#1
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain either errors or misconceptions. Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform demonstrates. http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...M/Yf-2nu9pllUJ shrug But the basic idea is solid, The twins’ paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. It can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN? shrug and has been experimentally demonstrated What do you mean “experimentally demonstrated”? Do you mean no experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money, effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know what you are talking about. shrug -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through spacetime; What type of bull**** is that? If you are telling us that the flow rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR. shrug Given the Lorentz transform below, ** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) ** dy” = dy ** dz” = dz ** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) You can write down the following from the four equations above. ** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2 Then, you can certainly write down the following. ** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2 In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time. So, where is the proper time? It does not exist. shrug two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings. Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the Lorentz transform. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
it's called, "conservation of angular momentum,"
or clockworkspiel, at relativistical velocities, such as that in atoms. I shrug the body electronic! let's see what Nienstein999 says about the "paradox," Neinstein998; that's at least N guys, bogged-down in quadratic equations. two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings. Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the Lorentz transform. *shrug thus: deforestation (e.g.) causes much, much more climate change (as well as CO2) than the incredibly skinny absorptive spectrum of CO2, compared to the swampcooler's (water). but, why is that, given the similar shape of the molecules?... all that I can come-up with, later. thus: the primary such datum is the total difference of insolation from equator to pole(s), one to zero as a first approx., high noon on the equinox.; hence, the total absurdity of the "hole" in the ozonosphere, esp. considering that there are so mnay of them, at any given time. thus: it's called that, by the Newtonians, of course. anyway, it's amazing what you can do with that, or at any rate with Kepler's three orbital constraints, and a lotta math, even though the 3-body problem is not generally solved; there was a conspicuous advance, though, with the 4-body problem! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
On 26.04.2012 22:30, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Apr 25, 8:04 am, Tom Roberts wrote: many analyses of the "twin paradox" are superficial and contain either errors or misconceptions. Yes, such as the following misapplication of the Lorentz transform demonstrates. http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html The mistake is definitively pointed out in the following. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...M/Yf-2nu9pllUJ shrug But the basic idea is solid, The twins’ paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. It can easily be shown so and done for you in the above link. So, we have no idea what you are talking about what this basic idea is. You mean the stuff you have BELIVED IN?shrug and has been experimentally demonstrated What do you mean “experimentally demonstrated”? Do you mean no experimental observations of the twins’ paradox? Of course, we can tell you that. It does not require an experiment to tell you that flying pigs just don’t exist. You don’t have to spend a lot of money, effort, and energy to look for a paradox. We don’t think you know what you are talking about.shrug -- there is no doubt whatsoever that in the world we inhabit the elapsed proper time of a clock depends on its path through spacetime; What type of bull**** is that? If you are telling us that the flow rate of time between two frames of references can be different, we accept that. So, there is the flow rate of time of the observer, and there is the flow rate of time of the observed which can be called the local time. There is no proper time unless you are desperately trying to spin more mysticism to perpetuate your religion of SR and GR. shrug Given the Lorentz transform below, ** dx” = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) ** dy” = dy ** dz” = dz ** dt” = ( dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) You can write down the following from the four equations above. ** c^2 dt”^2 – dx”^2 – dy”^2 – dz”2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2 Then, you can certainly write down the following. ** c^2 dt”^2 = c^2 dt^2 – dx^2 – dy^2 – dz^2 In this case, dt” is the flow rate of time of “ frame or local time. So, where is the proper time? It does not exist.shrug two identical clocks that start together, separate, and then rejoin can indeed display different elapsed times between those two meetings. Yes, and this proves SR piece of **** since SR is incapable of predicting such a case without invoking a gross misapplication of the Lorentz transform.shrug shrug -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
On 4/26/12 3:30 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I
choose no to replicate. http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*. Virginia Tech College of Science Physics Dept Tatsu Takeuchi Special Relativity Lecture Notes Section 15 http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Sam wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate. because in here, Sam says, it shows that http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*. hanson wrote: Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize here again, would be tolerable if you where to preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs and your mental masturbations in your daily session during which you worship Albert's sphincter. But if you don't acknowledge that,Sam, and you insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so that he can be looked at and checked out. The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts return from the International Space Station, after having been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were exposed to velocities & accelerations, that are not even near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam? Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR 'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words for you again? Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahahahanson |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
what a strange universe you are in,
to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales; E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv, Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ... from momentum? recanted and said that his SR/GR 'was crock o'****. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
to get the 1/2 coefficient, apparently provided by Coriolis.
