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 » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The twin paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th 12, 09:30 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default The twin paradox

On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
either errors or misconceptions.


Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform
demonstrates.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...M/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

shrug

But the basic idea is solid,


The twins’ paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. It
can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we
have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You
mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN? shrug

and has been experimentally demonstrated


What do you mean “experimentally demonstrated”? Do you mean no
experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can
tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that
flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money,
effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know
what you are talking about. shrug

-- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
spacetime;


What type of bull**** is that? If you are telling us that the flow
rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we
accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and
there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the
local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying
to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR.
shrug

Given the Lorentz transform below,

** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy” = dy
** dz” = dz
** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

You can write down the following from the four equations above.

** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

Then, you can certainly write down the following.

** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time.
So, where is the proper time? It does not exist. shrug

two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.


Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of
predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
Lorentz transform. shrug
Ads
  #2  
Old April 26th 12, 10:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default The twin paradox

it's called, "conservation of angular momentum,"
or clockworkspiel, at relativistical velocities,
such as that in atoms.

I shrug the body electronic!

let's see what Nienstein999 says about the "paradox,"
Neinstein998; that's at least N guys,
bogged-down in quadratic equations.

two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.


Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of
predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
Lorentz transform. *shrug


thus:
deforestation (e.g.) causes much, much
more climate change (as well as CO2) than the incredibly skinny
absorptive
spectrum of CO2, compared to the swampcooler's (water).

but, why is that, given the similar shape of the molecules?... all
that
I can come-up with, later.

thus:
the primary such datum is the total difference
of insolation from equator to pole(s),
one to zero as a first approx., high noon on the equinox.;
hence, the total absurdity of the "hole" in the ozonosphere,
esp. considering that there are so mnay of them,
at any given time.

thus:
it's called that, by the Newtonians, of course. anyway,
it's amazing what you can do with that, or at any rate
with Kepler's three orbital constraints, and a lotta math,
even though the 3-body problem is not generally solved;
there was a conspicuous advance, though,
with the 4-body problem!
  #3  
Old April 27th 12, 11:08 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Paul B. Andersen[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default The twin paradox

On 26.04.2012 22:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain
either errors or misconceptions.


Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform
demonstrates.

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html

The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...M/Yf-2nu9pllUJ

shrug

But the basic idea is solid,


The twins’ paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. It
can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we
have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You
mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN?shrug

and has been experimentally demonstrated


What do you mean “experimentally demonstrated”? Do you mean no
experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can
tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that
flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money,
effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know
what you are talking about.shrug

-- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we
inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through
spacetime;


What type of bull**** is that? If you are telling us that the flow
rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we
accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and
there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the
local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying
to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR.
shrug

Given the Lorentz transform below,

** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy” = dy
** dz” = dz
** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

You can write down the following from the four equations above.

** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

Then, you can certainly write down the following.

** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2

In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time.
So, where is the proper time? It does not exist.shrug

two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin
can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings.


Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of
predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the
Lorentz transform.shrug


shrug

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
  #4  
Old April 27th 12, 03:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default The twin paradox

On 4/26/12 3:30 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I
choose no to replicate.


http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif


Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut
in a *non-inertial frame*.

Virginia Tech College of Science Physics Dept Tatsu Takeuchi Special Relativity Lecture Notes Section 15
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html




  #5  
Old April 27th 12, 05:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,927
Default The twin paradox


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

Sam wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense
which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate.

because in here, Sam says, it shows that
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts
the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*.

hanson wrote:
Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize
here again, would be tolerable if you where to
preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs
and your mental masturbations in your daily session
during which you worship Albert's sphincter.

But if you don't acknowledge that,Sam, and you
insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.

The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
exposed to velocities & accelerations, that are not even
near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look
greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon
return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision
what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam?

Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR
'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words
for you again?
Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
  #6  
Old April 27th 12, 08:08 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default The twin paradox

what a strange universe you are in,
to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?

recanted and said that his SR/GR 'was crock o'****.

  #7  
Old April 28th 12, 12:42 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default The twin paradox

to get the 1/2 coefficient, apparently provided by Coriolis.

E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?

  #8  
Old April 28th 12, 12:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,927
Default The twin paradox

|||Brian||| Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane"
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:

||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.

and so Brian wrote:
what a strange universe you are in, to have no
angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?


hanson wrote:
If you can't produce the address of Einstein's
younger twin, then why are you lamenting as
if you knew what's going on, only to put a
question mark at the end of your silly tripe.

Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal
(astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that
is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave
like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he
knows nothing about.

Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp,
and keep on acting in your one-man street corner
performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office.
Meanwhile here is what we were talking about:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

Sam wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense
which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate.

because in here, Sam says, it shows that
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts
the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*.

hanson wrote:
Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize
here again, would be tolerable if you where to
preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs
and your mental masturbations in your daily session
during which you worship Albert's sphincter.

But if you don't acknowledge that,Sam, and you
insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.

The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
exposed to velocities & accelerations, that are not even
near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look
greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon
return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision
what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam?

Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR
'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words
for you again?
Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
  #9  
Old April 29th 12, 12:47 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default The twin paradox

jerkwater; thank you.
  #10  
Old April 29th 12, 02:03 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,927
Default The twin paradox

Brian Quicy was chinzy on "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
but he got a stiffy in a jiffy
when he wrote:
" jerkwater; thank you."

hanson wrote:
Was it Green Waxman, or his 2 Enviro Whores, Boxer
and Feinstein, that made you produce cock-tears and
jerkwater, or something in here that excited you so,
like your inability to produce the address of Einstein's
Younger Twin... Read and pray tell:

|||Brian||| Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity.
Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that
morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then
rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on
"1treePetrifiedForestLane"
& is no longer able to realize what's going on and so:

||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?"
||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards"
||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the
||| Brian says: patent office.
||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv
||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes
||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS.

and so Brian wrote:
what a strange universe you are in, to have no
angular mometum at organismal (astronautic),
molecular & sub-atomic scales;
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv,
Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ...
from momentum?

hanson wrote:
If you can't produce the address of Einstein's
younger twin, then why are you lamenting as
if you knew what's going on, only to put a
question mark at the end of your silly tripe.

Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal
(astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that
is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave
like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he
knows nothing about.

Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp,
and keep on acting in your one-man street corner
performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office.
Meanwhile here is what we were talking about:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...

Sam wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense
which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate.

because in here, Sam says, it shows that
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts
the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*.

hanson wrote:
Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize
here again, would be tolerable if you where to
preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs
and your mental masturbations in your daily session
during which you worship Albert's sphincter.

But if you don't acknowledge that, Sam, and you
insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then
post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so
that he can be looked at and checked out.

The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you
Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts
return from the International Space Station, after having
been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were
exposed to velocities & accelerations that are not even
near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look
greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon
return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision
what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam?

Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR
'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words
for you again?
Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson


 




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 experiment done in lab Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 21 July 26th 11 02:39 AM
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 111 November 25th 10 01:41 PM
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? Androcles[_33_] Amateur Astronomy 5 November 2nd 10 05:12 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM.


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.