TWIN PARADOX IN EINSTEIN 1905 PAPER

Alen says...

All the contradictory predictions of the paradox are
all correct together, AS LONG AS THE RELATIVE
VELOCITIES EXIST.

There *are* no contradictory predictions made by
Special Relativity.

If, however, A and B decelerate,
or A and P decelerate, or B and P decelerate and
come to a stop, relatively, all time dilations disappear,
and all clocks show the same time, as they did before
the experiment commenced.

You wrote: "Have I ever said simply that SR is wrong, period?
No, never." But SR predicts just the opposite of what you
say. SR predicts that if one clock accelerates, turns around
and returns it will show less elapsed time than a clock that
remains at rest in its initial reference frame.

What you are saying is contradictory. If SR is correct, then
your claim that "all clocks show the same time, as they did
before the experiment commenced" is *wrong*. If your claim
is right, then SR is wrong.

In other words, time dilation is only a view of a moving
clock due to the relative velocity, in which A sees B's
clock as it was in the past, and B sees A's clock as it
was in the past, etc., thus producing the contradictory
appearance.

That's completely contradictory to what SR says. You are
confusing time dilation with the Doppler effect.

This is not an argument. It is merely a statement of
the result of the way I believe light works in the
context of SR.

If you are correct about that (which you're not---actual
experiments have verified the reality of time dilation)
then SR is wrong.

The solution supports every aspect of the POR,
from every frame's point of view,

No, it does not. You think that because you haven't
actually done the mathematics. The POR is *inconsistent*
with the constancy of the speed of light unless you have
time dilation.

If you want to disagree that time dilations disappear,
then go ahead. I don't claim that the above solution
is an orthodox solution.

It doesn't matter whether it's orthodox or not, it's
contradictory. The principle of relativity together
with the assumption that light has speed c in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source
leads to the reality of time dilation. Your combination
(POR plus constancy of lightspeed plus no time dilation)
is *inconsistent*.

Note: When I say time dilation is "real", I'm specifically
talking about the effect in which a clock that goes from
point A to point B along an accelerated path shows less
elapsed time than a clock that travels inertially.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Oct 7, 7:14 am, Alen wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-



SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Alen" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 12:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in ...
Alen says...

On Oct 5, 11:45 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
[...]
It hasn't plagued physics. It's plagued crackpots.
Yes, many people have a lot of trouble with Special
Relativity, but it's almost always the case that they
are people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
in general.

hm... I have a little amendment here...
From my experience with crackpots (here and elsewhere),
those people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
make up only (more or less) half of the crackpot population.
There is that other half (apparently many engineers among
them), who have no significant trouble with mathematical
reasoning as such, but who spectacularly fail when it comes
to physical reasoning and properly using the mathematical
formalism in physics.They simply just don't understand the
physical meanings of the variables, and by extension, of the
equations in the math, which, after all, for SR is just trivial
lower high school algebra.
Carefully explaining those meanings to these people (which
is the first thing one should do to help them out of their
misery), invariably results in either suddenly shutting down,
or in flat refusal to listen to the explanations, and rambling
on: "That all looks highly suspicious to me"
Sometimes I get the impression that they actually *like*
the situation they find themselves in. Very strange - but still
mildly amusing :-)

Dirk Vdm

ROFL!

Forgot to mention this slightly less amusing aspect...
Some of these people even laugh you in the face when you
are trying to help them.

Dirk Vdm

I don't laugh at people. I merely thought your
description was amusing, that's all.

I don't know whether or not you are describing
yourself as a helpful person, but your remark prompts
me to ask you if someone who goes to the trouble
of creating a large website to display what he calls
the 'fumbles' of his fellow beings, presumably to provide
an ongoing record for their permanent humiliation, is
likely to appear to them to be a kindly, helpful person?

Alen



but you are WAY past help, even past medical help :-)

"Alen" wrote in message ups.com...
On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Alen" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 12:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in ...
Alen says...

On Oct 5, 11:45 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
[...]
It hasn't plagued physics. It's plagued crackpots.
Yes, many people have a lot of trouble with Special
Relativity, but it's almost always the case that they
are people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
in general.

hm... I have a little amendment here...
From my experience with crackpots (here and elsewhere),
those people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
make up only (more or less) half of the crackpot population.
There is that other half (apparently many engineers among
them), who have no significant trouble with mathematical
reasoning as such, but who spectacularly fail when it comes
to physical reasoning and properly using the mathematical
formalism in physics.They simply just don't understand the
physical meanings of the variables, and by extension, of the
equations in the math, which, after all, for SR is just trivial
lower high school algebra.
Carefully explaining those meanings to these people (which
is the first thing one should do to help them out of their
misery), invariably results in either suddenly shutting down,
or in flat refusal to listen to the explanations, and rambling
on: "That all looks highly suspicious to me"
Sometimes I get the impression that they actually *like*
the situation they find themselves in. Very strange - but still
mildly amusing :-)

Dirk Vdm

ROFL!

