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

TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 28th 10, 07:33 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.

Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.

Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old October 28th 10, 07:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.

Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.

Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?

Pentcho Valev


And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.
Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this
will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong.
  #3  
Old October 29th 10, 04:03 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Darwin123
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 28, 2:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.

Your first hypothesis is not true. You can't make all the effects
negligible compared to the uniform time dilation.
One problem with your logic is that the less acceleration, the
greater amount of time it takes to reverse the direction. You
apparently think that if you "spread the deceleration" over the length
of a long trip, you eliminate the effects of the acceleration. When
you spread it out, however, you increase the time over which that
"negligible" acceleration acts. So the accumulated effect of the
acceleration remains the same, no matter how you spread it out.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

There is a uniform time dilation on the inertial observers only.
The other observers aren't traveling with a uniform velocity.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes.

Then A can never prove to B that he didn't start moving before
the actual start of the trip.
He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings.

However, C can never prove to B that he passed A at the time he
did.
As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...)

Lord Halsbury probably meant something else than what you imply.
If he didn't point out the other issues, then you owe him no favors.
The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

GIGO. Your initial assumptions are garbage, so your conclusions
are garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.

The twin that "jumps aboard" has to undergo a large
acceleration. During the acceleration, the far away universe "appears"
to speed up. The time contraction effect is nonlocal.

Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.

You ignored the acceleration when he "jumped aboard" the craft.
The time contraction effect is nonlocal.

Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?

The brother at rest. The traveling twin has undergone a lot more
acceleration at far distances from the traveling twin.
  #4  
Old October 29th 10, 05:19 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
maxwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 28, 11:25*am, PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."


The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.


Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.


Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?


Pentcho Valev


And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.
Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this
will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong.


So, calling people who disagree with you "boobs" is considered adult
or scientific? I think not. Pencho does a public service by
republishing thoughtful criticisms of SRT. It's a good job we
abolished burning at the stake. You would have done a good job as an
inquisitor maintaining the orthodoxy of the powerful.
  #5  
Old October 29th 10, 05:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

"maxwell" wrote in message
...
Paul Draper aka PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:33 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


Pentcho Valev:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."


The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.


Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.


Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?


Pentcho Valev


Paul Draper wrote:
And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.
Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this
will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong.

Maxwell wrote:
So, calling people who disagree with you "boobs" is considered
adult or scientific? I think not. Pencho does a public service by
republishing thoughtful criticisms of SRT. It's a good job we
abolished burning at the stake. You would have done a good
job as an inquisitor maintaining the orthodoxy of the powerful.

hanson wrote:
Paul, did you get what Maxwell said?... ahahaha...
It boils down to whether you are an unconvincing,
bad teacher... or whether you are simply an Einstein
Dingleberry that worships Albert's sphincter.
But whatever floats your boat, Paul... ahahaha...

If you were to take a few steps back and concentrate
on the socio-physics and see the root cause of why
that Einstein bashing occurs then it might become
clear and easier for you to sell your pov... ahahaha...
Till then thanks for the laughs... ahahahahahanson

  #6  
Old October 29th 10, 06:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 29, 11:19*am, maxwell wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:25*am, PD wrote:



On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."


The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.


Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.


Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?


Pentcho Valev


And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.
Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this
will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong.


So, calling people who disagree with you "boobs" is considered adult
or scientific? *I think not. *Pencho does a public service by
republishing thoughtful criticisms of SRT.


I would quibble whether it's a thoughtful criticism.
There are many criticisms -- some unknowledgeable and incoherent, some
unknowledgeable and coherent, some knowledgeable and coherent.
It's in the audience's interest to discriminate between these, and I
would strongly recommend focusing on the last.
Pentcho focuses on the first two.


It's a good job we
abolished burning at the stake. *You would have done a good job as an
inquisitor maintaining the orthodoxy of the powerful.


Pointing out that someone who has published a web article about
relativity has demonstrated in that article a profound lack of
understanding of relativity is not witch-hunting, any more than
pointing out that snake-oil salesmen are not providing a medically
beneficial product should be called witch-hunting.

  #7  
Old October 29th 10, 07:32 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
BURT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

A high speed twin could pass a slow twin and see his his clock running
slower.
The slow twin would his own clock running faster by comparison.
There is no lost time just different clock rates due to different
motions.

Mitch Raemsch
  #8  
Old October 29th 10, 10:27 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
kenseto[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 418
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 29, 1:21*pm, PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:19*am, maxwell wrote:





On Oct 28, 11:25*am, PD wrote:


On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."


The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.


Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.


Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?


Pentcho Valev


And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.
Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this
will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong.


So, calling people who disagree with you "boobs" is considered adult
or scientific? *I think not. *Pencho does a public service by
republishing thoughtful criticisms of SRT.


I would quibble whether it's a thoughtful criticism.
There are many criticisms -- some unknowledgeable and incoherent, some
unknowledgeable and coherent, some knowledgeable and coherent.
It's in the audience's interest to discriminate between these, and I
would strongly recommend focusing on the last.
Pentcho focuses on the first two.


The problem is:
YOU ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE OR COHERENT.


It's a good job we
abolished burning at the stake. *You would have done a good job as an
inquisitor maintaining the orthodoxy of the powerful.


Pointing out that someone who has published a web article about
relativity has demonstrated in that article a profound lack of
understanding of relativity is not witch-hunting, any more than
pointing out that snake-oil salesmen are not providing a medically
beneficial product should be called witch-hunting.


But your knowledge of SR is absolete and you keep on using your
absolete knowledge to judge other people.


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #9  
Old October 29th 10, 10:32 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Oct 29, 4:27*pm, kenseto wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:21*pm, PD wrote:



On Oct 29, 11:19*am, maxwell wrote:


On Oct 28, 11:25*am, PD wrote:


On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."


The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.


Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.


Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?


Pentcho Valev


And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other
boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what
relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion.

  #10  
Old October 30th 10, 09:30 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "The observer performs experiments on his circular
disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention
to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and
space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions
being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this
enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically
constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other
on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We
now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the
standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged
from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity,
whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K
in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in
Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate
permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the
circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

Is it true that "according to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than
that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed
from K "? That is, do the Lorentz tranformations predict that the non-
rotating clock (at the centre of the disc) runs FASTER than the
rotating clock (at the edge of the disc)? If the Lorentz
transformations do not predict anything like that, why is Einstein
lying?

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find
himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket
passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at
rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special
relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster
than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age
faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling
twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket,
joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster
than the twin at rest.

Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite
direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity,
observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster
than the twin at rest.

Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his
brother at rest. Who is older?

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
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 16 January 8th 09 06:39 PM
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
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 03:50 PM.


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.