E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv, Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ... from momentum? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
|||Brian||| Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net
is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity. Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on "1treePetrifiedForestLane" & is no longer able to realize what's going on and so: ||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?" ||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards" ||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the ||| Brian says: patent office. ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv ||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes ||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS. and so Brian wrote: what a strange universe you are in, to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales; E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv, Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ... from momentum? hanson wrote: If you can't produce the address of Einstein's younger twin, then why are you lamenting as if you knew what's going on, only to put a question mark at the end of your silly tripe. Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal (astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he knows nothing about. Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp, and keep on acting in your one-man street corner performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane" in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office. Meanwhile here is what we were talking about: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Sam wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate. because in here, Sam says, it shows that http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*. hanson wrote: Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize here again, would be tolerable if you where to preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs and your mental masturbations in your daily session during which you worship Albert's sphincter. But if you don't acknowledge that,Sam, and you insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so that he can be looked at and checked out. The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts return from the International Space Station, after having been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were exposed to velocities & accelerations, that are not even near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam? Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR 'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words for you again? Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahahahanson |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
jerkwater; thank you.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The twin paradox
Brian Quicy was chinzy on "1treePetrifiedForestLane"
but he got a stiffy in a jiffy when he wrote: " jerkwater; thank you." hanson wrote: Was it Green Waxman, or his 2 Enviro Whores, Boxer and Feinstein, that made you produce cock-tears and jerkwater, or something in here that excited you so, like your inability to produce the address of Einstein's Younger Twin... Read and pray tell: |||Brian||| Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net is Al Gore's recycled Dingleberry of AGW Relativity. Brian was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach that morphed into Mr. Potato head "Spudnick", then rasterspace" & "tensegriboy" & is now a brain-fossil on "1treePetrifiedForestLane" & is no longer able to realize what's going on and so: ||| Brian asks: " do I have to kiss the Dingleberries?" ||| Brian says: Too bad, I can't just go "backwards" ||| Brian says: in time, and kill the mofo Einstein in the ||| Brian says: patent office. ||||Brian says: E=mcc is "just" an elaboration of KE=mvv ||||Brian says: I want to believe in wormholes ||||Brian says: that are absolute F and FS. and so Brian wrote: what a strange universe you are in, to have no angular mometum at organismal (astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales; E = mcc is just an extension of KE = mvv, Liebniz's *vis viva*, readily integrated ... from momentum? hanson wrote: If you can't produce the address of Einstein's younger twin, then why are you lamenting as if you knew what's going on, only to put a question mark at the end of your silly tripe. Stay stuck in YOUR strange universe of " organismal (astronautic), molecular & sub-atomic scales", that is filled with your quaternions, which make you behave like a dog that barks in the night at a distant noise he knows nothing about. Thanks for the laughs, though, you silly kvetch-kopp, and keep on acting in your one-man street corner performance on the side walk "1treePetrifiedForestLane" in Santa Monica in front of Henry Waxman's office. Meanwhile here is what we were talking about: "Sam Wormley" wrote in message ... Sam wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote some nonsense which I, Wormley, choose no to replicate. because in here, Sam says, it shows that http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif Changing direction involves *acceleration* which puts the astronaut in a *non-inertial frame*. hanson wrote: Sam, all this Einstein crap, for which you proselytize here again, would be tolerable if you where to preface it by saying that it simply reflect your beliefs and your mental masturbations in your daily session during which you worship Albert's sphincter. But if you don't acknowledge that, Sam, and you insist that there is REALITY to/in what you say, then post the address of that younger Einstein twin, so that he can be looked at and checked out. The bad, REAL, news for you, Sam, and for All you Einstein Dingleberries, is that whenever the Astronauts return from the International Space Station, after having been there for a mere 6 months or so, where they were exposed to velocities & accelerations that are not even near anything that can be called relativistic, they all look greatly aged, ****ed up and need medical attention upon return... and they are NOT at all in accord with your vision what your SR/GR predicts. --- Are you senile, Sam? Sam, even Einstein recanted and said that his SR/GR 'was crock o'****. Do I have to repost Einstein's words for you again? Thanks for tthe laughs though, you splendid old Dreidel... ahahaha... ahahahahanson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
twin paradox experiment done in lab | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 21 | July 26th 11 02:39 AM |
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 111 | November 25th 10 12:41 PM |
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY? | Androcles[_33_] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 2nd 10 04:12 PM |
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 16 | January 8th 09 05:39 PM |
A twin paradox simulation | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 29th 08 02:21 PM |