Forgot to mention this slightly less amusing aspect...
Some of these people even laugh you in the face when you
are trying to help them.

Dirk Vdm

I don't laugh at people. I merely thought your
description was amusing, that's all.

My mistake. I was describing you and people like you, so you
were effectively rolling on the floor over yourself. That makes
it again slightly more amusing. Thanks for that.


I don't know whether or not you are describing
yourself as a helpful person, but your remark prompts
me to ask you if someone who goes to the trouble
of creating a large website to display what he calls
the 'fumbles' of his fellow beings, presumably to provide
an ongoing record for their permanent humiliation, is
likely to appear to them to be a kindly, helpful person?

I do my best to only take on board those who turn their
pigheaded refusal to be kindly helped into a fine art...
"WAY past help", as Dono expressed it.

Dirk Vdm

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
Alen says...

All the contradictory predictions of the paradox are
all correct together, AS LONG AS THE RELATIVE
VELOCITIES EXIST.

There *are* no contradictory predictions made by
Special Relativity.

If, however, A and B decelerate,
or A and P decelerate, or B and P decelerate and
come to a stop, relatively, all time dilations disappear,
and all clocks show the same time, as they did before
the experiment commenced.

You wrote: "Have I ever said simply that SR is wrong, period?
No, never." But SR predicts just the opposite of what you
say. SR predicts that if one clock accelerates, turns around
and returns it will show less elapsed time than a clock that
remains at rest in its initial reference frame.

What you are saying is contradictory. If SR is correct, then
your claim that "all clocks show the same time, as they did
before the experiment commenced" is *wrong*. If your claim
is right, then SR is wrong.

In other words, time dilation is only a view of a moving
clock due to the relative velocity, in which A sees B's
clock as it was in the past, and B sees A's clock as it
was in the past, etc., thus producing the contradictory
appearance.

That's completely contradictory to what SR says. You are
confusing time dilation with the Doppler effect.

This is not an argument. It is merely a statement of
the result of the way I believe light works in the
context of SR.

If you are correct about that (which you're not---actual
experiments have verified the reality of time dilation)
then SR is wrong.

The solution supports every aspect of the POR,
from every frame's point of view,

No, it does not. You think that because you haven't
actually done the mathematics. The POR is *inconsistent*
with the constancy of the speed of light unless you have
time dilation.

If you want to disagree that time dilations disappear,
then go ahead. I don't claim that the above solution
is an orthodox solution.

It doesn't matter whether it's orthodox or not, it's
contradictory. The principle of relativity together
with the assumption that light has speed c in all
directions regardless of the motion of the source
leads to the reality of time dilation. Your combination
(POR plus constancy of lightspeed plus no time dilation)
is *inconsistent*.

Note: When I say time dilation is "real", I'm specifically
talking about the effect in which a clock that goes from
point A to point B along an accelerated path shows less
elapsed time than a clock that travels inertially.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY


Sorry to cut in but I want to emphasize greatly just one little item here
from you (just for the heck of it). "ELAPSED TIME!"

Elapse: 1. (of time) to slip by or pass away.... 2. the passage or
termination of a period of time; lapse. [ L [elaps(us)] (ptp. of elabi to
slip away), equiv, to e- E- + [lab-] slip + [-tus] ptp. suffix]

-----------------------

I'm always fascinated when I think about how an inner hub of a wheel with
an enormously smaller diameter and circumference than the outer rim of the
same wheel manages to cover the same amount of ground in the same number of
turns in the same amount of time.

Now if someone forgot all about that rim and the hub's integral ties to
it, or didn't observe the rim and any connection at all or realize it even
existed.... what physics would they come up with to explain the tiny hub's
managing to cover that huge amount of ground in those lesser number of
turns, in that smaller amount of time? What physics to explain its
dimensional 'slippage' -- all that it can be called -- through space and
time from A to B, or B to A?

