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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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 -

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.

On Oct 29, 10:21*am, 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.

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.

Trying to win an argument by pointing out the failures of the
messenger is a non sequitur but it is an old trick of rhetoricians (&
politicians) who want to avoid answering the question. How about
responding to the quotations that Pencho includes? These are serious
statements that deserve serious answers.

maxwell says...

Trying to win an argument by pointing out the failures of the
messenger is a non sequitur but it is an old trick of rhetoricians (&
politicians) who want to avoid answering the question. How about
responding to the quotations that Pencho includes? These are serious
statements that deserve serious answers.

Pentcho's questions have been answered many, many times. There is a
sense in which this newsgroup does nothing but answer the questions of
people like Pentcho who are confused by relativity.

Here's his question:

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.

Okay, this is already not correct. Einstein's relativity does not
say that observers will see their own clocks running faster. What
it says is this: If F is any inertial coordinate system, then if a
standard clock is moving at speed v, as measured in F, the elapsed
time on the clock delta-tau will relate to the elapsed coordinate
time delta-t by:

delta-tau = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) delta-t

How does this differ from saying that one observer will see
his own clock tick faster than the moving observer's clock?
For one thing, it's not a matter of what one *sees*, it's a
matter of what is *measured* in an inertial coordinate system.

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?

To figure out who is older, you use the simple formula:
If F is any inertial coordinate system, the the elasped time
on a standard clock is given by:

delta-tau = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) delta-t

where v and delta-t are both measured in the same coordinate
system F. It doesn't matter *which* coordinate system you
use to compute delta-tau, as long as it is an inertial coordinate
system.

For example, in the frame of the stay-at-home twin
(call that frame F):

For stay-at-home twin's clock, v=0, so the formula tells
us:

delta-tau = delta-t

For traveling twin's clock v is nonzero and has a constant
magnitude (except for brief turnaround time). So we have:

delta-tau = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) delta-t

So the traveling twin's clock advances less.

You could instead use a frame F' in which the stay-at-home twin
is traveling at speed v throughout. In that case, the traveling
twin moves at speed 0 for the first leg of his trip, and moves
at speed 2v/(1-(v/c)^2) for the second leg of his trip. In this
frame, the traveling twin ages faster than the stay-at-home twin
during the first leg, but ages slower during the second leg. The
net effect (since the second leg lasts longer in this frame) is
that the traveling twin ages less.

There is no ambiguity about which twin ages more. Any way of
calculating ages that is consistent with Special Relativity will
give the same answer.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Nov 1, 11:14*am, maxwell wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:21*am, 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.