|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
"Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | | "Androcles" wrote in message | ... | | "Peter Webb" wrote in message | ... | | | | "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message | | ... | | On Nov 3, 1:54 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: | | "Koobee Wublee" wrote: | | | | For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of | thought | | on resolving the twins’ paradox. Each one is contradictory of the | | others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, | and | | some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the | | others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****. | | shrug | | | | Fortunately physicists are not confused; | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox | explains | | it if you are interested. | | "epsilon = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor" | Whose arse was that bull**** pulled from? | | "In their rest frame the distance between the Earth and the star system is | epsilon.d = 0.5d = 2.23 light years (length contraction)" | | What does Einstein say? | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53 | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54 | | No reciprocal, no epsilon. | Lies do not explain anything, you illiterate ignorant little LYING tord. | | | tord? | ....turd Noun. A lump of faeces. Derived from the Anglo-Saxon tord. [1000s] http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm Being English I write English, I do not use New Zealish, Australish, Canadish or Americish. Rhymes with "word". Sounds like the 'u' in Americish "mom" or the 'u' in "love". |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote: On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote: The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. * * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant. * *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However, it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity. * * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows down. * * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the oxidation of cesium atoms. * * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those biochemists. * * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the electron differs in these two environments. * * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions. * * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction? * * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments. I would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast. We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time. What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process. The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken. The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives. You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation they receive. You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different rates. This is incorrect. When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism. Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks? If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to cause the clock to tick slower. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a person lives. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart. The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly tied to the rate at which a muon decays. What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological organisms. No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms (such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or. In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there. It requires *calculation*. This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you *calculate*. Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin *younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages), for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge, you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100% was not due to radiation. My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from science that it is completely useless. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 12:31*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote: On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote: The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. * * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant. * *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However, it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity. * * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows down. * * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the oxidation of cesium atoms. * * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those biochemists. * * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the electron differs in these two environments. * * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions.. * * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction? * * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments.. I would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast.. We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time. What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process. The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken. The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives. You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation they receive. You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different rates. This is incorrect. When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism. Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks? If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to cause the clock to tick slower. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a person lives. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart. The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly tied to the rate at which a muon decays. What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological organisms. No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms (such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or. In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there. It requires *calculation*. This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you *calculate*. Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin *younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages), for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge, you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100% was not due to radiation. My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from science that it is completely useless. Which poster is this? The one who insists on making baseless assumptions: "Let me rephrase: The OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the aging of the twin is identical to the OBSERVED, MEASURED change in the lifetime of the others. This would be an an extraordinary coincidence if those amounts just happened to be equal, and just happened to be equal to the amount predicted by relativity, if the causes of the change were different in all three cases." Or the one who insists such assumptions are nothing more then "handwaving": "Then demonstrate, by calculation, that the effect of the force on the aether will be identical on these things all moving at a particular speed v relative to the aether: - a biological organism - a muon - an atomic clock - a chemical clock reaction - a mass oscillating on the end of a spring Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these, without backing it up with calculations, is what is called "handwaving"." All this in order to avoid understanding aether has mass. Aether is displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 11:36*am, PD wrote:
On Nov 4, 8:27*am, kenseto wrote: On Nov 3, 11:28*am, PD wrote: On Nov 3, 8:34*am, kenseto wrote: On Nov 2, 1:40*pm, PD wrote: On Nov 2, 12:37*pm, kenseto wrote: On Oct 29, 5:32*pm, PD wrote: On Oct 29, 4:27*pm, kenseto wrote: On Oct 29, 1:21*pm, PD wrote: On Oct 29, 11:19*am, maxwell wrote: On Oct 28, 11:25*am, PD wrote: On Oct 28, 1:33*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html "A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as "monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated: (i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey. (ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified. (iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore untenable as a physical theory." The following scenario will show that the travelling twin will find himself OLDER than his brother who remained behind. A long rocket passes the twin at rest, and the rocket is so long that the twin at rest will see it passing by all along. According to Einstein's special relativity, observers in the rocket see their clocks running faster than the twin at rest's clock, that is, observers in the rocket age faster than the twin at rest. At some initial moment the travelling twin, standing so far next to his brother, jumps into the rocket, joins the observers there and starts, just like them, aging faster than the twin at rest. Later the rocket stops and immediately starts moving in the opposite direction. Again, according to Einstein's special relativity, observers in the rocket, including the travelling twin, age faster than the twin at rest. Finally the travelling twin jumps out of the rocket and rejoins his brother at rest. Who is older? Pentcho Valev And Pentcho continues on his crusade to locate and cite all the other boobs that have responded to their inability to understand what relativity says by generating a web page delineating their confusion. Perhaps he thinks that if he finds a sufficient herd of boobs, this will be evidence that there is something in fact wrong. So, calling people who disagree with you "boobs" is considered adult or scientific? *I think not. *Pencho does a public service by republishing thoughtful criticisms of SRT. I would quibble whether it's a thoughtful criticism. There are many criticisms -- some unknowledgeable and incoherent, some unknowledgeable and coherent, some knowledgeable and coherent. It's in the audience's interest to discriminate between these, and I would strongly recommend focusing on the last. Pentcho focuses on the first two. The problem is: YOU ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE OR COHERENT. You are in no position to judge. You have not read anything on SR, and you don't know what SR says. The point is: Your assertions about what SR said is wrong. For example: you said that length contraction is physical and physical mean both geometric effect and material effect. What is "physical" is not a claim of SR. It is what PHYSICISTS in general say is physical. *You* say "physical" means "material". But you are not a physicist and physicists do not agree with you. No it is you who said that physical contraction can mean both gemetric projection effect and material effect and Roberts disagree with you.. Cite where he disagrees with me. He said that length contraction in SR is not physical. I said CITE IT, with a direct quote. I'm not interested in your mental translation of what he said. I'm interested in what he ACTUALLY said. You cannot read a sentence from beginning to end and understand what it said, so your paraphrase of what someone else has told you is uselessly unreliable. It is a gemetric projection effect and geometric projection effect cannot cause the bug dies at two different instants of time. You said that length contraction in SR is physical and physical can mean both geometric projection effect and material effect. The material effect can cause the bug dies at two different instants of time. Ken Seto Ken seto The point is, you are in no position to judge whether ANY assertions about SR are right or wrong, because you've not read anything on SR, and you don't know what SR says. Ken Seto It's a good job we abolished burning at the stake. *You would have done a good job as an inquisitor maintaining the orthodoxy of the powerful. Pointing out that someone who has published a web article about relativity has demonstrated in that article a profound lack of understanding of relativity is not witch-hunting, any more than pointing out that snake-oil salesmen are not providing a medically beneficial product should be called witch-hunting. But your knowledge of SR is absolete and you keep on using your absolete knowledge to judge other people. You've not read anything "modern" or "old" to know which is which. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Its a mind experiment to show there is no free lunch Think about that Trebert |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 12:07*pm, mpc755 wrote:
