A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
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 November 1st 10, 06:34 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| On 30.10.2010 23:08, Androcles wrote:
|
| Don't you mean strictly according to the Andersen transform?
|
| "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
| which is the same as interchanging the frames,
| which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
| OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
| t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| or:
| tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd
|
| You have repeated this trivial statement of mine several
| times, and I always wondered why.
|
| But NOW I have got the explanation:
|
| Ta-daaa:
|
| A = (B-C) / D, so OBVIOUSLY
| B = (A+C) / D and it can't possibly be
| B = AD+C as you have told me a LOT of times.
|
| Your humping twin will have his head up his arse.
|
| Hilarius, no? :-)
|
| http://tinyurl.com/2uygj4t
|
| --
| Paul, the Tusseladd

Hilarious yes, Tusseladd, as you have told me a LOT of times.
Please apply this "definition" to your twin paradox demonstration as you
have clocks A and B so ably modelled:

"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
t'A-tB "

Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 light-years
when v = 0?

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tusselbodger.JPG
(Clock B as observed by A = 10.72 years B time at clock A time of 14.75
years)
Difference is 4 years, Tusseladd is using FTL light.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein
Hilarious, yes?

Distant galaxies racing away from us are as they were at the time of the Big
Bonk, according to ASSistant professor Tusseladd's model.

Hilarious, yes?

Please supply your explanation NOW, then we can all share the joke.
Androcles, the trivial tusseladd-beater.




Ads
  #2  
Old November 1st 10, 10:52 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Paul B. Andersen[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On 01.11.2010 18:34, Androcles wrote:

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

Please apply this "definition" to your twin paradox demonstration as you
have clocks A and B so ably modelled:

"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
t'A-tB "

Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10 light-years
when v = 0?

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tusselbodger.JPG
(Clock B as observed by A = 10.72 years B time at clock A time of 14.75
years)


When B is stationary in frame A at 10LY, B's clock is showing
10.72 years. A's clock is simultaneously showing 14.75 years.
('Simultaneously' according to the definition you quoted above.)

It would however take another 10 years for this information to reach A.

Since the speed of information is zero in Androcles mind,
it will never reach you, though.
(Which I am sure you yet again will demonstrate.)

Difference is 4 years, Tusseladd is using FTL light.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein
Hilarious, yes?

Distant galaxies racing away from us are as they were at the time of the Big
Bonk, according to ASSistant professor Tusseladd's model.

Hilarious, yes?

Please supply your explanation NOW, then we can all share the joke.



I will give you another fact to laugh at:
Set 'acceleration distance' and 'acceleration' to maximum.
Clock B will then show just a little more than 3 years when it
reaches 10LY in frame A. Faster than light? :-)

That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
the cosmic muon lifetime experiment.

Androcles, the trivial tusseladd-beater.


Quite.
You swing a lot, but never hits. :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
  #3  
Old November 2nd 10, 12:13 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| On 01.11.2010 18:34, Androcles wrote:
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
|
| Please apply this "definition" to your twin paradox demonstration as you
| have clocks A and B so ably modelled:
|
| "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to
travel
| from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A."
| "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA =
| t'A-tB "
|
| Why does it paradoxically take 4 years for light to travel 10
light-years
| when v = 0?
|
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tusselbodger.JPG
| (Clock B as observed by A = 10.72 years B time at clock A time of 14.75
| years)
|
| When B is stationary in frame A at 10LY, B's clock is showing
| 10.72 years. A's clock is simultaneously showing 14.75 years.
| ('Simultaneously' according to the definition you quoted above.)
|
| It would however take another 10 years for this information to reach A.


According to andersen/twins.html, Clock B as OBSERVED by A = 10.72 years.
OBVIOUSLY this is an error, as I have told you a LOT of times.
Please explain whether you meant "observed by god" or simply forgot about
Doppler shift.
Hilarious, yes?



| Since the speed of information is zero in Androcles mind,
| it will never reach you, though.
| (Which I am sure you yet again will demonstrate.)

False information isn't taken in. You meant OBSERVED by YOUR
god, not "observed by A". Correct your "program".
Hilarious, yes?



|
| Difference is 4 years, Tusseladd is using FTL light.
| "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
| infinitely great velocity." -- Einstein
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Distant galaxies racing away from us are as they were at the time of the
Big
| Bonk, according to ASSistant professor Tusseladd's model.
|
| Hilarious, yes?
|
| Please supply your explanation NOW, then we can all share the joke.
|
|
| I will give you another fact to laugh at:
| Set 'acceleration distance' and 'acceleration' to maximum.
| Clock B will then show just a little more than 3 years when it
| reaches 10LY in frame A. Faster than light? :-)
|
| That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
| the cosmic muon lifetime experiment.
--
Peer reviewed publication.

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf

Bailey, Borer et. al:
tau = tau0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = gamma.tau0
Einstein: tau = t * [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] =
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

Tusseladd: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Einstein: tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Somebody doesn't know multiplication from division.
Somebody else doesn't know subtraction from addition.
Somebody is cooking the books to get the result they want.
Somebody is LYING.
While no theory can be proven, it can be disproven by example.
Bailey, Borer et. al. have DISPROVEN relativity.

So much for peer-review.
That this phenomenon really happens in the real world is proven by
the peers of an idiot.

| Androcles, the trivial tusseladd-beater.
|
| Quite.
| You swing a lot, but never hits. :-)

The thicker the skull the denser the 2x4 needed to crack it.
I don't have a depleted uranium brickbat.

Your programming skills are similar to Wilson's, notably when the above
parameters are run from B's view and FTL motion of the Earth is observed
by god, in violation of Einstein's first postulate, wherein it states "The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion".

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd

It's so OBVIOUS it is painful, and it's only taken you 10 years to
call it "trivial".
Hilarious, yes?

Androcles, the tusseladd-beater.



  #4  
Old November 2nd 10, 11:23 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

On Nov 1, 9:52*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

Quite.
You swing a lot, but never hits. :-)


Mathematicians seemingly can't,are not capable of or do not want to
put Isaac's idiosyncratic version on the averaging process for the 24
hour day in context insofar as what must appear to you as definitions
of two separate 'time' things is simply a standard procedure
separating the progression of unequal days as referenced to natural
noon from the steady progression of 24 hour days which make up the
steady progression of days in the calendar system -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions." Newton

The detailed and accurate version is Huygens,no absolute/relative
definitions but a simple correspondence that people in
sci.astro.amateur must know backwards and forwards by now -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

It is something to watch people try to discuss nothing for over 100
years and as long as relativity has been around,as far as Newton
goes,he did what he needed to do to project the idea that he
understood astronomical procedures and methods while putting his
readers in a state of unease by loading his 'definition' with things
like 'vulgar time'.What looks trivial to mathematicians is fundamental
to astronomers so that the entire episode of relativity is more or
less a statement about the standard of astronomy rather than any
perceived validity to that exotic indulgence.







  #5  
Old November 2nd 10, 04:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

How can you average something if you can't measure it?

Don't you need something like a pendulum clock - or, as both Newton
and Ptolemy did, the motions of the heavenly bodies - to establish a
standard of uniform time first, before you could compare the time
indicated by a sundial against it?

John Savard
  #6  
Old November 2nd 10, 05:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Androcles[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 369
Default TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
| How can you average something if you can't measure it?

Your hero Einstein did.
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0, t+x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Have you got a problem with that, you snipping idiot?




 




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
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 111 November 25th 10 01:41 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.