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

Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 13, 07:43 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.

On Jan 7, 10:02 am, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:24 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:


It is perfectly symmetrical. Note that SR does not seek to find who
actually fired the rocket. Between the two spaceships A and B, A can
accelerate or B can accelerate or both can accelerate. SR deals with
uniform motion after acceleration.


that's not so.


That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an ex-professor of
physics at a university in Texas. shrug

if both accelerate, there is no time difference.


After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away
from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz
transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually
moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it
evaporate? shrug

the fact that one accelerates and the other doesn't is the reason there
is a difference.


Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up
your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug

sr accounts for the difference in that case. if you
thought that sr just ignores acceleration then you thought wrong and the
twin example was designed to elicit that mistake.


In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for
mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of
acceleration cancel out? If not, why not? Just what part of this
simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug

Let’s recap the mathemagic trick Einstein dingleberries like to pitch
when one accelerates and the other does not.

** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – B^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2)

Where

** B c = Relative speed between 1 and 2

When both accelerate, well they will probably say the following.

** dt1 = dt2

And

** dt2 = dt1

It is indeed interesting what type of mathemagic trick they are going
to pull out when both 1 and 2 are coasting away or towards each
other. shrug

For reference, the Lorentz transform always says the following
regardless who is accelerating or no:

** dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – B^2)

And

** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2)

The only time when there is no contradiction is when (B^2 = 0).
shrug


Ads
  #2  
Old January 7th 13, 09:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.

On Jan 7, 12:31 pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote:
On 1/7/2013 12:43 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:


That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an ex-professor of
physics at a university in Texas. shrug


i would imagine a lot of people would say it, since it's not so.
if someone tells you that the earth is not flat, i expect you to remark
that someone else on usenet said so too.


Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before. For your
information, PD, since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4
thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical,
and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age.
Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was
spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was
not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He
had underestimated the size of the earth by about 1/3. shrug

After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away
from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz
transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually
moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it
evaporate? shrug


in the turnaround of one of them.


How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around?

Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up
your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug


the lorentz transform as you're using it doesn't deal with the
turnaround. you need to use the version that deals with the acceleration
of the turnaround.


Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug

Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug

In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for
mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of
acceleration cancel out?


in the case where both twins accelerate, then there is no asymmetry.
while there is a change that happens during the acceleration, it's the
same for both, so when they meet again, their clocks show the same time.


Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug

yes, the turnaround undoes the time dilation of the coasting period. for
both observers in the symmetric case, the other's clock leaps forward to
be ahead of the other's clock. if this comes as a shock it's because
you've never looked at the generalization of the lorentz transform in an
accelerated frame.


And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in
the accelerated frame? shrug

If not, why not? Just what part of this
simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug

  #3  
Old January 8th 13, 08:05 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.

On Jan 7, 2:16 pm, PD wrote:
On 1/7/2013 2:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:


Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before.


as predicted


PD is a dumb fvck. Since Venereal is PD, what does that have to say
about venereal? shrug

For your information, PD,


who? you mean sylvia?


No, PD. Koobee Wublee means PD. shrug

since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4
thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical,
and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age.
Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was
spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was
not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He


How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around?


absolutely.

Hand-waving = reasoning. shrug

Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug


what?
there's no godliness needed here. only stuff you've not acquainted
yourself with. that's as common as mud.


PD is the only one who thinks he can make everything happen by hand-
waving. shrug

Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug


there's one between inertial reference frames. there's another one for
dealing with accelerating frames. does this small common fact surprise you?


Specifically, what are they? If you cannot write down these two
different Lorentz transforms, you are a fvcking liar, and there is no
need for Koobee Wublee to waste His valuable time on the ilk such as
this deranged personality of PD. Just how many different
personalities does PD have? Is this a game to PD? shrug

Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug


in the description of transformations from or to an accelerated frame.
try googling 'lorentz transform accelerated frame'. you'll only need the
first half dozen of the 250k results


No, there are 250k interpretations which are all different with
varying degrees of bull****. Koobee Wublee needs to know which
version PD believes in to allow for the necessary demystification
process. shrug

And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in
the accelerated frame? shrug


you like to follow math. go to where the math is laid out already. do
you need me to tie your shoes for you, or can you use the internet?


Where is the math? PD has failed to deliver his faulty claim once
again. shrug
  #4  
Old January 8th 13, 07:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.

with quaternions, "the math" is just ordinary space,
with the "real, scalar" part being the t parameter;
no silly Minkowskian visionarying, required ... unless
you *want* to reduce the number of spatial dimensions,
in *order* to spatialize time in a graphical format.

anyonre can also see, that
the angular momenta of atoms are inertial components .,.
in the God-am math; thank you.

Where is the math?

 




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
Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution. Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 24 January 8th 13 07:51 AM
Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution. Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 3 January 6th 13 10:47 AM
The twin paradox Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 22 May 11th 12 02:35 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 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.