-------------------------

GLB

On Oct 2, 7:09 pm, Alen wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:37 am, Richard Hachel wrote:



Alen wrote:
I always think it laughable how the so-called 'twins'
paradox is fabricated to as to create an asymmetry
that will provide a solution. It should be called the
pseudo-twins paradox, or the non-twins paradox.
The following is the real TWINS paradox:

Let A and B be located a long distance apart, in the
same inertial frame, with their clocks synchronised
with one another. Let them both, at an agreed time,
accelerate simultaneously, identically, and in a very
short time, directly towards one another, until they
reach a relative velocity v. When they eventually arrive
half way between their original positions, at a position
I will call P, the following will be the results:

According to observer P, A and B are younger than
himself, but equal in age.

According to A and B, P is younger than themselves,
and they agree as to his age.

According to A, B is younger than himself, and younger
than P.

According to B, A is younger than himself, and younger
than P.

That is the real TWINS paradox, in which A and B
are identical. The pseudo-twins version is a just a
fabrication created to make the solution easy.

http://hachel.chez-alice.fr/stella.htm

Alen

R.H.

You are as bad as Dono

Alen



You mean he treats you as you deserve, i.e. as an old imbecile?

On Oct 8, 1:48 am, Dono wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:14 am, Alen wrote:





On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Alen" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 12:57 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in ...
Alen says...

On Oct 5, 11:45 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
[...]
It hasn't plagued physics. It's plagued crackpots.
Yes, many people have a lot of trouble with Special
Relativity, but it's almost always the case that they
are people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
in general.

hm... I have a little amendment here...
From my experience with crackpots (here and elsewhere),
those people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
make up only (more or less) half of the crackpot population.
There is that other half (apparently many engineers among
them), who have no significant trouble with mathematical
reasoning as such, but who spectacularly fail when it comes
to physical reasoning and properly using the mathematical
formalism in physics.They simply just don't understand the
physical meanings of the variables, and by extension, of the
equations in the math, which, after all, for SR is just trivial
lower high school algebra.
Carefully explaining those meanings to these people (which
is the first thing one should do to help them out of their
misery), invariably results in either suddenly shutting down,
or in flat refusal to listen to the explanations, and rambling
on: "That all looks highly suspicious to me"
Sometimes I get the impression that they actually *like*
the situation they find themselves in. Very strange - but still
mildly amusing :-)

Dirk Vdm

ROFL!

Forgot to mention this slightly less amusing aspect...
Some of these people even laugh you in the face when you
are trying to help them.

Dirk Vdm

I don't laugh at people. I merely thought your
description was amusing, that's all.

I don't know whether or not you are describing
yourself as a helpful person, but your remark prompts
me to ask you if someone who goes to the trouble
of creating a large website to display what he calls
the 'fumbles' of his fellow beings, presumably to provide
an ongoing record for their permanent humiliation, is
likely to appear to them to be a kindly, helpful person?

Alen

but you are WAY past help, even past medical help :-)

I am certainly better off without any help
if you are supposed to be an example
of what I 'ought' to become.

Alen

On Oct 8, 1:02 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Alen says...

[...]
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

I have made my position clear, and will not
enter into an endless discussion about it here,
which would be pointless.

I know by now that you are a more than
firm adherent of the Minkowski spacetime
version of SR, and will not be persuaded of
anything else. And yes, I know that you
hold that Minkowski spacetime is the only
SR, and not a 'version' of SR, since you
don't consider there could be any other.

Alen

Alen says...

I have made my position clear

To the extent that it is clear, it is provably wrong.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Oct 8, 5:25 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Alen" wrote in oglegroups.com...
[...]
I do my best to only take on board those who turn their
pigheaded refusal to be kindly helped into a fine art...
"WAY past help", as Dono expressed it.

Dirk Vdm

'Pigheaded' is a very authoritarian, fascist sounding
expression. You clearly need to be strongly reminded
that this forum is not an examination, with you the
examiner, or an application for employment, with you
the employer, or anything of an equivalent nature. It is
a forum for the complete FREEDOM of thought and
expression of ideas in respect of SR. If you don't have
the capacity to cope with the AUTONOMY and FREEDOM
of thought of others, stupid, wrong, or whatever, in your
view, then why do you come here, dragging your fumbles
website after you? YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY HERE
WHATSOEVER. Why don't you remain in your own
sphere, on a moderated forum, on in some arena that
might suit your mentality, where the orthodox
view is LAW?

Alen

On Oct 8, 9:15 pm, Alen wrote:


'Pigheaded' is a very authoritarian, fascist sounding


How about old imbecile?