|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 27, 1:57 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Ron Aikas says... Tom Roberts wrote: In relativity, clocks do not slow down due to any sort of motion. It is only MEASUREMENTS of clock rates in other frames that vary. When at rest in any inertial frame, any good clock will tick at its standard rate." Well, this obvious but it does not address the issue of the twins’ paradox. It is uttered as an attempt to hide the fallacy in the twins’ paradox in order to allow the self-styled physicists to continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who was already a known nitwit, a known plagiarist, and a known liar. shrug We have three clocks all moving only inertially. Clocks 1 & 2 meet in passing when they both read zero. Someone does not understand relative simultaneity. It is impossible to identify two moving clocks as synchronized within relative simultaneity. shrug Here is an analogous "twin paradox" for Euclidean geometry. The subject will be highways on a flat region on the surface of the Earth. Let's pick an orientation, and define the x-axis to run left to right, and the y-axis to run at right angles to the x-axis. Boo! It is silly trying to equate elapsed time with a length of highway. It is no wonder mysticism is ever so abound among Einstein Dingleberries. shrug Even though velocity is relative, if one twin *changes* velocity to reunite with the other twin, then *every* inertial coordinate system will agree that the twin who changed velocity is younger. The mismatch in elapsed times under the concept of the Lorentz transform, ie: SR, only deal with relative speed, and since the Lorentz transform deals with a segment of this so-called “geometry”, one can fully integrate the whole damn thing to get to the bottom of the picture where the past or the future event is very independent of the current event in time dilation. Either Yours Truly is a genius or the self-styled physicists are just so ****ing stupid, but since time dilation is accumulative, there is no ****ing way in hell that any solutions can exist to undo this mismatch in mutual time dilation. Gee! shrug For these who insists on the wonder of the turn-around, show Him (Yours Truly) the mathematics of this silly claim, then. It did not exist when Born pulled out of that claim from his ass without any support from any mathematical analysis, and it will never do so. shrug |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 66 | June 5th 11 01:15 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 28th 11 02:09 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 68 | May 26th 11 07:33 PM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 24th 11 07:25 PM |