Simple question about SR paradox

On May 23, 6:26 am, Marc Fleury wrote:

To the point I want clarity on. I assume I have two inertial frames,
with an atomic clock in each of them. They have a relative velocity
of v. SR tells us that the coordinates are lorentz transformed so
that time in both frames with respect to the other has to be
multiplied by sqrt(1-v/c^2) bla bla bla the usual "time slows down in
a moving framework". I have no problem with slowing down 'time'
understood as coordinates (meaning with no physical, or ontological,
reality and just props in my calculations) but have a profound problem
admitting that both CLOCKS (as counting ticks) will slow down with
respect to the other. Just by symmetry of the problem, the
proposition seems non-sensical to me.

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved. Yet, when you
ask each self-styled physicist, each one will tell you a bull****
resolution or wild interpretation with no sound mathematical basis in
which each one is contradictory of the others. That is because the
self-styled physicists have hypnotized themselves into believing that
this paradox is OK to swallow based on the following Orwellian
ideology:

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

The only logical action is to flush the Lorentz transform down the
toilet since it manifests the twins’ paradox. shrug

Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.
--
ξ Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote:
Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.
May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

On 5/23/11 3:39 PM, Prai Jei wrote:


There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

The Twin Paradox for Seto, Schubert, Sefton and Ralph (Henry)
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

On May 23, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 23, 6:26 am, Marc Fleury wrote:

To the point I want clarity on. I assume I have two inertial frames,
with an atomic clock in each of them. They have a relative velocity
of v. SR tells us that the coordinates are lorentz transformed so
that time in both frames with respect to the other has to be
multiplied by sqrt(1-v/c^2) bla bla bla the usual "time slows down in
a moving framework". I have no problem with slowing down 'time'
understood as coordinates (meaning with no physical, or ontological,
reality and just props in my calculations) but have a profound problem
admitting that both CLOCKS (as counting ticks) will slow down with
respect to the other. Just by symmetry of the problem, the
proposition seems non-sensical to me.

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved. Yet, when you
ask each self-styled physicist, each one will tell you a bull****
resolution or wild interpretation with no sound mathematical basis in
which each one is contradictory of the others. That is because the
self-styled physicists have hypnotized themselves into believing that
this paradox is OK to swallow based on the following Orwellian
ideology:

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

The only logical action is to flush the Lorentz transform down the
toilet since it manifests the twins’ paradox. shrug

I this thread, we are shown with the following resolutions to the
twins’ paradox so far:

**** “Observation is not reality” championed by Tom Roberts

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a7e50362?hl=en

The morale of the story on this one is that physics is a bull****
science according to these self-styled physicists. shrug

**** “Mathemagics rules in SR” championed by Paul Andersen

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/...e_dilation.pdf

The author conjured up the most common mathemagical trick in a
desperate attempt to resolve the paradox.

The Lorentz transform (and the good old Galilean transform) is a tale
of three points with two observers (primed and unprimed) and one
observed. The time transformation equation is:

** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] = Velocity of (t) as observed by (t’)
** [s] = Position vector of the observed as observed by (t)
** t’ = Time measurement of the observed as observed by (t’)
** t = Time measurement of the observed as observed by (t)
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

The little professor tried to play the mathemagic trick of:

** [v] = d[s] / dt

He has been told so, but sadly to this day, the little remains an
idiot. shrug

Also, to My surprise, a lot of the self-styled physicists are
illiterate in the dot product. WTF! shrug

**** “Spacetime diagram cartoon” championed by Takeuchi

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

If you look closely, you will see Buzz Lightyear yelling “to infinity
and beyond”. shrug

**** “Breaking of the symmetry” championed by Prai Jei

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...836d16e6?hl=en

This was first championed by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather (a Nobel
Laureate) and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Over
the years, many self-styled physicists have walked away from this
stupid conjecture. Only the ones who love to live in sewage still
cling on to this piece of ****. shrug

Sam Wormley writes:

On 5/23/11 3:39 PM, Prai Jei wrote:

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

The Twin Paradox for Seto, Schubert, Sefton and Ralph (Henry)
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif

That is over their heads. None of them can understand that.

So what would happen if the Twins paradox was actually tried?

Would the travelling twin be younger, older or the same age as the
stay-at-home twin when they are re-united?

On 5/23/11 5:14 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This was first championed by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather (a Nobel
Laureate) and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Over
the years, many self-styled physicists have walked away from this
stupid conjecture. Only the ones who love to live in sewage still
cling on to this piece of ****.shrug

You've got to admit that Einstein's equation sing sweetly--Particle
accelerators, cosmic ray muons making to the ground, and global
navigation satellite systems work!

.... both of you make comments that the OP might address, but, then,
maybe Hell *is* freezing over.d

obviously, if the relative velocity between the identical,
identically-dressed twins, was the result of symmetrical acceleration
between them, there'd be equal time-doilation, and
both of them would be the same age ... but
older than anyone who "stayed at the home for wayward twins."

Would the travelling twin be younger, older or the same age as the
stay-at-home twin when they are re-united?