New Improved Twin Paradox Explanation

On Jan 7, 12:17*pm, "harry" wrote:
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:00 am, "harry" wrote:
"Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message

....

Good morning.
*[...]

First off all, what did you set out to explain? There are different
versions of the Twin / Clock paradox. For example, the popular
textbook version merely explains how special relativity works while
the original one concerned general relativity.

[..]







Sorry I didn't check the math and only quickly skipped over your
story (itat first glance you tried to account for the Doppler effect
without mentioning it and without distinguishing between that and
time dilation); but I expected to see an attempt to explain
something. I saw you give some descriptions of observations,
including a rather unphysical ("surprise") lurching away of the
earth, but what did you set out to explain?

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Harald. *I am dealing with Special Relativity and ignoring any
gravitational effects, and I am not dealing with the Doppler effect
since I am ignoring frequencies and wavelenths.

I see. But even when you ignore frequencies, it is important to distinguish
between the different effects and one of the effects you describe is related
to Doppler. For example, also in classical descriptions one receives a
faster image of the earth during and after turnaround and that has nothing
to do with clock rate.

Are these other valid explanations that you are familiar with, or just
your favorite straw-men?

You forgot to answer my main question: what do you try to explain, or in
other words, what is it that you think needs to be explained?





Well, if you noticed nothing new in my explanation then you're fine.
It's the people who don't realize that to the traveling twin Earth
would appear to "lurch" away then approach superluminally. To call
this the Doppler effect, even preceding it with "relativistic Doppler"
is waving a profoundly surprising phenomenon away as if it were
nothing.

I am not trying to add so much to the explanation, but to build on the
self-consistency.


The standard textbook explanations don't explain any deep questions.
Effectively, they just give it as exercise to show that the Lorentz
transformations are self consistent. For me the best explanation (of why it
physically works) was given by Langevin in 1911, well before it became a
paradox(!).


I think I haven't read that particular explanation.

And I dislike straw-men, I like to shoot them. :-)


Me too! When I can identify them for what they are! Usually when
people bring up the Doppler effect it is to accuse me of talking about
it, and then try to explain to me that the Doppler effect is not
sufficient to do what I am talking about, which of course, I know
already. So that is why I thought you were trying to do a straw-man.
In any case, I like to keep it simple. We really just have three
events, departure, turn-around, and arrival, and while discussion of
the Doppler effect is possible, it is not necessary.

Cheers,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:17 pm, "harry" wrote:
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:00 am, "harry" wrote:
"Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message

...

Good morning.
[...]

First off all, what did you set out to explain? There are different
versions of the Twin / Clock paradox. For example, the popular
textbook version merely explains how special relativity works while
the original one concerned general relativity.

[..]


Sorry I didn't check the math and only quickly skipped over your
story (itat first glance you tried to account for the Doppler
effect without mentioning it and without distinguishing between
that and time dilation); but I expected to see an attempt to
explain something. I saw you give some descriptions of
observations, including a rather unphysical ("surprise") lurching
away of the earth, but what did you set out to explain?

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Harald. I am dealing with Special Relativity and ignoring any
gravitational effects, and I am not dealing with the Doppler effect
since I am ignoring frequencies and wavelenths.

I see. But even when you ignore frequencies, it is important to
distinguish between the different effects and one of the effects you
describe is related to Doppler. For example, also in classical
descriptions one receives a faster image of the earth during and
after turnaround and that has nothing to do with clock rate.

Are these other valid explanations that you are familiar with, or
just your favorite straw-men?

You forgot to answer my main question: what do you try to explain,
or in other words, what is it that you think needs to be explained?



Well, if you noticed nothing new in my explanation then you're fine.
It's the people who don't realize that to the traveling twin Earth
would appear to "lurch" away then approach superluminally. To call
this the Doppler effect, even preceding it with "relativistic Doppler"
is waving a profoundly surprising phenomenon away as if it were
nothing.

I am not trying to add so much to the explanation, but to build on the
self-consistency.

OK- so you are not really trying to come up with a metaphysical model that
can explain the phenomena.

