HOW EINSTEINIANA DESTROYS HUMAN RATIONALITY

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
shows."

The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:

"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back.
[snip crap]

idiot

http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
idiot

Perhaps you are too stooopid to click on a link. Uncle Al will
exercise the compassion to ram it up your butt,

[In the Newtonian approximation to GR, the line element for "Newtonian
coordinates" is to excellent approximation:

ds^2 = -(1 - 2\phi) dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
where \phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential, c=1

The only deviation from Minkowski spacetime is in the time coordinate
- using these coordinates the 3-space corresponding to a given value
of t is Euclidean flat.]

Twin Paradox: One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays
home. They reunite. The traveling twin aged much less. The twin who
travels through more space accumulates less time; also true for an
orbit. Interval sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2) between the two events,
expressed in inertial coordinate system (t,x,y,z), is conserved.
Given the invariant interval, the larger sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)is the
smaller sqrt(t^2) must be.

The ratio by which the two aged when they are again local is identical
in all reference frames: ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (units
of c=1).

Acceleration is irrelevant, demonstrated by Triplets.

Three identical clocks as kits and not constructed until the
experiment is running. Each clock has a short toggle switch.
Individual spaceships carry a kit each. Set up the experiment.

CLOCK 1: Our clock sits stationary in our inertial reference frame
with its toggle sticking out. Touch the toggle and "off" state goes
"on" or "on" state goes "off." Build it from parts just before
needed, in the "off" state, zeroed.

CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame and positioned far to our left. Clock 2 was built after all
acceleration ceased during setup, set to zero, "off" state. It skims
past Clock 1 (our clock) in vacuum free fall, toggles touch, both
Clocks 1 and 2 are "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed
time accumulates in each clock.

CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2,
far far to our right. It was built after all acceleration ceased
during setup, set to zero, "off" state.

An arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, both in vacuum free
fall, touching toggles. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on."
Write down the elapsed time in "off" Clock 2. The spaceship with
Clock 3 returns over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.

CLOCK 1: Our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial reference
frame with a little toggle sticking out. Clock 3 vacuum free falls
past, toggles touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are off. Write down elapsed
times. No clock accelerated while "on" or while existing.

BOTTOM LINE: Send results by radio. Numbers on paper don't change.
Throughout the entire run three clocks were passive observers in
vacuum free fall with zero acceleration.

Compare elapsed times. Elapsed times #2+#3 does not equal #1, the
local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elapsed
time is about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed time. The
Twin (Triplets) Paradox obtains without any clock having been
accelerated.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

On May 12, 7:27*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
shows."

The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:

"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev


The difficulty you have is understandable but misguided.
You believe that if you do not understand it, then it must be
irrational.
And therefore if it is deemed irrational by you, then it must be bogus
science.
Because you believe that you should be able to understand anything --
absolutely anything -- that is rational in science.

It does not occur to you that the reason you do not understand it is
that your gray matter has been replaced by solid bone.

PD

The arbiter of whether a theory is valid or not is the empirical
data of observation and experiment. There has yet to be an observation
that contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. Both
theories remain fruitful in helping us understand the behavior of
nature all around (and a part of) us.

Suggest you look at the Physics FAQs with respect to Relativity
and Cosmology at:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html

And: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._booklist.html

On May 12, 5:57 pm, PD wrote:
On May 12, 7:27 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:







http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
shows."

The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:

"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev


The difficulty you have is understandable but misguided.
You believe that if you do not understand it, then it must be
irrational.
And therefore if it is deemed irrational by you, then it must be bogus
science.
Because you believe that you should be able to understand anything --
absolutely anything -- that is rational in science.

It does not occur to you that the reason you do not understand it is
that your gray matter has been replaced by solid bone.

PD

the best one can do is to feel understanding

real understanding is epiphenomenal, not real

Einstein desperately destroying his own rationality:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "How can it happen that the speed of light relative to
an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves
towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled
with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of
despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately."

Einstein's irrationality taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:
the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer
(Divine Albert said so), therefore the wavelengh does:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
shows."

