TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
| |
| | So you don't believe in Relativity's predictions concerning the twin
| | paradox?
| |
| ‘By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.’ —
| Galileo
| Galilei
|
|
| Funny you won't answer a simple question about what you believe. Why is
| that?

Do you believe Australia and Canada interfered in Kuwait?
Why did they do that?

Funny you won't answer a simple question about what you believe. Why is
that?

Hard times for Divine Albert's Divine Absurdities:

http://www.citeulike.org/article/8163639
Popper's response to Dingle on special relativity and the problem of
the observer, by: Peter Hayes
Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In
History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (30 October 2010)
Abstract
Dingle contended that Einstein's special theory of relativity was
physically impossible for the simple reason that it required clocks to
be simultaneously faster and slower than each other. McCrea refuted
Dingle using an operationalist argument. An operational response did
not satisfy Popper, who wrote an unpublished essay to counter Dingle's
claim. Popper developed an analysis that avoided operationalism by
using a system of coinciding clocks, contending that this system
showed that special relativity withstood Dingle's criticism that it
was not a symmetrical and consistent physical theory. However, Popper
mistakenly included an asymmetric calculation in his analysis. Once
this is corrected, the amended result supports Dingle's position.
Popper went on to argue that to avoid determinism, special relativity
had to be reconciled with absolute time; this too supports Dingle.
Popper's failure to refute Dingle calls into question his claim that
'the observer' is superfluous to special relativity.

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?

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