The standard textbook explanations don't explain any deep questions.
Effectively, they just give it as exercise to show that the Lorentz
transformations are self consistent. For me the best explanation (of
why it physically works) was given by Langevin in 1911, well before
it became a paradox(!).


I think I haven't read that particular explanation.

He used the illustration of two space travellers to argue that motion is
physically absolute, although the measurements are relative - basically it's
Newton's explanation with some enhancements, and he showed with the "twin"
example that SRT strengthens the evidence for Newton's concept of the
relativity principle.

And I dislike straw-men, I like to shoot them. :-)


Me too! When I can identify them for what they are! Usually when
people bring up the Doppler effect it is to accuse me of talking about
it, and then try to explain to me that the Doppler effect is not
sufficient to do what I am talking about, which of course, I know
already. So that is why I thought you were trying to do a straw-man.
In any case, I like to keep it simple. We really just have three
events, departure, turn-around, and arrival, and while discussion of
the Doppler effect is possible, it is not necessary.

In real life we have as many events as we want to measure, and everything
must work out correctly. But as far as I can see, that is not a problem for
SRT.

Regards,
Harald

"harry" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:17 pm, "harry" wrote:
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:00 am, "harry" wrote:
"Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message

...

Good morning.
[...]

First off all, what did you set out to explain? There are different
versions of the Twin / Clock paradox. For example, the popular
textbook version merely explains how special relativity works while
the original one concerned general relativity.

[..]


Sorry I didn't check the math and only quickly skipped over your
story (itat first glance you tried to account for the Doppler
effect without mentioning it and without distinguishing between
that and time dilation); but I expected to see an attempt to
explain something. I saw you give some descriptions of
observations, including a rather unphysical ("surprise") lurching
away of the earth, but what did you set out to explain?

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Harald. I am dealing with Special Relativity and ignoring any
gravitational effects, and I am not dealing with the Doppler effect
since I am ignoring frequencies and wavelenths.

I see. But even when you ignore frequencies, it is important to
distinguish between the different effects and one of the effects you
describe is related to Doppler. For example, also in classical
descriptions one receives a faster image of the earth during and
after turnaround and that has nothing to do with clock rate.

Are these other valid explanations that you are familiar with, or
just your favorite straw-men?

You forgot to answer my main question: what do you try to explain,
or in other words, what is it that you think needs to be explained?



Well, if you noticed nothing new in my explanation then you're fine.
It's the people who don't realize that to the traveling twin Earth
would appear to "lurch" away then approach superluminally. To call
this the Doppler effect, even preceding it with "relativistic Doppler"
is waving a profoundly surprising phenomenon away as if it were
nothing.

I am not trying to add so much to the explanation, but to build on the
self-consistency.

OK- so you are not really trying to come up with a metaphysical model that
can explain the phenomena.

The standard textbook explanations don't explain any deep questions.
Effectively, they just give it as exercise to show that the Lorentz
transformations are self consistent. For me the best explanation (of
why it physically works) was given by Langevin in 1911, well before
it became a paradox(!).


I think I haven't read that particular explanation.

He used the illustration of two space travellers to argue that motion is
physically absolute, although the measurements are relative - basically
it's Newton's explanation with some enhancements, and he showed with the
"twin" example that SRT strengthens the evidence for Newton's concept of
the relativity principle.

And I dislike straw-men, I like to shoot them. :-)


Me too! When I can identify them for what they are! Usually when
people bring up the Doppler effect it is to accuse me of talking about
it, and then try to explain to me that the Doppler effect is not
sufficient to do what I am talking about, which of course, I know
already. So that is why I thought you were trying to do a straw-man.
In any case, I like to keep it simple. We really just have three
events, departure, turn-around, and arrival, and while discussion of
the Doppler effect is possible, it is not necessary.

In real life we have as many events as we want to measure, and everything
must work out correctly. But as far as I can see, that is not a problem
for SRT.

Regards,
Harald

The cretin van lentil has rose tinted glasses where his precious religion is
concerned, the guy is a vegetable.

