If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Simple question about SR paradox
On May 31, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Da Do Ron Ron says... Nobody can make the claim that acceleration causes clocks to tick slower Wrong! There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries whose choice of resolution to the twins’ paradox is the breaking of the symmetry. shrug (since none of the clocks in the triplet paradox accelerate). Wrong, again! shrug But one can (and does) make the claim that an accelerated *path* connecting two events will have a different elapsed time than an inertial path connecting the same two events. Show Him the math then. shrug In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the *shortest* path connecting two spatial points. In SR, an inertial path is the *longest* path (measured in terms of elapsed time) connecting two spacetime points. Where did you get this garbage from? shrug These is no such mysticism about the shortest local path, and it is not the same as the path with the least amount of accumulated time. shrug 1. Spacetime paths are mere math, having no physical existence, and the same goes for spacetime itself. Would you say that Space is mere math, having no physical existence, and that therefore we need a physical explanation for why a straight line connecting two points is shorter than a curved line connecting the same two points? This is irrelevant. shaking His head 2. There is no need to bring in any outside observers and their observations of “spacetime paths”; I didn't say anything about "observers". A spacetime path is independent of any observer. That is correct. However, in the GR math is interpreted otherwise by the selfstyled physicists for more than 100 years. In this ****edup interpretation, the segment of spacetime is dependent on observers. An observer can now play god. shrug Oh, if not interpreted this way, GR has no hope, and it belongs in the garbage can. shrug all that matters is that people in different frames age differently. Ron is correct. shrug All frames are equivalent, as far as the laws of physics are concerned, so that's not a very good explanation. Stop being a hypocrite. In SR, you do have very special frame of references called inertial frames. shrug 3. And even if I give you the luxury of being meaningful here, you still have to explain why "different spacetime paths" can make people in different inertial frames age differently. (Grandpa versus teenager, born at same time) Do you understand how there can be two different highways connecting New York City and Chicago, and they could have different lengths? Of course. Is the author of having doubt? shrug The parameter that is meaningful for aging is not coordinate time, The coordinate time (or observed time) and the local time (elapsed time) are related by a factor of something. In the Lorentz transform, it is sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2). shrug but elapsed time along a path, shaking His head which is pathdependent in the same way that the length of a highway is dependent on which highway you take. More ignorant and meaningless nonsense. shrug 
Ads 
#2




Simple question about SR paradox
On 5/31/11 5:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 31, Daryl McCullough wrote: Da Do Ron Ron says... Nobody can make the claim that acceleration causes clocks to tick slower Wrong! There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries whose choice of resolution to the twins’ paradox is the breaking of the symmetry. shrug The Twin Paradox for Koobee, the confused http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif 
#3




Simple question about SR paradox
In article , Sam Wormley says...
On 5/31/11 5:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: On May 31, Daryl McCullough wrote: Da Do Ron Ron says... Nobody can make the claim that acceleration causes clocks to tick slower Wrong! There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries whose choice of resolution to the twins’ paradox is the breaking of the symmetry. shrug The Twin Paradox for Koobee, the confused http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Euclidean geometry: The length of a curve described by y = f(x) from the point A to point B is given by: L = Integral of squareroot(1+(df/dx)^2) dx The *shortest* curve from A to B is the one where df/dx is constant. Spacetime geometry: The proper time for a path described by x = f(t) from spacetime point A to spacetime point B is given by (in units where c=1): T = Integral of squareroot(1(df/dt)^2) dt Because of the minus sign, the *longest* path from A to B is the one where df/dt is constant. In neither case, does the second derivative of f make an explicit contribution to the integral.  Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY 
#4




Simple question about SR paradox
Koobee Wublee writes:
Show Him the math then. shrug .... This is irrelevant. shaking His head .... shaking His head Interesting. Not only is Koobee referring to himself in the third person, but he is capitalizing "his" and "him" when he does so. This is not done except in some religious works when the pronoun refers to God. Does Koobee have some sort of superiority complex? 
#5




Simple question about SR paradox
.... and with that,
let us close this chapter in justifiable or un justifiable hatred of Einstein. 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Simple question about SR paradox  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  66  June 5th 11 01:15 AM 
Simple question about SR paradox  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  2  May 29th 11 09:14 PM 
Simple question about SR paradox  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  3  May 28th 11 02:09 AM 
Simple question about SR paradox  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  68  May 26th 11 07:33 PM 