TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
| |
...
| | On Nov 3, 1:54 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
| | "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
| |
| | For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of
| thought
| | on resolving the twins’ paradox. Each one is contradictory of the
| | others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others,
| and
| | some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the
| | others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****.
| | shrug
| |
| | Fortunately physicists are not confused;
| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
| explains
| | it if you are interested.
|
| "epsilon = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor"
| Whose arse was that bull**** pulled from?
|
| "In their rest frame the distance between the Earth and the star system
is
| epsilon.d = 0.5d = 2.23 light years (length contraction)"
|
| What does Einstein say?
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54
|
| No reciprocal, no epsilon.
| Lies do not explain anything, you illiterate ignorant little LYING tord.
|
|
| tord?
|

....turd Noun. A lump of faeces. Derived from the Anglo-Saxon tord. [1000s]
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm
Being English I write English, I do not use New Zealish, Australish,
Canadish or Americish.
Rhymes with "word".
Sounds like the 'u' in Americish "mom" or the 'u' in "love".

On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote:



On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote:

The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at
which an atomic clock ticks.

* * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a
hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are
mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction
between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant.
* *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However,
it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in
muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that
govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more
serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity.
* * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between
electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of
electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in
the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic
fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between
electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows
down.
* * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern
chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in
both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the
oxidation of cesium atoms.
* * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and
Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological
processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological
applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those
biochemists.
* * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the
assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical
reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for
the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for
chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the
electron differs in these two environments.
* * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is
only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a
Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result
in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that
the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions.
* * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic
velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to
being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a
scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction?
* * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments. I
would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical
reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast.
We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time.

What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the
calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes
are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process.

The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken.
The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock
on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in
the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the
spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on
the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on
the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives.

You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the
spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the
twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just
as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the
rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation
they receive.

You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the
twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they
were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the
spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the
twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects
as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different
rates.

This is incorrect.

When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant
forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely
missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects
traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism.

Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive
on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely
dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks?

If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to
cause the clock to tick slower.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.

The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the
force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the
sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a
person lives.

Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of
determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the
event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back
together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at
which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount
of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which
the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has
nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart.

The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly
tied to the rate at which a muon decays.

What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical
processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological
organisms.

No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms
(such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after
day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects
enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or.

In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is
which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This
cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there.
It requires *calculation*.

This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the
landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the
trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis
effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant
effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect
isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air
resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the
Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the
effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you
*calculate*.

Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back
significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount
that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by
relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to
that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the
effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin
*younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the
opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism
live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on
experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either
calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages),
for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge,
you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100%
was not due to radiation.

My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you
do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to
claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one
simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from
science that it is completely useless.

On Nov 4, 12:31*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote:



On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote:

On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote:

The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at
which an atomic clock ticks.

* * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a
hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are
mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction
between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant.
* *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However,
it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in
muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that
govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more
serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity.
* * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between
electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of
electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in
the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic
fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between
electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows
down.
* * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern
chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in
both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the
oxidation of cesium atoms.
* * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and
Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological
processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological
applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those
biochemists.
* * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the
assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical
reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for
the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for
chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the
electron differs in these two environments.
* * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is
only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a
Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result
in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that
the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions..
* * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic
velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to
being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a
scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction?
* * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments.. I
would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical
reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast..
We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time.

What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the
calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes
are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process.

The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken.
The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock
on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in
the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the
spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on
the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on
the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives.

You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the
spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the
twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just
as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the
rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation
they receive.

You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the
twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they
were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the
spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the
twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects
as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different
rates.

This is incorrect.

When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant
forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely
missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects
traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism.

Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive
on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely
dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks?

If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to
cause the clock to tick slower.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.

The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the
force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the
sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a
person lives.

Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of
determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the
event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back
together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at
which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount
of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which
the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has
nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart.

The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly
tied to the rate at which a muon decays.

What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical
processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological
organisms.

No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms
(such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after
day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects
enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or.

In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is
which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This
cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there.
It requires *calculation*.

This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the
landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the
trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis
effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant
effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect
isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air
resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the
Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the
effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you
*calculate*.

Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back
significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount
that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by
relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to
that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the
effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin
*younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the
opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism
live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on
experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either
calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages),
for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge,
you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100%
was not due to radiation.

My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you
do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to
claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one
simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from
science that it is completely useless.

Which poster is this?

The one who insists on making baseless assumptions:

"Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the
twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of
the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those
amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to
the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were
different in all three cases."

