colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: colp on 20 Jun 2010 23:41 On Jun 20, 5:57 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is > younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet explained to > you why, in SR, it is not absurd. They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are both true. > > Consider two trains passing in opposite directions.. I am in one > train and you are in the other. I say I am stationary and you are > moving; you say you are stationary and I am moving. > > We go to a seance and the medium let's us ask the ghost of Galileo > who is right? Galileo says, "motion is relative!" We agree then that > we are both right, each relative to his own rest frame of reference. > > Consider now the first phase of the symmetric twin puzzle: each twin > calculates from SR that the other is aging slower than himself. > Absurd? No, each is correct relative to his own rest frame. Einstein > discovered that time is relative! > > You don't want to believe that time is relative, because you have no > experience moving at even 0.001 c, but people have measured the > effect, and Einstein was right. I'm not disputing that SR effects are real - any physicist that works with particle accelerators will tell you as much. What I am disputing is that the theoretical underpinning of SR are true, as evidenced by the symmetric twin paradox.
From: Daryl McCullough on 21 Jun 2010 00:00 colp says... > >On Jun 20, 5:57=A0pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is >> younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet explained to >> you why, in SR, it is not absurd. > >They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is >actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are both >true. SR only makes one prediction: in the symmetric case, the twins are the same age when they reunite. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 00:30 On Jun 20, 11:41 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 20, 5:57 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is > > younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet explained to > > you why, in SR, it is not absurd. > > They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is > actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are both > true. > > > > > > > Consider two trains passing in opposite directions.. I am in one > > train and you are in the other. I say I am stationary and you are > > moving; you say you are stationary and I am moving. > > > We go to a seance and the medium let's us ask the ghost of Galileo > > who is right? Galileo says, "motion is relative!" We agree then that > > we are both right, each relative to his own rest frame of reference. > > > Consider now the first phase of the symmetric twin puzzle: each twin > > calculates from SR that the other is aging slower than himself. > > Absurd? No, each is correct relative to his own rest frame. Einstein > > discovered that time is relative! > > > You don't want to believe that time is relative, because you have no > > experience moving at even 0.001 c, but people have measured the > > effect, and Einstein was right. > ================ > I'm not disputing that SR effects are real - any physicist that works > with particle accelerators will tell you as much. Do you have the name for any of these talkative physicists that has viewed an accelerator while riding on the particle that it accelerated? I'd like to ask if they have ridden anything else exciting like rodeo animals or racing aeroplanes? Sue... What I am disputing > is that the theoretical underpinning of SR are true, as evidenced by > the symmetric twin paradox.
From: Uncle Ben on 21 Jun 2010 01:30 On Jun 21, 12:30 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 11:41 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 5:57 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is > > > younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet explained to > > > you why, in SR, it is not absurd. > > > They haven't explained the symmetric twin paradox because it is > > actually absurd to thing that two contradictory predictions are both > > true. They are not contradictory in the symmetric case. McCullough shows you that in the other thread. > > > > Consider two trains passing in opposite directions.. I am in one > > > train and you are in the other. I say I am stationary and you are > > > moving; you say you are stationary and I am moving. > > > > We go to a seance and the medium let's us ask the ghost of Galileo > > > who is right? Galileo says, "motion is relative!" We agree then that > > > we are both right, each relative to his own rest frame of reference. > > > > Consider now the first phase of the symmetric twin puzzle: each twin > > > calculates from SR that the other is aging slower than himself. > > > Absurd? No, each is correct relative to his own rest frame. Einstein > > > discovered that time is relative! > > > > You don't want to believe that time is relative, because you have no > > > experience moving at even 0.001 c, but people have measured the > > > effect, and Einstein was right. > > ================ > > > I'm not disputing that SR effects are real - any physicist that works > > with particle accelerators will tell you as much. > > Do you have the name for any of these talkative > physicists that has viewed an accelerator while riding > on the particle that it accelerated? I'd like > to ask if they have ridden anything else exciting > like rodeo animals or racing aeroplanes? > > Sue... > > What I am disputing > > > is that the theoretical underpinning of SR are true, as evidenced by > > the symmetric twin paradox.- Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - If you read about Hafle and Keating, you saw that they rode jet planes. The time dilatations were of the order of tens and hundreds of nanoseconds and agreed with SR in magnitude. UB
From: Hayek on 21 Jun 2010 05:51
Uncle Ben wrote: > colp, you complain that SR implies a contradiction: each twin is > younger than the other, which is absurd. No one has yet explained to > you why, in SR, it is not absurd. > > Consider two trains passing in opposite directions.. I am in one > train and you are in the other. I say I am stationary and you are > moving; you say you are stationary and I am moving. > > We go to a seance and the medium let's us ask the ghost of Galileo > who is right? Galileo says, "motion is relative!" We agree then that > we are both right, each relative to his own rest frame of reference. > > Consider now the first phase of the symmetric twin puzzle: each twin > calculates from SR that the other is aging slower than himself. > Absurd? No, each is correct relative to his own rest frame. Einstein > discovered that time is relative! > > You don't want to believe that time is relative, because you have no > experience moving at even 0.001 c, but people have measured the > effect, and Einstein was right. > > Uncle Ben It was not so much that one moving frame moved "relative" to the other, it was that everything in a frame is relative to the frame. The laws of physics remain the same for every non-accelerating frame, also the physics pertaining electromagnetism such as light waves. Relativity to the local frame of all the laws of physics, was the intention was, imnsho. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. |