|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 66 | June 5th 11 01:15 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 29th 11 09:14 PM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 28th 11 02:09 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 68 | May 26th 11 07:33 PM |