Or the one who insists such assumptions are nothing more then
"handwaving":

"Then demonstrate, by calculation, that the effect of the force on the
aether will be identical on these things all moving at a particular
speed v relative to the aether:
- a biological organism
- a muon
- an atomic clock
- a chemical clock reaction
- a mass oscillating on the end of a spring

Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these,
without backing it up with calculations, is what is called
"handwaving"."

All this in order to avoid understanding aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

On Nov 4, 11:36*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:27*am, kenseto wrote:





On Nov 3, 11:28*am, PD wrote:

On Nov 3, 8:34*am, kenseto wrote:

On Nov 2, 1:40*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 2, 12:37*pm, kenseto wrote:

On Oct 29, 5:32*pm, PD wrote:

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.
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.

You are in no position to judge. You have not read anything on SR, and
you don't know what SR says.

The point is: Your assertions about what SR said is wrong. For
example: you said that length contraction is physical and physical
mean both geometric effect and material effect.

What is "physical" is not a claim of SR. It is what PHYSICISTS in
general say is physical.

*You* say "physical" means "material". But you are not a physicist and
physicists do not agree with you.

No it is you who said that physical contraction can mean both gemetric
projection effect and material effect and Roberts disagree with you..

Cite where he disagrees with me.

He said that length contraction in SR is not physical.

I said CITE IT, with a direct quote. I'm not interested in your mental
translation of what he said. I'm interested in what he ACTUALLY said.
You cannot read a sentence from beginning to end and understand what
it said, so your paraphrase of what someone else has told you is
uselessly unreliable.



It is a
gemetric projection effect and geometric projection effect cannot
cause the bug dies at two different instants of time.
You said that length contraction in SR is physical and physical can
mean both geometric projection effect and material effect. The
material effect can cause the bug dies at two different instants of
time.

Ken Seto

Ken seto

The point is, you are in no position to judge whether ANY assertions
about SR are right or wrong, because you've not read anything on SR,
and you don't know what SR says.

Ken Seto

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.

You've not read anything "modern" or "old" to know which is which.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its a mind experiment to show there is no free lunch Think about
that Trebert

On Nov 4, 12:07*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:31*pm, PD wrote:

On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote:

On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote:

The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at
which an atomic clock ticks.

* * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a
hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are
mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction
between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant.
* *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However,
it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in
muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that
govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more
serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity.
* * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between
electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of
electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in
the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic
fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between
electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows
down.
* * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern
chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in
both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the
oxidation of cesium atoms.
* * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and
Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological
processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological
applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those
biochemists.
* * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the
assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical
reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for
the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for
chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the
electron differs in these two environments.
* * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is
only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a
Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result
in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that
the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions.
* * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic
velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to
being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a
scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction?
* * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments. I
would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical
reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast.
We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time.

What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the
calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes
are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process..

The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken..
The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock
on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in
the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the
spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on
the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on
the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives.

You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the
spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the
twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just
as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the
rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation
they receive.

You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the
twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they
were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the
spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the
twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects
as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different
rates.

This is incorrect.

When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant
forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely
missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects
traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism.

Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive
on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely
dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks?

If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to
cause the clock to tick slower.

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.

The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the
force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the
sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a
person lives.

Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do
with time.

In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of
determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the
event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back
together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at
which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount
of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which
the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has
nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart.

The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly
tied to the rate at which a muon decays.

What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical
processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological
organisms.

No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms
(such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after
day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects
enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or.

In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is
which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This
cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there.
It requires *calculation*.

This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the
landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the
trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis
effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant
effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect
isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air
resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the
Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the
effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you
*calculate*.

Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back
significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount
that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by
relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to
that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the
effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin
*younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the
opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism
live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on
experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either
calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages),
for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge,
you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100%
was not due to radiation.

My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you
do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to
claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one
simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from
science that it is completely useless.

Which poster is this?


It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you
cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens.
Doesn't change a THING, Mike.
How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many
people even care?

On Nov 4, 2:28*pm, PD wrote:

Which poster is this?

It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you
cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens.
Doesn't change a THING, Mike.
How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many
people even care?

How is it you can state:

"Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back
significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount
that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by
relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to
that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the
effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin
*younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the
opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism
live TWICE as long."

Which is a completely basis assumption.

And at the same time insist:

"Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these,
without backing it up with calculations, is what is called
"handwaving"."

Do you understand you are making a completely basis assumption at the
same time insisting completely basis assumptions are nothing more then
'handwaving'?

Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

On Nov 4, 2:28*pm, PD wrote:

Which poster is this?

It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you
cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens.
Doesn't change a THING, Mike.
How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many
people even care?

