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




Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
On Jan 7, 10:02 am, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:24 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote: It is perfectly symmetrical. Note that SR does not seek to find who actually fired the rocket. Between the two spaceships A and B, A can accelerate or B can accelerate or both can accelerate. SR deals with uniform motion after acceleration. that's not so. That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an exprofessor of physics at a university in Texas. shrug if both accelerate, there is no time difference. After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it evaporate? shrug the fact that one accelerates and the other doesn't is the reason there is a difference. Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug sr accounts for the difference in that case. if you thought that sr just ignores acceleration then you thought wrong and the twin example was designed to elicit that mistake. In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of acceleration cancel out? If not, why not? Just what part of this simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug Let’s recap the mathemagic trick Einstein dingleberries like to pitch when one accelerates and the other does not. ** dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – B^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2) Where ** B c = Relative speed between 1 and 2 When both accelerate, well they will probably say the following. ** dt1 = dt2 And ** dt2 = dt1 It is indeed interesting what type of mathemagic trick they are going to pull out when both 1 and 2 are coasting away or towards each other. shrug For reference, the Lorentz transform always says the following regardless who is accelerating or no: ** dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – B^2) And ** dt2 = dt1 sqrt(1 – B^2) The only time when there is no contradiction is when (B^2 = 0). shrug 
Ads 
#2




Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
On Jan 7, 12:31 pm, Absolutely Vertical
wrote: On 1/7/2013 12:43 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an exprofessor of physics at a university in Texas. shrug i would imagine a lot of people would say it, since it's not so. if someone tells you that the earth is not flat, i expect you to remark that someone else on usenet said so too. Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before. For your information, PD, since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4 thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical, and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age. Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He had underestimated the size of the earth by about 1/3. shrug After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it evaporate? shrug in the turnaround of one of them. How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around? Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up your own laws of physics. You are no god. shrug the lorentz transform as you're using it doesn't deal with the turnaround. you need to use the version that deals with the acceleration of the turnaround. Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn’t the magic effect of acceleration cancel out? in the case where both twins accelerate, then there is no asymmetry. while there is a change that happens during the acceleration, it's the same for both, so when they meet again, their clocks show the same time. Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug yes, the turnaround undoes the time dilation of the coasting period. for both observers in the symmetric case, the other's clock leaps forward to be ahead of the other's clock. if this comes as a shock it's because you've never looked at the generalization of the lorentz transform in an accelerated frame. And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in the accelerated frame? shrug If not, why not? Just what part of this simple scenario do you not understand, PD? shrug 
#3




Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
On Jan 7, 2:16 pm, PD wrote:
On 1/7/2013 2:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before. as predicted PD is a dumb fvck. Since Venereal is PD, what does that have to say about venereal? shrug For your information, PD, who? you mean sylvia? No, PD. Koobee Wublee means PD. shrug since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4 thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical, and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age. Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around? absolutely. Handwaving = reasoning. shrug Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. shrug what? there's no godliness needed here. only stuff you've not acquainted yourself with. that's as common as mud. PD is the only one who thinks he can make everything happen by hand waving. shrug Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? shrug there's one between inertial reference frames. there's another one for dealing with accelerating frames. does this small common fact surprise you? Specifically, what are they? If you cannot write down these two different Lorentz transforms, you are a fvcking liar, and there is no need for Koobee Wublee to waste His valuable time on the ilk such as this deranged personality of PD. Just how many different personalities does PD have? Is this a game to PD? shrug Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? shrug in the description of transformations from or to an accelerated frame. try googling 'lorentz transform accelerated frame'. you'll only need the first half dozen of the 250k results No, there are 250k interpretations which are all different with varying degrees of bull****. Koobee Wublee needs to know which version PD believes in to allow for the necessary demystification process. shrug And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in the accelerated frame? shrug you like to follow math. go to where the math is laid out already. do you need me to tie your shoes for you, or can you use the internet? Where is the math? PD has failed to deliver his faulty claim once again. shrug 
#4




Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
with quaternions, "the math" is just ordinary space,
with the "real, scalar" part being the t parameter; no silly Minkowskian visionarying, required ... unless you *want* to reduce the number of spatial dimensions, in *order* to spatialize time in a graphical format. anyonre can also see, that the angular momenta of atoms are inertial components .,. in the Godam math; thank you. Where is the math? 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  24  January 8th 13 06:51 AM 
Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  3  January 6th 13 09:47 AM 
The twin paradox  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  22  May 11th 12 02:35 AM 
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  111  November 25th 10 12:41 PM 
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?  Androcles[_33_]  Amateur Astronomy  5  November 2nd 10 04:12 PM 