TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "The observer performs experiments on his circular
disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention
to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and
space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions
being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this
enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically
constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other
on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We
now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the
standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged
from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity,
whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K
in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in
Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate
permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the
circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

Is it true that "according to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than
that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed
from K "? That is, do the Lorentz tranformations predict that the non-
rotating clock (at the centre of the disc) runs FASTER than the
rotating clock (at the edge of the disc)? If the Lorentz
transformations do not predict anything like that,

Poor terminology aside, they do predict exactly that.

why is Einstein
lying?


He's not.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
| http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
| Albert Einstein: "The observer performs experiments on his circular
| disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention
| to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and
| space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions
| being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this
| enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically
| constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other
| on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We
| now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the
| standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged
| from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity,
| whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K
| in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in
| Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate
| permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the
| circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."
|
| Is it true that "according to a result obtained in Section XII, it
| follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than
| that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed
| from K "? That is, do the Lorentz tranformations predict that the non-
| rotating clock (at the centre of the disc) runs FASTER than the
| rotating clock (at the edge of the disc)? If the Lorentz
| transformations do not predict anything like that,
|
| Poor terminology aside, they do predict exactly that.
|
| why is Einstein
| lying?
|
|
| He's not.
|

Why is Webb lying ?
(rhetorical question, Webb is deranged)

--
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein

AND THE ANSWER IS...

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A -tA) =
c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." -
Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes to get
there is infinity. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.

In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid to
realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.

On Oct 30, 3:30*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "The observer performs experiments on his circular
disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention
to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and
space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions
being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this
enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically
constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other
on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We
now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the
standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged
from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity,
whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K
in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in
Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate
permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the
circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

Is it true that "according to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than
that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed
from K "? That is, do the Lorentz tranformations predict that the non-
rotating clock (at the centre of the disc) runs FASTER than the
rotating clock (at the edge of the disc)? If the Lorentz
transformations do not predict anything like that, why is Einstein
lying?

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


Your arguments are invalid. Suppose you have a clock at rest wrt Earth
at the turnaround point that is syncronized with the Earthbound clock.
We'll call this distant clock the reference clock. When the travelling
twin passes the distant reference clock he will find that the
reference clock reading is offset to a higher value than his own
clock. This is despite the fact that wrt the travelling twins frame
the Earth clock and reference clock are both ticking at a slower rate
than his own. How can this be? The answer lies in the concept of
relativity of simulataneity. When the travelling twin accelerates to
the new frame K' in motion wrt Earth he finds that the Earth and
reference clocks are no longer syncronized with each other. The
distant clock is advanced in its reading compared to the Earth clock.
This can be easily shown using a beam of light to syncronize the
clocks initially. Wrt K' the beam of light has a shorter path from
Earth to the reference clock which are both at rest in K. The Earth
and reference clocks are also ticking slower than a clock at rest in
K'.
As a result, wrt K', the syncronization procedure looked a bit
different. It resulted in the reference clock being set foward in time
wrt the Earth clock.

The rapid advance of the reference clock wrt the accelerated frame of
the travelling twin at the start of his trip is thus a necessary
consequence of the lorentz transform. Though the transform does not in
itself speak of accelerated frames, it does infer some necessary
consequences pertaining to them. It is precisely from this prediction
of time offset in an accelerated frame that gravitational time
dilation came to be incorporated in the general theory.

Even with the form of the argument that you provided that eliminates
acceleration from the problem, there is still jumping from one frame
of reference to another. The outward bound twin and the inward bound
obsever do not agree on the reading on the Earth bound clock at the
time that they pass each other to exchange information. IOW, as long
as the travelling twin is in his outward bound motion, both he and the
Earthbound twin will regard the other as being the one who is aging
slower.

Relativity of simultaneity, there's your answer. What is simultaneous
wrt one observer will not be simultaneous wrt an observer in motion
wrt him. Your implied premise of absolute simultaneity will of course
lead to a real contradiction since that premise is contradictory to
SR. The contradiction is not present when valid premises are employed.

On 28.10.2010 08:33, 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


http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
Strictly according to the Lorentz transform.
Set the acceleration to max and the acceleration distance to min,
and you will see why a brief acceleration can't be ignored.
(Your jumping twin will have an infinite acceleration.)

--
Paul

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

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| On 28.10.2010 08:33, 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
|
|
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html
| Strictly according to the Lorentz transform.
| Set the acceleration to max and the acceleration distance to min,
| and you will see why a brief acceleration can't be ignored.
| (Your jumping twin will have an infinite acceleration.)
|
| --
| Paul

Don't you mean strictly according to the Andersen transform?

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd

A = (B-C) / D, so OBVIOUSLY
B = (A+C) / D and it can't possibly be
B = AD+C as you have told me a LOT of times.

Your humping twin will have his head up his arse.

Only one twin ages less. The one that was weighted that changed Gamma.