On Nov 4, 12:31*pm, PD wrote: On Nov 4, 5:37*am, mpc755 wrote: On Nov 4, 6:09*am, Darwin123 wrote: On Nov 1, 10:46*pm, mpc755 wrote: The rate at which a twin ages is not directly tied to the rate at which an atomic clock ticks. * * I think that the assumption of materialism has always been a hidden issue here. The assumption is that biological processes are mediated by interactions that are covariant, just like the interaction between electrons in the "atomic clock" are covariant. * *The "twin scenario" has not been done experimentally yet. However, it is often used as a pedagogical tool to explain time dilation in muons. The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology. If they don't, there are more serious problems with modern biology than there are relativity. * * The biological processes are mediated by the interactions between electrons, neutrons, etc. Chemical reactions occur by exchange of electrons and electromagnetic fields, just the same as the ticks in the "atomic clock" are mediated by electrons and electromagnetic fields. If the transformation shows that the interactions between electrons slow down, it means the associated biological process slows down. * * *The electronic processes that govern atomic clocks also govern chemical reactions. The electrons in a cesium atom are involved in both the absorption of radio waves by cesium atoms and in the oxidation of cesium atoms. * * Suppose we find that relativity governs atomic clocks, muons, and Rebka-Pound apparatus. However, it doesn't govern biological processes. Then, relativity will still be useful for nonbiological applications. However, there will be a serious problem for those biochemists. * * *Although relativity isn't directly used by many chemists, the assumption is that electrons behave the same during a chemical reaction as when other reactions take place. If relativity works for the electronic resonance of cesium atoms, but doesn't work for chemical reaction rates, the chemist will be forced to ask how the electron differs in these two environments. * * * H.A. Lorentz when analyzing the electron pointed out there is only one equilibrium for systems of charged particles. Therefore, a Lorentz transform of an inertial system at equilibrium should result in a similar equilibrium in another inertial frame. This implies that the Lorentz transformation should be applicable to chemical reactions. * * * Electron scattering has been examined at relativistic velocities. It seems to me that electron scattering is very close to being a chemical reaction. Why should an electron be different in a scattering experiment than in a molecule undergoing chemical reaction? * * * This does bring up some interesting ideas for experiments. I would like to see experiments examining time dilation in chemical reactions. It seems to me that the experimental difficulties are vast. We won't see this type of experiment performed for a long time. What you are stating is biological processes are governed by the calculations of relativity just like completely physical processes are. The rate at which a muon decays is a completely physical process.. The twins live identical lives up until the time of the twin gedanken.. The spaceship one twin travels in moves extremely fast and the clock on the spaceship ticks slower then the clock on the Earth. The twin in the spaceship receives tremendous amounts of radiation while in the spaceship. When the twins get back together they notice the clock on the spaceship has ticked less times than the clock which remained on the Earth. The twins go on to lead identical lives. You are implying it doesn't matter how much radiation the twin on the spaceship received. You are implying the biological processes of the twins are completely governed by the calculations of relativity just as the muon is. You are implying the twin on the spaceship ages at the rate at which their associated clock ticks regardless of any radiation they receive. You are implying if the twins lead identical lives prior and after the twin gedanken and the only difference in their lives is the time they were separated during the twin gedanken the the twin who was on the spaceship will live longer than the twin on the Earth because the twins rate of aging is solely determined by the same physical effects as those which cause their associated clocks to tick at different rates. This is incorrect. When you suggest, "The implicit assumption is that the same covariant forces that govern muon decay govern biology" you are completely missing the point of what zero G's, radiation, and the other effects traveling in a spaceship has on a living organism. Why is NASA concerned about the radiation the astronauts will receive on a trip to Mars if the rate at which the astronauts age is solely dependent upon the rate at which their associated clock ticks? If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurred physically in nature to cause the clock to tick slower. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a person lives. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time. In the twin gedanken the only two events which matter in terms of determining how much time passes while the twins are separated are the event when the twins separate and the event when the twins get back together. The same amount of time passes for each twin. The rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with the amount of time which passes and besides the associated aether force in which the twins existed, the rate at which their associated clocks tick has nothing to do with how much the twins aged while they were apart. The rate at which a living cell in a human body decays is not directly tied to the rate at which a muon decays. What YOU are implying is that the relativistic effects in physical processes have NOTHING to do with what goes on in biological organisms. No one is saying that effects that are unique to biological organisms (such as stale air in the spaceship, or eating bland food day after day) do not affect aging of biological organisms. BOTH sets of effects enter into it. It is not a matter of either-or. In cases where BOTH sets of effects play, the question that remains is which ones are quantitatively larger and therefore dominant. This cannot be answered by just saying the effect is there or isn't there. It requires *calculation*. This is true even among physical effects. If you are calculating the landing place of a projectile, gravity has an effect on the trajectory, as does air resistance, as does lift, as does the Coriolis effect. Just because air resistance can be said to have a significant effect on the trajectory does not mean that the *dominant* effect isn't gravity. Likewise, there are times when you can include air resistance but simply discount the Coriolis effect, not because the Coriolis effect is absent but because it is so much smaller than the effect of air resistance. There is no way to tell unless you *calculate*. Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin *younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism live TWICE as long. Here the *calculation* and reliance on experimental data are crucial. The presence of radiation may be either calculated or measured (in separate studies under comparable dosages), for example, to *shorten* lifetime by 5%, say. With this knowledge, you can be certain that the observed *lengthening* of lifetime by 100% was not due to radiation. My point, Mike, is that you do NONE of this kind of thinking. All you do is say, "this effect is present" period, and then you go on to claim that this is the only effect that matters and the other one simply doesn't. And that kind of talk is so completely divorced from science that it is completely useless. Which poster is this? It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens. Doesn't change a THING, Mike. How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many people even care? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 2:28*pm, PD wrote:
Which poster is this? It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens. Doesn't change a THING, Mike. How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many people even care? How is it you can state: "Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin *younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism live TWICE as long." Which is a completely basis assumption. And at the same time insist: "Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these, without backing it up with calculations, is what is called "handwaving"." Do you understand you are making a completely basis assumption at the same time insisting completely basis assumptions are nothing more then 'handwaving'? Aether has mass. Aether is displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 2:28*pm, PD wrote:
Which poster is this? It's the one that tells you things you don't like to hear and so you cut and paste a "STFU" response every time that happens. Doesn't change a THING, Mike. How many people have been convinced by your handwaving? How many people even care? How is it you can state: "Now, if you have a traveling twin that ventures out and comes back significantly younger than the twin that stayed home, and the amount that he's younger is pretty darned close to what is predicted by relativity, you can be pretty sure that the *dominant* contribution to that observation was due to relativity, and that radiation and the effects of zero gees did not contribute much to making that twin *younger*, especially since the latter effects would work in the opposite direction and are not likely to make a biological organism live TWICE as long." Which is a completely baseless assumption. And at the same time insist: "Simply ASSERTING that the effect is identical for all of these, without backing it up with calculations, is what is called "handwaving"." Do you understand you are making a completely baseless assumption at the same time insisting completely baseless assumptions are nothing more then 'handwaving'? Aether has mass. Aether is displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 4, 6:37*am, mpc755 wrote:
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. This is precisely the effect that relativity is describing. If an aether exists, it's sole effect is to sustain "relativity." Your comment about "sole determination" indicates that you haven't really bothered to read any complete description of relativity. In that train gedanken, the "jolts and vibrations" of the train are explicitly ignored. In Wheelers description of general relativity, the "second order" effects of space curvature are ignored. By second order effects, read the Newtonian effects of acceleration. The assumption is that the hysteresis effects are negligible. Hysteresis effects include dying, remembering, chronic depression, inspiration, aging, and metal fatigue. The absurdity in your hypothesis is that relativity is generally applied to fundamental particles that are intrinsically insensitive to effects that don't involve "the aether." Muons don't feel radiation effects, bone loss, and chronic depression. Muons don't get crushed by high acceleration, or at least not the high acceleration seen in the vacuum. Muons are very robust. So when scientists say that time dilation has been demonstrated in muons, what they really mean is that time dilation due to aether effects have been demonstrated. The aether that I am talking about probably isn't the aether you are talking about. The physical properties of an aether that sustains relativity is not the atmosphere-like aether of your pseudo-Newtonian dreams. If chemical reactions or biological phenomena are not affected by this aether, then that would be traumatic to the chemists and biologists than to the physicists. The physicists can continue to use relativity for muons, electron scattering, etc. The biologists and chemists would be seriously challenged. Biologists commonly use the nonbiological properties of the elements to extrapolate biochemical reactions. Relativity is a symmetry property of systems isolated in the material vacuum. Like all symmetry properties in physics, it applies over a wide range of physical phenomena. The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a person lives. Sure. If the spaceship doesn't carry oxygen, the twin in the space ship will die. Then, he won't age at all. If cushions aren't supplied for the twin in the space ship, he will be crushed in the initial launch. If he survives the initial launch, he will be crushed in the turn around. The twin on earth can be killed by a mugger. Tragically, he will age slower than the twin in the space ship. The twin on earth can catch avian flu, and die. The twin in the space ship is far less likely to catch avian flu. The twin in the space ship will have weak bones due to the loss of gravity, unless some type of artificial gravity is supplied. If aging is defined a osterioperosis, the twin on the space ship will age faster (again, assuming no artificial gravity). Then again, the twin in the space ship may like the other solar system so much that he refuses to turn around. However, none of these are relativity. If there are aether effects on biological processes, then there has to be some way to describe them assuming the other variables are controlled. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On Nov 5, 7:39*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:37*am, mpc755 wrote: The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. * * This is precisely the effect that relativity is describing. If an aether exists, it's sole effect is to sustain "relativity." Aether has mass. Aether is displaced by matter. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity. Aether's sole effect is not to sustain "relativity". 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field" Matter is the condensation of aether. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. Mass is conserved. * * Your comment about "sole determination" indicates that you haven't really bothered to read any complete description of relativity. In that train gedanken, the "jolts and vibrations" of the train are explicitly ignored. * * In Wheelers description of general relativity, the "second order" effects of space curvature are ignored. By second order effects, read the Newtonian effects of acceleration. The assumption is that the hysteresis effects are negligible. Hysteresis effects include dying, remembering, chronic depression, inspiration, aging, and metal fatigue. * * * The absurdity in your hypothesis is that relativity is generally applied to fundamental particles that are intrinsically insensitive to effects that don't involve "the aether." * * Muons don't feel radiation effects, bone loss, and chronic depression. Muons don't get crushed by high acceleration, or at least not the high acceleration seen in the vacuum. Muons are very robust. So when scientists say that time dilation has been demonstrated in muons, what they really mean is that time dilation due to aether effects have been demonstrated. The force of the aether exerted on the muon determines the rate at which it decays. * * * The aether that I am talking about probably isn't the aether you are talking about. The physical properties of an aether that sustains relativity is not the atmosphere-like aether of your pseudo-Newtonian dreams. There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of matter and aether. There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass. * * * If chemical reactions or biological phenomena are not affected by this aether, then that would be traumatic to the chemists and biologists than to the physicists. The physicists can continue to use relativity for muons, electron scattering, etc. The biologists and chemists would be seriously challenged. Biologists commonly use the nonbiological properties of the elements to extrapolate biochemical reactions. I did not say they are not affected by aether. I am saying biological living entities are not only affected by the aether pressure in which they exist. * * Relativity is a symmetry property of systems isolated in the material vacuum. Like all symmetry properties in physics, it applies over a wide range of physical phenomena. The atoms and molecules in the human body are also affected by the force of the aether in which they exists. However, this is not the sole determination of the rate at which a person ages or of how long a person lives. * * Sure. * * If the spaceship doesn't carry oxygen, the twin in the space ship will die. Then, he won't age at all. * *If cushions aren't supplied for the twin in the space ship, he will be crushed in the initial launch. If he survives the initial launch, he will be crushed in the turn around. * *The twin on earth can be killed by a mugger. Tragically, he will age slower than the twin in the space ship. * *The twin on earth can catch avian flu, and die. The twin in the space ship is far less likely to catch avian flu. * * The twin in the space ship will have weak bones due to the loss of gravity, unless some type of artificial gravity is supplied. If aging is defined a osterioperosis, the twin on the space ship will age faster (again, assuming no artificial gravity). * * Then again, the twin in the space ship may like the other solar system so much that he refuses to turn around. * * However, none of these are relativity. If there are aether effects on biological processes, then there has to be some way to describe them assuming the other variables are controlled. In the following two articles understand the galaxies are not traveling with gravitationally bound dark matter but are moving through aether which has mass. 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter' http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...g_feature.html "Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water." The 'pond' consists of aether. The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave. 'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball' http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...milky-way.html "Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant spheres called haloes." The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN ABSURDITY?
On 03.11.2010 08:45, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:01 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: On 02.11.2010 06:21, Koobee Wublee wrote: For the prerequisite understanding, there are several camps of thought on resolving the twins’ paradox. Each one is contradictory of the others. Some self-styled physicists endorse one over the others, and some Einstein Dingleberries suck up to a particular one than the others. In fact all these so-called resolutions are bull****. shrug No, I am not energetic to do something for the proliferation of Einstein Dingleberrism. You have to understand my point of view on that one. :-) You can see it applied he http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html The Java applet is only as stupid as the person who put it together in the first place.shrug For instance, in the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, the mutual time dilation built on relative to each traveling twin when the acceleration is null can be dramatic if this coasting time is allowed to expand.shrug The twins are travelling in flat space time, so SR can handle it even in an accelerated frame. Yes, the Lorentz transform if properly applied can address accelerated frame. However, this is not what is supported by well-known self- styled physicists.shrug Claiming that acceleration resolves the twins paradox was endorsed by your idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Very soon, most self-styled physicists saw a fatal issue with that and started to divorce themselves away from that. The favored scripture among the self-styled physicists nowadays is spacetime where everything ages in spacetime rather than time. Of course, it takes another religion-inclined discipline to accept that bull****.shrug So, what the little professor from Trondheim is doing to resolve the twins’ paradox is actually not supported by many self-styled physicists. These self-styled physicists know their champion is full of ****. They in turn decide to allow the kind of the little professor from Trondheim to wave more mathemagics in hoping to prolong the religion of SR and GR in which their livelihoods are so much dependent on.shrug In another words, lack of comments from self-styled physicists on the little professor’s childish java applet does not mean they endorse this nonsense.shrug So, don’t get over your head with your childish play on these java applets.shrug There is no dispute about the twin 'paradox' amongst physicist. My animation is strictly according to the Lorentz transform, and no professional physicist will dispute that. Well, yours truly did recall the little professor from Trondheim did point out it was not the carrier frequencies that are at the issue of GPS synchronization, but he fails miserably at what the true issues are. Thanks for giving me yet another opportunity to remind you: http://tinyurl.com/bdzm4k So, the little professor is becoming so desperate. His only attack is on the choice of vocabularies. Hey, once upon a time, I know this loud-mouth firmware supervisor who was not capable to critiquing any firmware except the misspelling under the comment section in the program itself. The little professor reminds me so much of her. shrug Any engineers responsible for this type of blunder would face unemployment in no time. In the academics, their excuses seem to be very creative. Would “I don’t have any applications that applies to relativity” be a good alibi? Then, why does the little professor from Trondheim promote the nonsense of SR? Yours truly see no other defense to GR besides GR. Does the little professor from Trondheim not understand GR? It is OK because very few of the self-styled physicists even understand where the geodesic equations, the Riemann curvature tensor, and the Einstein field equations are derived. Is physics the only field where the experts do not have to understand the subject mattered? You can see GR applied in curved space time he http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html Again, the animation merely reflects more shallow understanding of the programmer.shrug Funny then, that the simulation based on the Schwarzschild metric produces the same numbers as nature. (Experimentally verified for the GPS and gravity probe A, which is the red rocket in the default scenario.) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 16 | January 8th 09 05:39 PM |
A twin paradox simulation | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 29th 08 02:21 PM |
THE SECRET OF THE TWIN PARADOX | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 07 03:48 PM |
The twin paradox revisited | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 6 | July 11th 07 01:47 AM |
Twin non-paradox. Only one explanation. | Der alte Hexenmeister | Astronomy Misc | 40 | January 12th 06 02:00 AM |