> again your references agrees with me and contradicts >> yourself. > >Newton's ether is required to compute any effect. > > 0 = 0 What a load of old rubbish > I only stated that a light_clock could detect motion You said the twins paradox effect did not happen and contradicits PoR. [snip ireelvance] > There is plenty of old teaching material still using the > *twins paradox* and even Newton's corpuscular light. What a load of old codswallop. Twins paradox is still taught because IT IS STILL VALID. [snip more waffling irrelevance by Sue trying to distract from her blatant errors and lies]
From: Bryan Olson on 24 Dec 2007 06:02
Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: > [...] >> So retract all that nonsense you wrote about how we need >> to consider a bunch of different clock types, and even >> specific biological mechanisms. *All* temporal phenomena >> are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. Once >> again your references agrees with me and contradicts >> yourself. > > Newton's ether is required to compute any effect. > > 0 = 0 > > I only stated that a light_clock could detect motion > if it included a path through the dielectric of free space. The reference you offered for you light clock did not say anything about such a thing. http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html And no, Sue, you did not only state that much. You were on about a bunch of different kinds of clocks. > (Doppler effect) Einstein says the same in his 1920 paper. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html Once again Sue's links do not say what she says implies they do. > That is not an inertial effect because light is massless and > it is not a violation of PoR as Fitzpartick explains: > > <<...where and are physical constants which can be > evaluated by performing two simple experiments which > involve measuring the force of attraction between two > fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle these > experiments must yield the same values for and in > all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must > be the same in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html So none of those can detect inertial motion of the experiment. Now where does he say that your mechanism can? >>> Citing what you were taught in a class carries no weight >>> in science. >> Hey, I referenced university curricula just because you >> did, and I checked out the ones you chose to cite. I showed >> the very schools you named teach as science what you called >> myth. If you did not think what MIT teaches to be relevant, >> maybe *you* should not have brought it up. > > There is plenty of old teaching material still using the > *twins paradox* and even Newton's corpuscular light. The quiz was from 2005. There's some more recent material too, but the quiz was a good example because it came with the answers. > You might inquire directly of the institutions why > Fitzpatrick's course differs from Guth's material with > regard to the twin's paradox. I found that already. Where Fitzpatrick teaches, it's covered in a different course. > Fitz's stuff is subject > to intense peer review because is it used both [...] One thing Fitzpatrick's stuff does not do, at least as far as you've been able to cite here, is side with your "twins myth" position. -- --Bryan |