A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 09, 03:29 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

Banesh Hoffmann, ”La relativite, histoire d’une grande idee”, Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
deux des miennes; dans l’autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d’observer, sans absurdité, que
l’horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."

That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.

In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
science but who cares.

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old January 2nd 09, 04:53 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.



The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
**** for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
"paradox".
In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.
  #3  
Old January 3rd 09, 08:45 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 4:29 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Banesh Hoffmann, ”La relativite, histoire d’une grande idee”, Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
deux des miennes; dans l'autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d'observer, sans absurdité, que
l'horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."

That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.

In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
science but who cares.


In the case of length contraction the symmetry is not broken and
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, in a world different from Einstein zombie world,
would be quite obvious: it follows from Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate that the long train is short (if trapped inside a short
tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long
barn), the bug is both dead and alive etc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old January 3rd 09, 09:10 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 7:53 am, Dono wrote:
On Jan 2, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.


The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
**** for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
"paradox".


Dono aka Don’t Know Anything is getting as virulent as usual.

In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.


Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. For
instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so, and there are
thought experiments as modification to the vanilla twin’s paradox that
will nullify any effects due to acceleration.

Twin’s paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform due to the
combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. Curved
spacetime uses a modification of the flat spacetime. There is no
f*cking way in hell that acceleration can be your savior. shrug
  #5  
Old January 3rd 09, 12:13 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 11:10*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 7:53 am, Dono wrote:

On Jan 2, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


*Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.


The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
**** for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
"paradox".


Dono aka Don’t Know Anything is getting as virulent as usual.

In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.


Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. *For
instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so


You are lying - the proof has been given to you repeatedly. However,
every time it is given you reject it out of hand with no explanation.

[....]
  #6  
Old January 4th 09, 12:34 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 11:45*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 2, 4:29 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



Banesh Hoffmann, ”La relativite, histoire d’une grande idee”, Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
deux des miennes; dans l'autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d'observer, sans absurdité, que
l'horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."


That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.


In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
science but who cares.


In the case of length contraction the symmetry is not broken and
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, in a world different from Einstein zombie world,
would be quite obvious: it follows from Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate that the long train is short (if trapped inside a short
tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long
barn), the bug is both dead and alive etc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...elated&search=

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

Pentcho Valev

Could we please return to physics instead of posturing? In other
words, restrict discussions of reality to real experiments repeatable
in laboratories and end this nonsense, propagated by Einstein, of
talking about 'gedanken experiments'. This phrase has been a very
successful rhetorical trick to confuse the gullible. If one can ONLY
think and talk about an activity then it is NOT an experiment; it is a
shareable thought. As such it is suitable for novels, philosophy or
playwrights - this is not science. This insight into the centrality
of experimentation was the key to moving science forward; it became
the objective separator of the pre-scientific and scientific ages,
circa 1600. Einstein was simply returning to the pre-scientific
speculative mode of the ancient Greek theorists.
  #7  
Old January 4th 09, 12:40 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 3, 12:10 am, Kookee Wobbler wrote:

Just because Kookie Wobbler the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
is babbling about relativity it doesn't mean that anybody is giving a
**** about his ranting ......

  #8  
Old January 4th 09, 04:44 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 3, 3:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:10 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:


Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. For
instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so, and there are
thought experiments as modification to the vanilla twin’s paradox that
will nullify any effects due to acceleration.


You are lying - the proof has been given to you repeatedly. However,
every time it is given you reject it out of hand with no explanation.


You are lying. There has been no definitive resolution to the twin’s
paradox. Despite numerous attempted claims, each claim is
contradicting the others. They all violate the principle of
relativity which in term violates the Lorentz transform. Garbage like
that must be rejected because there is no room for scientific
methodology whenever a claim violates the constraints. In this case,
of course, the constraint is the principle of relativity. shrug

Twin’s paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform due to the
combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. Curved
spacetime uses a modification of the flat spacetime. There is no
f*cking way in hell that acceleration can be your savior. shrug

  #9  
Old January 4th 09, 05:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
TheoreticalPhysics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 2, 3:53*pm, Dono wrote:
snip
In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.


That raises two interesting points:

1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
the system were symetrical?
2) Doesn`t this violate the Uncertainty Principle - not to mention the
Principle of Relativity.




  #10  
Old January 4th 09, 05:34 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default 2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX

On Jan 4, 8:26 am, TheoreticalPhysics wrote:
On Jan 2, 3:53 pm, Dono wrote:
snip

In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.


That raises two interesting points:

1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
the system were symetrical?


If the twins followed idendical paths through spacetime, like starting
from a point on a circle in opposite directions and having the same
speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet
again.


2) Doesn`t this violate the Uncertainty Principle - not to mention the
Principle of Relativity.



Non-sequitur.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A twin paradox simulation Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 May 29th 08 02:21 PM
THE SECRET OF THE TWIN PARADOX Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 November 9th 07 04:48 PM
The twin paradox revisited Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 July 11th 07 01:47 AM
The twin paradox revisited Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 July 10th 07 08:19 PM
Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. Der alte Hexenmeister Astronomy Misc 40 January 12th 06 03:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.