View Single Post
  #1  
Old May 31st 11, 11:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Simple question about SR paradox

On May 31, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Da Do Ron Ron says...


Nobody can make the claim
that acceleration causes clocks to tick slower


Wrong! There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries whose choice of
resolution to the twins’ paradox is the breaking of the symmetry.
shrug

(since
none of the clocks in the triplet paradox accelerate).


Wrong, again! shrug

But one can (and does) make the claim that an accelerated
*path* connecting two events will have a different elapsed
time than an inertial path connecting the same two events.


Show Him the math then. shrug

In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the *shortest*
path connecting two spatial points. In SR, an inertial path
is the *longest* path (measured in terms of elapsed time)
connecting two spacetime points.


Where did you get this garbage from? shrug

These is no such mysticism about the shortest local path, and it is
not the same as the path with the least amount of accumulated time.
shrug

1. Spacetime paths are mere math, having no physical
existence, and the same goes for spacetime itself.


Would you say that Space is mere math, having no
physical existence, and that therefore we need
a physical explanation for why a straight line
connecting two points is shorter than a curved
line connecting the same two points?


This is irrelevant. shaking His head

2. There is no need to bring in any outside observers
and their observations of “space-time paths”;


I didn't say anything about "observers". A spacetime
path is independent of any observer.


That is correct. However, in the GR math is interpreted otherwise by
the self-styled physicists for more than 100 years. In this ****ed-up
interpretation, the segment of spacetime is dependent on observers.
An observer can now play god. shrug

Oh, if not interpreted this way, GR has no hope, and it belongs in the
garbage can. shrug

all that matters is that people in different frames age
differently.


Ron is correct. shrug

All frames are equivalent, as far as the laws of physics
are concerned, so that's not a very good explanation.


Stop being a hypocrite. In SR, you do have very special frame of
references called inertial frames. shrug

3. And even if I give you the luxury of being meaningful
here, you still have to explain why "different spacetime
paths" can make people in different inertial frames age
differently. (Grandpa versus teenager, born at same time)


Do you understand how there can be two different highways
connecting New York City and Chicago, and they could have
different lengths?


Of course. Is the author of having doubt? shrug

The parameter that is meaningful for aging is not coordinate
time,


The coordinate time (or observed time) and the local time (elapsed
time) are related by a factor of something. In the Lorentz transform,
it is sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2). shrug

but elapsed time along a path,


shaking His head

which is path-dependent in the same way that the length
of a highway is dependent on which highway you take.


More ignorant and meaningless nonsense. shrug