The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:

"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians know no limits: Another incredible "explanation" of the
wavelength shift (the wavelength SHOULD vary if the speed of light is
to remain constant):

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
"To correctly calculate the Doppler shift for large velocities, we
have to take into account the Lorentz contraction of spacetime. As we
travel along the propagating wave, the rate at which we encounter
peaks and troughs is affected not only by the ratio of our velocity to
the speed the wave is travelling, but also by the Lorentz contraction
in the direction of our travel. When we're approaching a wave, Lorentz
contraction increases the Doppler shift we observe since the wave
crests become increasingly contracted in space; consequently we
measure a shorter wavelength. Since the Lorentz contraction increases
without bound as we approach the speed of light, so the Doppler shift
increases without bound, rather than merely doubling the frequency as
we'd expect from classical physics. If we're receding from the wave,
the Doppler shift is reduced by special relativity. Why? The Lorentz
contraction is the same regardless of whether we're approaching an
object or receding from it. The Lorentz contraction will, then, reduce
the wavelength of the wave at the same time the Doppler shift is
increasing it."

The arguments Einsteinians use above are quite similar to the
arguments the shopkeeper uses in proving that the parrot is both alive
and beautiful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein desperately destroying his own rationality:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "How can it happen that the speed of light relative to
an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves
towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled
with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of
despair. We have no details of this struggle, unfortunately."

Einstein's irrationality taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:
the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the observer
(Divine Albert said so), therefore the wavelengh does:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana: Divine Albert said the speed of light is variable and
this is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense but we now say
the speed of light is constant and that's it:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general theory
of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime,
and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In
the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
"...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Einsteiniana: An infinitely long body can safely be trapped inside an
infinitely short container; the infinitely long body remains trapped
inside the infinitely short container in an infinitely compressed
state:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

Einsteiniana: An observer sees the bug squashed; the bug sees itself
alive and kicking. This does not refute Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
Rather, this gloriously demonstrates the unlimited deductive power of
Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Selected Einsteinians (e.g. John Norton) are entitled to reject the
important consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
establishing the passage of time as an illusion. All other believers
should, like Brian Greene, constantly procrusteanize their minds into
conformity with the consequence establishing the passsage of time as
an illusion:

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshir...einQuotes.html
Albert Einstein: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_h...50422141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
times a day from ordinary comings and goings."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
shows."

The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:

"For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

On May 12, 4:15 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
quickly to a distant star and back.

[snip crap]

idiot

http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwi...r-twin-01.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
idiot

Perhaps you are too stooopid to click on a link. Uncle Al will
exercise the compassion to ram it up your butt,

[In the Newtonian approximation to GR, the line element for "Newtonian
coordinates" is to excellent approximation:

ds^2 = -(1 - 2\phi) dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
where \phi is the Newtonian gravitational potential, c=1

The only deviation from Minkowski spacetime is in the time coordinate
- using these coordinates the 3-space corresponding to a given value
of t is Euclidean flat.]

Twin Paradox: One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays
home. They reunite. The traveling twin aged much less. The twin who
travels through more space accumulates less time; also true for an
orbit. Interval sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2) between the two events,
expressed in inertial coordinate system (t,x,y,z), is conserved.
Given the invariant interval, the larger sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)is the
smaller sqrt(t^2) must be.

The ratio by which the two aged when they are again local is identical
in all reference frames: ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (units
of c=1).

Acceleration is irrelevant, demonstrated by Triplets.

Three identical clocks as kits and not constructed until the
experiment is running. Each clock has a short toggle switch.
Individual spaceships carry a kit each. Set up the experiment.

CLOCK 1: Our clock sits stationary in our inertial reference frame
with its toggle sticking out. Touch the toggle and "off" state goes
"on" or "on" state goes "off." Build it from parts just before
needed, in the "off" state, zeroed.

CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame and positioned far to our left. Clock 2 was built after all
acceleration ceased during setup, set to zero, "off" state. It skims
past Clock 1 (our clock) in vacuum free fall, toggles touch, both
Clocks 1 and 2 are "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed
time accumulates in each clock.

CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2,
far far to our right. It was built after all acceleration ceased
during setup, set to zero, "off" state.

An arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, both in vacuum free
fall, touching toggles. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on."
Write down the elapsed time in "off" Clock 2. The spaceship with
Clock 3 returns over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.

CLOCK 1: Our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial reference
frame with a little toggle sticking out. Clock 3 vacuum free falls
past, toggles touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are off. Write down elapsed
times. No clock accelerated while "on" or while existing.

BOTTOM LINE: Send results by radio. Numbers on paper don't change.
Throughout the entire run three clocks were passive observers in
vacuum free fall with zero acceleration.

Compare elapsed times. Elapsed times #2+#3 does not equal #1, the
local stationary reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elapsed
time is about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed time. The
Twin (Triplets) Paradox obtains without any clock having been
accelerated.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

thanks, if i understand it right, space must have viscosity,
a viscosity constant, function of speed, with respect to time