How is it you can state:

"Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back
significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount
that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by
relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to
that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the
effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin
*younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the
opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism
live TWICE as long."

Which is a completely baseless assumption.

And at the same time insist:

"Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these,
without backing it up with calculations, is what is called
"handwaving"."

Do you understand you are making a completely baseless assumption at
the same time insisting completely baseless assumptions are nothing
more then 'handwaving'?

Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

On Nov 4, 6:37*am, mpc755 wrote:

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.
This is precisely the effect that relativity is describing. If an
aether exists, it's sole effect is to sustain "relativity."
Your comment about "sole determination" indicates that you haven't
really bothered to read any complete description of relativity. In
that train gedanken, the "jolts and vibrations" of the train are
explicitly ignored.
In Wheelers description of general relativity, the "second order"
effects of space curvature are ignored. By second order effects, read
the Newtonian effects of acceleration. The assumption is that the
hysteresis effects are negligible. Hysteresis effects include dying,
remembering, chronic depression, inspiration, aging, and metal
fatigue.
The absurdity in your hypothesis is that relativity is generally
applied to fundamental particles that are intrinsically insensitive to
effects that don't involve "the aether."
Muons don't feel radiation effects, bone loss, and chronic
depression. Muons don't get crushed by high acceleration, or at least
not the high acceleration seen in the vacuum. Muons are very robust.
So when scientists say that time dilation has been demonstrated in
muons, what they really mean is that time dilation due to aether
effects have been demonstrated.
The aether that I am talking about probably isn't the aether you
are talking about. The physical properties of an aether that sustains
relativity is not the atmosphere-like aether of your pseudo-Newtonian
dreams.
If chemical reactions or biological phenomena are not affected
by this aether, then that would be traumatic to the chemists and
biologists than to the physicists. The physicists can continue to use
relativity for muons, electron scattering, etc. The biologists and
chemists would be seriously challenged. Biologists commonly use the
nonbiological properties of the elements to extrapolate biochemical
reactions.
Relativity is a symmetry property of systems isolated in the
material vacuum. Like all symmetry properties in physics, it applies
over a wide range of physical phenomena.

The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the
force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the
sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a
person lives.
Sure.
If the spaceship doesn't carry oxygen, the twin in the space ship
will die. Then, he won't age at all.
If cushions aren't supplied for the twin in the space ship, he will
be crushed in the initial launch. If he survives the initial launch,
he will be crushed in the turn around.
The twin on earth can be killed by a mugger. Tragically, he will
age slower than the twin in the space ship.
The twin on earth can catch avian flu, and die. The twin in the
space ship is far less likely to catch avian flu.
The twin in the space ship will have weak bones due to the loss of
gravity, unless some type of artificial gravity is supplied. If aging
is defined a osterioperosis, the twin on the space ship will age
faster (again, assuming no artificial gravity).
Then again, the twin in the space ship may like the other solar
system so much that he refuses to turn around.
However, none of these are relativity. If there are aether effects
on biological processes, then there has to be some way to describe
them assuming the other variables are controlled.

On Nov 5, 7:39*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:37*am, mpc755 wrote:

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.

* * This is precisely the effect that relativity is describing. If an
aether exists, it's sole effect is to sustain "relativity."

Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

Aether's sole effect is not to sustain "relativity".

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"

Matter is the condensation of aether.

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects
this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is
energy. Mass is conserved.


* * Your comment about "sole determination" indicates that you haven't
really bothered to read any complete description of relativity. In
that train gedanken, the "jolts and vibrations" of the train are
explicitly ignored.
* * In Wheelers description of general relativity, the "second order"
effects of space curvature are ignored. By second order effects, read
the Newtonian effects of acceleration. The assumption is that the
hysteresis effects are negligible. Hysteresis effects include dying,
remembering, chronic depression, inspiration, aging, and metal
fatigue.
* * * The absurdity in your hypothesis is that relativity is generally
applied to fundamental particles that are intrinsically insensitive to
effects that don't involve "the aether."
* * Muons don't feel radiation effects, bone loss, and chronic
depression. Muons don't get crushed by high acceleration, or at least
not the high acceleration seen in the vacuum. Muons are very robust.
So when scientists say that time dilation has been demonstrated in
muons, what they really mean is that time dilation due to aether
effects have been demonstrated.

The force of the aether exerted on the muon determines the rate at
which it decays.

* * * The aether that I am talking about probably isn't the aether you
are talking about. The physical properties of an aether that sustains
relativity is not the atmosphere-like aether of your pseudo-Newtonian
dreams.

There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of
matter and aether.

There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of
mass.

* * * If chemical reactions or biological phenomena are not affected
by this aether, then that would be traumatic to the chemists and
biologists than to the physicists. The physicists can continue to use
relativity for muons, electron scattering, etc. The biologists and
chemists would be seriously challenged. Biologists commonly use the
nonbiological properties of the elements to extrapolate biochemical
reactions.

