|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |