Prev: Sci.physics.research (:-)!!!
Next: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6%
From: BURT on 24 May 2010 13:18
On May 23, 10:37 pm, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of
> light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the
> movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side
> after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth.

If they both play slow then they will have aged the same.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Sue... on 24 May 2010 16:24
On May 24, 1:37 am, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of
> light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the
> movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side
> after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth.

They didn't have videos in 1905. :-))

<<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special
relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that,
no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based
on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption
of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
by the twins paradox. >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Sue...


From: PD on 24 May 2010 16:27
On May 24, 3:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 24, 1:37 am, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of
> > light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the
> > movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side
> > after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth.
>
> They didn't have videos in 1905.  :-))

They didn't have rockets that could leave earth orbit in 1905 either.

This must mean that the laws of physics have changed enormously in the
last 105 years.

>
> <<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special
> relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that,
> no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based
> on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption
> of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
> by the twins paradox. >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> Sue...

From: Sue... on 24 May 2010 16:47
On May 24, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 3:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 1:37 am, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of
> > > light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the
> > > movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side
> > > after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth.
>
> > They didn't have videos in 1905.  :-))
>
> They didn't have rockets that could leave earth orbit in 1905 either.
>
> This must mean that the laws of physics have changed enormously in the
> last 105 years.


Perhaps they have. Let's see:

<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

[1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
an imaginary magnitude

sqrt(-1)

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as
the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

>
> > <<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special
> > relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that,
> > no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based
> > on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption
> > of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
> > by the twins paradox. >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
> > Sue...
>
>

I leave research of the exact dates as an exercise
for readers that are intimidated by generalised Maxwell's equations.

Sue...



From: PD on 24 May 2010 16:53
On May 24, 3:47 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 3:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 1:37 am, spammer <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If we make a videos of both twins one rocket away (with some speed of
> > > > light) into space and the other stayed on earth and then how would the
> > > > movies (motion) of both twins be best explained if played side by side
> > > > after? One camera is on board the rocket and the other is on earth.
>
> > > They didn't have videos in 1905.  :-))
>
> > They didn't have rockets that could leave earth orbit in 1905 either.
>
> > This must mean that the laws of physics have changed enormously in the
> > last 105 years.
>
> Perhaps they have. Let's see:
>
> << Einstein's relativity principle states that:
>
>      All inertial frames are totally equivalent
>      for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
> same form in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
> theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
> properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
> three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
> In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
> however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
> an imaginary magnitude
>
>    sqrt(-1)
>
> ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
> natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
> theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
> the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as
> the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
> can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
> which involve measuring the force of attraction between
> two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
> wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
> must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
> same in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
>
>
> > > <<...one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special
> > > relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that,
> > > no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based
> > > on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption
> > > of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
> > > by the twins paradox. >>
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
>
>
>
> > > Sue...
>
> I leave research of the exact dates as an exercise
> for readers that are intimidated by generalised Maxwell's equations.
>
> Sue...

I was talking about the laws of nature as nature obeys them, not the
laws of physics as written down by humans trying to figure them out.

Idiot.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Sci.physics.research (:-)!!!
Next: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6%