Simple question about SR paradox

On May 24, 7:06 am, funkenstein wrote:

One further thing that might help is that there is no problem with
both clocks looking slower to one another.. One similar example of
such a thing is that people look smaller when they are far apart due
to perspective. Each one looks smaller to the other, this can agree
with intuition.

What a pile of nonsense! Time dilation is accumulative while length
contraction is not. Similarly, your suggestion of objects looked
smaller at a distance is not an accumulated result. shrug

Keep in mind also that each reference frame has an implicit network of
synchronized clocks (synchronized in that frame). As one clock moves
through the others frame, the "tick" will occur at a different
location. Because the two observers don't agree on the
synchronization, they will also disagree about the rate of ticks..
hence the symmetrical time dilation.

It is not the case. The mathematics of (dt’ = dt sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
proves you wrong. It is a quantity that does not depend on any
location but speed. shrug

Try to understand the Lorentz transform first. shrug

you are very simply leaving out acceleration
of your departing clone; hasn't this been
pointed-out to you, over N times?

at least, he'll tell your hagard self all about it,
when he gets back with his quantum of youth.

throw into the obvious fact that
they both see the same doppler shift
of the other's image, but one is seeing it
with his photoreception & brainfunction,
slowed relativistically.

you better not answer!

On May 24, 9:00*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 24, 7:06 am, funkenstein wrote:

One further thing that might help is that there is no problem with
both clocks looking slower to one another.. *One similar example of
such a thing is that people look smaller when they are far apart due
to perspective. *Each one looks smaller to the other, this can agree
with intuition.

What a pile of nonsense! *Time dilation is accumulative while length
contraction is not. *
Not precisely true. The distance from one point to another is
subject to length contraction. Therefore, the length contraction of
each segment of the journey does accumulate to change the total
distance of the journey as seen by the rocket twin.
After acceleration to a high velocity, the rocket twin sees a
small distance to the target than the stationary twin.
The distance to the target has not changed according to the
stationary twin. However, the distance to the target has greatly
decreased to the accelerated twin. The accelerated twin gets to the
turn around point faster because the distance is smaller.

I'll have to think about that;
relativity is fun!

there are at least two possibilities re redshifting
of stellar spectra with distance: a)
medium of space absorbs energy (or
Universe is expanding, even accelerating away
from us "according to Hubble's thoughtbubble"); b)
maybe the frequency really has downshifted, and
it's just going to take the Z-factor longer,
to get to us.

if that is new, this is not an apple.

On May 25, 4:00*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
I'll *have to think about that;
relativity is fun!
The "moving" observer does not see the same distance between the
two points as the "stationary" observer. The "moving" observer sees a
shorter distance between the two points. Thus, his trip is "shorter"
in terms of his time.
Maybe this ling will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
"In physics, length contraction – according to Hendrik Lorentz – is
the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an
observer of objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to
that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz
contraction or Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction) is usually only
noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the
contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in
which the observed body is travelling."

oops; I almost replied to Androhuff,
with his "alt.moronicAntiSRians" newsgroup.

thus:
yes, he does see the same distance;
it is merely blueshifted.

you kneejerk antirelativity people try not
to see that, when it is such a simple extension
of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity.
yes, he does see the same distance;
it is merely blueshifted.

you kneejerk antirelativity people try not
to see that, when it is such a simple extension
of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...ll02/Moon.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...n_stronomy.pdf

well, there are other things to do,
than to willingly hang-around in a googolplex ghetto.

yeah.

On May 26, 11:15*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
oops; I almost replied to Androhuff,
with his "alt.moronicAntiSRians" newsgroup.

thus:
yes, he does see the same distance;
it is merely blueshifted.

you kneejerk antirelativity people try not
to see that, when it is such a simple extension
of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity.
yes, he does see the same distance;
it is merely blueshifted.

you kneejerk antirelativity people try not
to see that, when it is such a simple extension
of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity.http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ed...n_stronomy.pdf
Galilean relativity has a bit of a limitation that was apparent
even before Einstein's 1905 article.
Galilean invariance is not consistent with the delay in
electromagnetic forces characterized by the speed of light. The
Galilean invariant rules mechanics, as embodied in Newton's bood
"Principia," require that forces propagate from one body to the other
instantaneously. However, electrodynamic forces as embodied by
Maxwell's equations have a delay in propagation characterized by "c",
the speed of light.
The delay in the electromagnetic forces had already been shown to
exist my Tesla, Marconi, and all those people studying radio waves.
The delay in the electromagnetic forces was consistent with the speed
of light measured long before 1905.
Galilean invariance is also not consistent with the facts,
established before 1905, with the fact that matter is made of
electrically charged particles. Electrically charged particles were
known to exert magnetic forces when set in motion. These magnetic
forces would exert a type of stress on the electrically charged
particles. Therefore, objects could not keep the same shape when set
in motion. Vibrating objects could not keep the same frequency of
vibration when set in motion.
Either the laws of mechanics in Principia or the laws of
electrodynamics by Maxwell or both had to be at least a little bit
wrong. Even had there been no Michaelson-Morley experiment, even if
there had been no muon decay experiments, there would have been
inconsistencies due to the delay in electromagnetic forces. Because of
the electrically charged particles, one would have expected the
dimensions of a measuring-rod to vary with the state of relative
velocity. Because of the delay in the propagation of force, there
would have to be an effect on clocks.