I did not say they are not affected by aether. I am saying biological
living entities are not only affected by the aether pressure in which
they exist.

* * Relativity is a symmetry property of systems isolated in the
material vacuum. Like all symmetry properties in physics, it applies
over a wide range of physical phenomena.

The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the
force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the
sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a
person lives.

* * Sure.
* * If the spaceship doesn't carry oxygen, the twin in the space ship
will die. Then, he won't age at all.
* *If cushions aren't supplied for the twin in the space ship, he will
be crushed in the initial launch. If he survives the initial launch,
he will be crushed in the turn around.
* *The twin on earth can be killed by a mugger. Tragically, he will
age slower than the twin in the space ship.
* *The twin on earth can catch avian flu, and die. The twin in the
space ship is far less likely to catch avian flu.
* * The twin in the space ship will have weak bones due to the loss of
gravity, unless some type of artificial gravity is supplied. If aging
is defined a osterioperosis, the twin on the space ship will age
faster (again, assuming no artificial gravity).
* * Then again, the twin in the space ship may like the other solar
system so much that he refuses to turn around.
* * However, none of these are relativity. If there are aether effects
on biological processes, then there has to be some way to describe
them assuming the other variables are controlled.

In the following two articles understand the galaxies are not
traveling with gravitationally bound dark matter but are moving
through aether which has mass.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...g_feature.html

"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."

The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.

'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...milky-way.html

"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."

The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.

On 03.11.2010 08:45, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:01 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.11.2010 06:21, Koobee Wublee wrote:

For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of thought
on resolving the twins’ paradox. Each one is contradictory of the
others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, and
some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the
others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****.
shrug

No, I am not energetic to do something for the proliferation of
Einstein Dingleberrism. You have to understand my point of view on
that one. :-)

You can see it applied he
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html

The Java applet is only as stupid as the person who put it together in
the first place.shrug For instance, in the mathematics of the
Lorentz transform, the mutual time dilation built on relative to each
traveling twin when the acceleration is null can be dramatic if this
coasting time is allowed to expand.shrug

The twins are travelling in flat space time,
so SR can handle it even in an accelerated frame.

Yes, the Lorentz transform if properly applied can address accelerated
frame. However, this is not what is supported by well-known self-
styled physicists.shrug

Claiming that acceleration resolves the twins paradox was endorsed by
your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Very
soon, most self-styled physicists saw a fatal issue with that and
started to divorce themselves away from that. The favored scripture
among the self-styled physicists nowadays is spacetime where
everything ages in spacetime rather than time. Of course, it takes
another religion-inclined discipline to accept that bull****.shrug

So, what the little professor from Trondheim is doing to resolve the
twins’ paradox is actually not supported by many self-styled
physicists. These self-styled physicists know their champion is full
of ****. They in turn decide to allow the kind of the little
professor from Trondheim to wave more mathemagics in hoping to prolong
the religion of SR and GR in which their livelihoods are so much
dependent on.shrug

In another words, lack of comments from self-styled physicists on the
little professor’s childish java applet does not mean they endorse
this nonsense.shrug So, don’t get over your head with your
childish play on these java applets.shrug

There is no dispute about the twin 'paradox' amongst physicist.
My animation is strictly according to the Lorentz transform,
and no professional physicist will dispute that.


Well, yours truly did recall the little professor from Trondheim did
point out it was not the carrier frequencies that are at the issue of
GPS synchronization, but he fails miserably at what the true issues
are.

Thanks for giving me yet another opportunity to remind you:
http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k

So, the little professor is becoming so desperate. His only attack is
on the choice of vocabularies. Hey, once upon a time, I know this
loud-mouth firmware supervisor who was not capable to critiquing any
firmware except the misspelling under the comment section in the
program itself. The little professor reminds me so much of her.
shrug

Any engineers responsible for this type of blunder would face
unemployment in no time. In the academics, their excuses seem to be
very creative. Would “I don’t have any applications that applies to
relativity” be a good alibi? Then, why does the little professor from
Trondheim promote the nonsense of SR? Yours truly see no other
defense to GR besides GR. Does the little professor from Trondheim
not understand GR? It is OK because very few of the self-styled
physicists even understand where the geodesic equations, the Riemann
curvature tensor, and the Einstein field equations are derived. Is
physics the only field where the experts do not have to understand the
subject mattered?

You can see GR applied in curved space time he
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html

Again, the animation merely reflects more shallow understanding of the
programmer.shrug

Funny then, that the simulation based on the Schwarzschild
metric produces the same numbers as nature.
(Experimentally verified for the GPS and gravity probe A,
which is the red rocket in the default scenario.)

--
Paul

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