Mitch Raemsch

The twin paradox is perhaps the most powerful weapon against
rationality in the era of Postscientism. The greater youthfulness of
the travelling twin is due to acceleration - Divine Albert said so in
1918. Previously the same Divine Albert had been saying that
acceleration is unimportant:

ftp://ftp.aquila.infn.it/users/nardone/INTRODUZIONE%20alla%20FISICA%20MODERNA/ARTICOLI%20ORIGINALI/Relativita'/Twin%20Paradox.pdf
Einstein and the twin paradox
Peter Pesic, Eur. J. Phys. 24 (2003) 585–590
"This confirms that in 1914 Einstein considered arguments based on
acceleration to be unimportant to the crucial issue. (...) In his 1918
response, Einstein does not repeat his earlier simultaneity argument
but relies instead on the argument that since one of the clocks is in
an accelerated frame of reference, the postulates of the special
theory of relativity do not apply to it and so 'no contradictions in
the foundations of the theory can be construed'. He also repeats this
argument in a private letter of 1920 to his friend Friedrich Adler,
indicating that he found it preferable not just in the context of the
public debate. This is, of course, just the argument that became so
vexatious in the later controversy about the 'paradox': does it or
does it not hang on the full treatment of accelerated systems of
reference in general relativity? (...) The issue here is not just the
weakness of our historical awareness or physical understanding, but
even more the depth of the issues that are at stake. Like Fritz
Muller, each new generation of students must fight this battle over
again, so that, however familiar the result becomes, it is important
not to dismiss or minimize its strangeness. After all, fully six years
after he stated and resolved this problem, Einstein himself still felt
it to be 'really funny'. As we return to reconsider our starting
point, we and Einstein are rather like the twins, meeting again after
a long journey. If we are the returning twin, we are now much older
than our younger brother, though perhaps not wiser."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2123/1/annalen.pdf
Michel Janssen: "As late as November 1918 - more than half a year
after clarifying the foundations of general relativity - Einstein saw
fit to publish an account of the twin paradox along these lines. This
1918 paper not only offered a solution for a problem that had already
been solved, it also raised suspicion about the earlier solution by
suggesting that the problem called for general relativity. Einstein
thus bears some responsibility for the endless confusion over the twin
paradox..."

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
"According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein
in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B,
in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is
the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the
theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from
the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many
applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in
practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is
sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have
been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from
the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible
effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between
the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the
question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that
the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
Peter Hayes: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of
thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds
that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics
held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to
discredit their technical objections to relativity as being
scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative
possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of
Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an
ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how
relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it
scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make
the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument
are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of
the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move
at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of
explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of
relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is
only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to
different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this
criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent
contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is
rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by
professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a
general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by
asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain
why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the
argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified,
highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the
theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a
shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading
popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity
reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious
inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's
claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are
overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right
for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a
potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice
wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept
relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an
understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears
illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are
necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not
approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their
expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on
popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are
youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts?
Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with
true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed
to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument
of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join
the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend
disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail
to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the
inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this
merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The
gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research
institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises
problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an
ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of
one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the
apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it.
Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for
Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given
experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable
approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to
the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the
special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary
scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates
how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as
when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be
called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents
the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also
in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 30, 1:49 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

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

That did not work for me for either the 32-bit or the 64-bit Microsoft
Internet Explorer browser. Oh, my screen resolution is 2,048 x
1,152. The applet even if it works is only as dumb as the author who
constructed it in the first place. shrug

Strictly according to the Lorentz transform.

You don’t understand the Lorentz transform then just like all the
other Einstein Dingleberries. shrug

Set the acceleration to max and the acceleration distance to min,
and you will see why a brief acceleration can't be ignored.
(Your jumping twin will have an infinite acceleration.)

Although yours truly is a very lousy poke player, I will call your
bluff any day that you do not have an acceleration model for the
Lorentz transform or the equivalence of it. shrug

We are witnessing over and over again that a professor of applied
physics or RF fails to understand the nonsense in SR. His experiences
should have given him a hint that nothing can be resolved with only
the nonsense of SR. That includes GPS in which the little and
clueless professor is at lost at what parameter is the essence in
synchronization. Oh, don’t tell me it is the set of carrier
frequencies. :-)

On 30.10.2010 23:08, Androcles wrote:

Don't you mean strictly according to the Andersen transform?

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Bigot Andersen, Tusseladd

You have repeated this trivial statement of mine several
times, and I always wondered why.

But NOW I have got the explanation:

Ta-daaa:

A = (B-C) / D, so OBVIOUSLY
B = (A+C) / D and it can't possibly be
B = AD+C as you have told me a LOT of times.

Your humping twin will have his head up his arse.

Hilarius, no? :-)

http://tinyurl.com/2uygj4t

--
Paul, the Tusseladd

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

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.