On Jan 7, 7:29*pm, doug wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:12 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:57 pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:45 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:05 pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

Twin paradox

What is the sci.physics.relativity charter? *Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/e1f2e072....

Notice that this group was formed with the intent to contain the
spread of correct information regarding the fallacy of relativity in
this nice small crucible. *Note that in the charter it specifically
discourages cross posting in other categories, especially where the
twin paradox is concerned.

What does this mean? *All posters going against relativity are subject
to four layers of defense from the establishment.

Notice that the count below comes up to three. Strich9 apparently has
problems counting to four.

Just waiting for you to ask :-)

FOURTH LAYER. *These consist of the double-agents. *They pretend to be
'mainsteam' anti-relativists, and then go on to post and behave as
cranks. *This discredits the anti-relativist movement in the eyes of
the public. *A newbie gets an impression that all anti-relativists are
similarly crank in nature. *A prominent example is Spaceman.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy of *fake* cranks that have been planted
to make the real cranks look bad.

Strich9, you have a regular springtime blossoming in your delusion
greenhouse going on. So many vibrant colors, too!

PD

By strich's own logic, he must be one of those fake cranks put in to
discredit antirelativists. He has made them look pretty stupid and
has helped to discredit them quite a bit. He let his secret out.

Also by strich's criteria that he does not belive work by people he
does not consider famous enough, we cannot believe anything strich
says since he is a nobody with no education.-

If Doug posted more ideas instead of mere trolling, he'd be helping
out the anti-relativisits. Too bad he has not posted any content :-)

On Jan 7, 7:24*pm, PD wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:12*pm, "Strich.9" wrote:





On Jan 7, 2:57*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:45 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:05 pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

Twin paradox

What is the sci.physics.relativity charter? *Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/e1f2e072...

Notice that this group was formed with the intent to contain the
spread of correct information regarding the fallacy of relativity in
this nice small crucible. *Note that in the charter it specifically
discourages cross posting in other categories, especially where the
twin paradox is concerned.

What does this mean? *All posters going against relativity are subject
to four layers of defense from the establishment.

Notice that the count below comes up to three. Strich9 apparently has
problems counting to four.

Just waiting for you to ask :-)

FOURTH LAYER. *These consist of the double-agents. *They pretend to be
'mainsteam' anti-relativists, and then go on to post and behave as
cranks. *This discredits the anti-relativist movement in the eyes of
the public. *A newbie gets an impression that all anti-relativists are
similarly crank in nature. *A prominent example is Spaceman.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy of *fake* cranks that have been planted
to make the real cranks look bad.


Of course. But you will merely deny it. That is your main
argumentative tool these days, denial. Which is an improvement from
your previous ones of running away, hiding, or whining.

On Jan 8, 8:22*am, "Strich.9" wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*pm, PD wrote:



On Jan 7, 3:12*pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:57*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:45 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:05 pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

Twin paradox

What is the sci.physics.relativity charter? *Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/e1f2e072...

Notice that this group was formed with the intent to contain the
spread of correct information regarding the fallacy of relativity in
this nice small crucible. *Note that in the charter it specifically
discourages cross posting in other categories, especially where the
twin paradox is concerned.

What does this mean? *All posters going against relativity are subject
to four layers of defense from the establishment.

Notice that the count below comes up to three. Strich9 apparently has
problems counting to four.

Just waiting for you to ask :-)

FOURTH LAYER. *These consist of the double-agents. *They pretend to be
'mainsteam' anti-relativists, and then go on to post and behave as
cranks. *This discredits the anti-relativist movement in the eyes of
the public. *A newbie gets an impression that all anti-relativists are
similarly crank in nature. *A prominent example is Spaceman.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy of *fake* cranks that have been planted
to make the real cranks look bad.

Of course. *But you will merely deny it.

Heck, no. I'm going to just let your statement stand there all by
itself, in flagrant glory.

Ooooh. Aaaaah.

*That is your main
argumentative tool these days, denial. *Which is an improvement from
your previous ones of running away, hiding, or whining.

