Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion The twin paradox
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John Gogo  
View profile  
 More options Apr 24 2012, 9:49 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 24 2012 9:49 pm
Subject: Re: The twin paradox
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Apr 24, 8:33 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 4/24/12 4/24/12   8:08 PM, John Gogo wrote:

> > In the January/February edition Of "Discover Magazine" discusses the
> > 100 most promising advancements for the year 2011.  Number 1 was the
> > faster than light story.

> Yes. I agree that was a high-ranking story, in terms of scientific interest. But
> it now appears that the initial measurement was in error. More measurements will
> be made, by the OPERA group and by other groups; few (if any) physicists would
> bet on another FTL result.

> > In a sub-article written by Andrew Grant the
> > first thing he says is "Einstein's theory of relativity was rooted in
> > a simple thought experiment: What would happen if someone traveled
> > alongside a beam of light?"

> > Darwin123 are you saying Andrew Grant is misrepresenting Einstein's
> > theory of relativity concept?

> Well I, for one, say that is a rather gross misrepresentation. Yes, in later
> years Einstein referenced his schoolboy gedanken of "riding on a light beam",
> and the fact that Maxwell's equations simply do not make sense for such an
> observer. This certainly influenced Einstein's thinking on the subject. But it
> is a VERY BIG STRETCH to go from that to saying SR was "rooted" in it -- so big
> it is tantamount to being wrong [#].

>         [#] For the simple fact is that in SR it is impossible for any
>         observer to "travel alongside a beam of light". Such an
>         impossibility is a VERY IMPLAUSIBLE "root" of a theory.

> Tom Roberts

For the most part I agree with you Tom but the main point that I have
been trying to express is the fact that it is OK to theorize- but in
the end our theories must be demonstrated as truths- and if cannot
demostrate these abstractions- then they should be abandoned- not
become main stream subject matter.  We have to be pracical- otherwise
our advancement will be slowed.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google