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

Einstein's Twin Paradox and Doublethink



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 6th 16, 11:39 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Twin Paradox and Doublethink

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail SYMMETRICAL time dilation, but then how did Einstein manage to convince the world that asymmetrical effects occur - e.g. the moving clock lags behind the stationary one and the traveling twin remains younger than his stationary brother? In 1918 Einstein declared that, although time dilation is symmetrical and therefore the clock (twin) paradox cannot be solved by special relativity, it is his general relativity that provides the solution:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

The fraud is obvious - if the calculation showing that the moving clock lags behind the stationary one comes from general relativity, how did Einstein obtain the lagging-behind in 1905? Herbert Dingle asked essentially the same question in 1972 but it was too late - the gullible world had already been fatally brainwashed:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

Nowadays Einsteinians both reject and accept Einstein's general-relativity solution to the clock (twin) paradox offered in 1918. However, since the "calculation" Einstein referred to in his 1918 article did not exist (Einstein was an incredible liar), rejection is the preferable (safer) choice:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ativity-theor/
Ronald Lasky: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...ds-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...lReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Einstein's 1918 general-relativity solution to the clock (twin) paradox is not forgotten of course - in David Morin's book it takes the mysterious form of "enough strangeness":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old July 6th 16, 09:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Twin Paradox and Doublethink

The paradox of the twin paradox is that everybody, even Einsteinians, know that actually it involves an absurdity, and yet, for more than a century, no convincing demonstration of the absurdity has been proposed (reductio ad absurdum does not seem to work). It is always easy to show that the traveling twin remains younger, and always impossible to show that the stationary twin remains younger, as if the principle of relativity vanishes any time one starts pondering on the issue. The mystery can be dispelled by analyzing the following text:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that the slowness of the stationary twin's clock (or the youthfulness of the stationary twin) can only be demonstrated if this clock can be checked against two of the clocks of the traveling twin. However, in the traditional twin paradox scenario, the traveling twin is not endowed with two spatially separated locations where his two clocks can be placed. Accordingly, in this scenario, only the youthfulness of the traveling twin is visible. The youthfulness of the stationary twin is there, predicted by special relativity (so we do have an absurdity), but remains invisible because the tool that makes it visible - more than one clock possessed by the traveling twin - is implicitly forbidden.

In the second scenario below the youthfulness of the stationary twin (more precisely, the slowness of the stationary clock) is visible:

A train is at rest and a clock is moving to and fro between two (stationary) clocks situated at the front and back ends of the train. This is the traditional relativistic scenario - special relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than (lags behind) the two stationary clocks on the train.

In a complementary scenario, the single clock is on the ground, at rest, but the train is moving to and fro so that the stationary clock on the ground effectively commutes between the front and back ends of the train. Now special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock on the ground runs slower than (lags behind) the two clocks on the moving train.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 7th 16, 08:33 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Twin Paradox and Doublethink

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that, according to Einstein's relativity, a clock consecutively meeting another system's multiple clocks lags behind them (as judged from the multiple clocks' system), no matter whether the clock is moving and the other system's multiple clocks stationary, or the clock is stationary and the other system's multiple clocks moving. In the following picture the single moving clock lags behind the multiple stationary clocks, but if the single clock were stationary and the multiple clocks moving, the single stationary clock would lag behind the multiple moving clocks:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

Let us imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks:

http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2..._rectangle.png

Scenario 1: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are STATIONARY.

Given Scenario 1, Einstein's relativity predicts that, if a single MOVING ant is travelling along the polygonal line, and its clock is consecutively checked against the multiple stationary ants' clocks, the moving ant's clock will show less and less time elapsed than the stationary clocks. In terms of the twin paradox, the single moving ant gets younger and younger than stationary brothers it consecutively meets.

Scenario 2: The clocks/ants spread out on the closed polygonal line are MOVING with constant speed along the line.

Given Scenario 2, Einstein's relativity predicts that the clock of a single STATIONARY ant located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon will show less and less time elapsed than the multiple moving clocks consecutively passing it. In terms of the twin paradox, the single stationary ant gets younger and younger than moving brothers it consecutively meets.

Clearly Einstein's relativity is an inconsistency (it predicts, in the sense involved in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, that stationary clocks run both faster and slower than moving clocks) and should be immediately discarded:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

Pentcho Valev
 




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
Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 January 16th 16 03:01 AM
EINSTEIN'S TWIN PARADOX IN TWO SCENARIOS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 16th 15 06:30 AM
THE LIE ABOUT EINSTEIN'S TWIN PARADOX Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 15th 15 07:11 AM
THE SECRET TO EINSTEIN'S TWIN PARADOX Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 11th 15 05:09 PM
EINSTEIN AND THE TWIN PARADOX Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 21st 14 10:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 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.