On Jan 8, 9:24*am, PD wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:22*am, "Strich.9" wrote:





On Jan 7, 7:24*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:12*pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:57*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:45 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:05 pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

Twin paradox

What is the sci.physics.relativity charter? *Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/e1f2e072...

Notice that this group was formed with the intent to contain the
spread of correct information regarding the fallacy of relativity in
this nice small crucible. *Note that in the charter it specifically
discourages cross posting in other categories, especially where the
twin paradox is concerned.

What does this mean? *All posters going against relativity are subject
to four layers of defense from the establishment.

Notice that the count below comes up to three. Strich9 apparently has
problems counting to four.

Just waiting for you to ask :-)

FOURTH LAYER. *These consist of the double-agents. *They pretend to be
'mainsteam' anti-relativists, and then go on to post and behave as
cranks. *This discredits the anti-relativist movement in the eyes of
the public. *A newbie gets an impression that all anti-relativists are
similarly crank in nature. *A prominent example is Spaceman.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy of *fake* cranks that have been planted
to make the real cranks look bad.

Of course. *But you will merely deny it.

Heck, no. I'm going to just let your statement stand there all by
itself, in flagrant glory.

Ooooh. Aaaaah.



*That is your main
argumentative tool these days, denial. *Which is an improvement from
your previous ones of running away, hiding, or whining.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At least you agreed on one point. Well, you also seem to be agreeing
on the one-truth-many-interpretation principle. You're on the right
path...

On Jan 8, 8:32*am, "Strich.9" wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:24*am, PD wrote:



On Jan 8, 8:22*am, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 7:24*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:12*pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 2:57*pm, PD wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:45 pm, "Strich.9" wrote:

On Jan 7, 12:05 pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

Twin paradox

What is the sci.physics.relativity charter? *Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/e1f2e072...

Notice that this group was formed with the intent to contain the
spread of correct information regarding the fallacy of relativity in
this nice small crucible. *Note that in the charter it specifically
discourages cross posting in other categories, especially where the
twin paradox is concerned.

What does this mean? *All posters going against relativity are subject
to four layers of defense from the establishment.

Notice that the count below comes up to three. Strich9 apparently has
problems counting to four.

Just waiting for you to ask :-)

FOURTH LAYER. *These consist of the double-agents. *They pretend to be
'mainsteam' anti-relativists, and then go on to post and behave as
cranks. *This discredits the anti-relativist movement in the eyes of
the public. *A newbie gets an impression that all anti-relativists are
similarly crank in nature. *A prominent example is Spaceman.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy of *fake* cranks that have been planted
to make the real cranks look bad.

Of course. *But you will merely deny it.

Heck, no. I'm going to just let your statement stand there all by
itself, in flagrant glory.

Ooooh. Aaaaah.

*That is your main
argumentative tool these days, denial. *Which is an improvement from
your previous ones of running away, hiding, or whining.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At least you agreed on one point. *Well, you also seem to be agreeing
on the one-truth-many-interpretation principle. *You're on the right
path...


What point do you think I agreed with?

As I've tried to indicate to you, not attempting to stomp on a
statement that you make is not an indicator of assent.

If you claim to be Madonna, I'm certainly not going to try to prove to
you or anyone else that you are not Madonna. In fact, I'm very likely
to let your claim that you are Madonna just sit there on display, for
all to admire.

PD

On Jan 8, 9:36*am, PD wrote:

What point do you think I agreed with?

PD uses the demented approach. You forgot again?


As I've tried to indicate to you, not attempting to stomp on a
statement that you make is not an indicator of assent.

PD uses his brand of falso logic. He pretends to ignore my
statements, but is still compelled to give a whiny reply.


If you claim to be Madonna...

PD tries his hand again on false reasoning by analogy... He has a
natural predilection for reasoning by analogy... Thus his stupidity.

On Jan 8, 3:46*am, "harry" wrote:
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 12:17 pm, "harry" wrote:
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:00 am, "harry" wrote:
"Jonathan Doolin" wrote in message

...

Good morning.
[...]

First off all, what did you set out to explain? There are different
versions of the Twin / Clock paradox. For example, the popular
textbook version merely explains how special relativity works while
the original one concerned general relativity.

[..]

Sorry I didn't check the math and only quickly skipped over your
story (itat first glance you tried to account for the Doppler
effect without mentioning it and without distinguishing between
that and time dilation); but I expected to see an attempt to
explain something. I saw you give some descriptions of
observations, including a rather unphysical ("surprise") lurching
away of the earth, but what did you set out to explain?

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Harald. I am dealing with Special Relativity and ignoring any
gravitational effects, and I am not dealing with the Doppler effect
since I am ignoring frequencies and wavelenths.

I see. But even when you ignore frequencies, it is important to
distinguish between the different effects and one of the effects you
describe is related to Doppler. For example, also in classical
descriptions one receives a faster image of the earth during and
after turnaround and that has nothing to do with clock rate.

Are these other valid explanations that you are familiar with, or
just your favorite straw-men?

You forgot to answer my main question: what do you try to explain,
or in other words, what is it that you think needs to be explained?

Well, if you noticed nothing new in my explanation then you're fine.
It's the people who don't realize that to the traveling twin Earth
would appear to "lurch" away then approach superluminally. *To call
this the Doppler effect, even preceding it with "relativistic Doppler"
is waving a profoundly surprising phenomenon away as if it were
nothing.

I am not trying to add so much to the explanation, but to build on the
self-consistency.

OK- so you are not really trying to come up with a metaphysical model that
can explain the phenomena.


Right.

The standard textbook explanations don't explain any deep questions.
Effectively, they just give it as exercise to show that the Lorentz
transformations are self consistent. For me the best explanation (of
why it physically works) was given by Langevin in 1911, well before
it became a paradox(!).

I think I haven't read that particular explanation.

He used the illustration of two space travellers to argue that motion is
physically absolute, although the measurements are relative - basically it's
Newton's explanation with some enhancements, and he showed with the "twin"
example that SRT strengthens the evidence for Newton's concept of the
relativity principle.


It's hard for me to imagine how my explanation could lead anyone to
say Special Relativity is "Newton's concept with enhancements" but
maybe there is work Newton did that I am not aware of. In that the
Lorentz Transformations make Newton's Laws of motion (which are frame
independent) consistent with Maxwell's Laws (which are frame
dependent). Newton's laws can be fixed to become frame dependent by
applying the Lorentz Factor to the momentum. If I were to say "motion
is physically absolute" I would be concerned that people would believe
I meant that physics was frame dependent.

Then you have Newton's explanation with enhancements--an enhancement
to make it frame dependent. That is necessary but not sufficient to
have relativity (i.e. frame independence.) For that, you need to
apply the Lorentz Transformation based on the events based on the
velocity of the observer.

Realize that I am trying to put together Langevin's argument from
several easily misinterpreted phrases: "motion is physically
absolute" and "Newton's explanation with some enhancements" but it
sounds like an argument for absolute motion.

It seems like it would be easy to misinterpret--any explanation that
conludes its argument with the phrase "motion is physically absolute"
could be construed as a negation of the Special Theory of relativity
rather than an explanation for it.

Basically what I'm trying to say is... I might be wrong, but it sounds
like another strawman. Langevin wrote a book to explain Special
Relativity and concluded that motion was physically absolute. So...
FIX. What in the world could Langevin have possibly meant by "motion
is physically absolute" in an explanation FOR relativity?

And I dislike straw-men, I like to shoot them. :-)

Me too! *When I can identify them for what they are! *Usually when
people bring up the Doppler effect it is to accuse me of talking about
it, and then try to explain to me that the Doppler effect is not
sufficient to do what I am talking about, which of course, I know
already. *So that is why I thought you were trying to do a straw-man.
In any case, I like to keep it simple. *We really just have three
events, departure, turn-around, and arrival, and while discussion of
the Doppler effect is possible, it is not necessary.

In real life we have as many events as we want to measure, and everything
must work out correctly. But as far as I can see, that is not a problem for
SRT.

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -