A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Simple question about SR paradox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 31st 11, 11:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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 “space-time 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 self-styled physicists for more than 100 years. In this ****ed-up
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 path-dependent 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  
Old June 1st 11, 12:28 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default 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  
Old June 1st 11, 02:28 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Daryl McCullough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default 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 square-root(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 square-root(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  
Old June 1st 11, 04:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Michael Moroney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 124
Default 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  
Old June 3rd 11, 06:14 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.