Dingle and the Twins' Paradox (Tom and Paul Andersen are wrong)

**** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
above two transforms can be simplified into the following.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** B12 = - B21

Except for PD, anyone else disagree? shrug

Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. Does anyone disagree? And
why? shrug

**** Derivation 1: The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
years.

Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** d[s22] = 0
** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
paradox in the Lorentz transform.

**** Derivation 2:

Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

**** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
accordance with the Euclidean geometry?

** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
valid.

** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
manifests the twins’ paradox.

shrug

I use constructive or synthetic spatial geometry,
with not necessarily any calculations.

only two observer-observees are needed,
that is to say a pair of age-corelated "twins"
of sufficiently similar metabolism,
to compare with the alleged dilation effects
that are apparently related to Doppler-Fizeau shifts
between them, per any accelerations.

stand back from the quadratic equations and
*qualify* your argument with a nice picture, please.

perhaps it is the case, as you note, that
the gedankenspiel does not consider the relatavistical
effects upon the "rods & cones" of the eye,
which are really "log-spiral antennae."

scholars of physics say that derivation 1 is garbage, that
it reflects a lack of understanding of Euclidean geometry
among self-styled physicists.

On Feb 14, 3:51*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
**** *Introduction: *So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

**** *Background: *To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). *Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. *Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) *dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) *dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) *dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) *dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** *[s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** *[B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** *[] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
above two transforms can be simplified into the following.

1) *dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) *dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) *dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) *dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** *B12 = - B21

Except for PD, anyone else disagree? *shrug

Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. *Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. *Does anyone disagree? *And
why? *shrug

**** *Derivation 1: *The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
years.

Step 1: *Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: *Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) *dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) *dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) *dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) *dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** *d[s22] = 0
** *d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
paradox in the Lorentz transform.

**** *Derivation 2:

Step 1: *Discard equations 2) and 3).

1) *dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) *dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Step 2: *Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.

1) *dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) *dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) *dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) *dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

**** *Discussion: *Which derivation is valid according to the
applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
accordance with the Euclidean geometry?

** *Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
valid.

** *Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
derivation 1 is garbage. *It reflects lack of understanding in the
Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. *Thus, derivation 2
is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
manifests the twins’ paradox.

shrug


Idiot

Koobee Wublee wrote:
**** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

This is how the transformation is to be applied to the twin
business:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
All it needs is some understanding of the variables in
the equations, and a tad of analytic geometry.

Near the end of his life Dingle had no understanding of either:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ialFumble.html

Dirk Vdm

ever since Dirac, we have known that
"atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"
that must be considered relativistically,"
mystical reification of Copenhagenskoolers, or not.

thus:
yeah, the Eemian;
most of the Confirmerists, as well as the Denierists,
really don't bother with "before our little Holocene --
we are then!"

Most likely it will rise more as the Greenland ice cap shrinks,
as it did in the previous interglacial (Eemian). Perhaps
up to 20 feet of additional sea level rise could be expected.

thus:
Morner was merely the president of a committee
of INQUA, devoted to paleoclimate & tide guages,
totally mainstream Quaternary Period studies.

Morner is quack who believes in water dowsing.

thus:
that the Ptolemaic epicycles were always a hoax,
is manifest in the lack of a really big one,
for the precession of the equinoxes, and
I'm not a God-am Aquarius, either!

in our universe, what you described never happened.

thus:
the guy who invented carbon-dating retired at my U,;
all of his stuff is probably there, but
I was told of this at a seminar by another Nobeliste
in chemistry, who developed a means of making fuel
from CO2 (say from a coalfired plant) and methane,
which is in commercial tryouts.

it's the oil company's that got the data;
whether or not they draw any obvious conclusion,
who knows, it will probably be in line with their Peack Oil analysis,
with which I must currently concur.

Please give me an egrigeous source for carbon dating of oil.

thus:
this is a nice metastudy, as far
as retrospective statistics can go. I note that: a)
the nighttime warmth anomaly is duly noted & said to be
coherent with years of modeling; and that b)
there is no hypothesis given for that,
at least in this summary (meaning, perhaps,
it is just shoved into the models, ad hoc;
see _A Vast Machine_ MITPress 2011 .-)

thanks for not playing, folks -- again.

thus quoth:
record daily highs to record daily
lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations
in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950
through September 2009

On Feb 13, 5:51 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

**** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
above two transforms can be simplified into the following.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** B12 = - B21

Except for PD, anyone else disagree? shrug

Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. Does anyone disagree? And
why? shrug

**** Derivation 1: The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
years.

Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** d[s22] = 0
** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
paradox in the Lorentz transform.

**** Derivation 2:

Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

**** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
accordance with the Euclidean geometry?

** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
valid.

** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
manifests the twins’ paradox.

shrug

Only local village prostitutes are coming out in droves to perform lip
service for the self-styled physicists. As usual, when cornered, the
self-styled physicists just send the local village prostitutes out to
do lip service for them. It does not matter if these prostitutes do
not even know what they are talking about. shrug

Well, the mathematics presented is simple enough. You have to try to
be very stupid to not understand all that, but it can happen and has
happened many times already where each Einstein Dingleberry has a
little gospel of its own that allows no scientific method within.
Fvcking sad as usual, no? shrug

This thread will haunt the self-styled physicists and their local
village prostitutes in the times to come. shrug

On 2/13/12 7:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed.

Perhaps Koobee would benefit from a space-time diagram for the two
observers.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

In the Earth frame of reference, time on the spaceship will be observed to pass more slowly than on the Earth due to time dilation. It may seem as if only a few years have past on the ship while decades pass on the Earth. So the twin of the astronaut waiting on the Earth expects the astronaut to be the much younger of the two upon return.

In the spaceship frame of reference, it is the Earth that is moving at a very high speed so time on Earth will be observed to pass more slowly than on the spaceship. Decades will pass on the ship while only a few years pass on Earth. So the astronaut expects that the twin sibling waiting on the Earth to be the much younger of the two upon return.

For the astronaut to return to the Earth, he/she must change direction and thereby switch from one inertial frame to another, and that breaks the symmetry between the two observers.

On Feb 17, 12:47 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

**** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
above two transforms can be simplified into the following.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** B12 = - B21

Except for PD, anyone else disagree? shrug

Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. Does anyone disagree? And
why? shrug

**** Derivation 1: The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
years.

Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** d[s22] = 0
** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
paradox in the Lorentz transform.

**** Derivation 2:

Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

**** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
accordance with the Euclidean geometry?

** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
valid.

** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
manifests the twins’ paradox.

shrug

Perhaps Koobee would benefit from a space-time diagram for the two
observers.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
some time. Sam is indeed having his head in the clouds as usual.
shrug

On 2/18/12 2:37 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
some time. Sam is indeed having his head in the clouds as usual.
shrug


Given the correctness of the space-time diagram showing the twin
paradox that I linked for YOU, Koobee, can you show one error? Any
error?

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

On Feb 14, 11:37*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
ever since Dirac, we have known that
"atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"

You mean Ever since he imagined it...
Atoms don't rotate...

They have no orientation. Please show me where I am wrong by
measurement.

Please show us our atoms rotation...
Maybe you would want to make up a measurement of something
that has never been measured...?
It is only thought to be; but not.

Mitchell Raemsch; the Tripple Prize