info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TWIN PARADOX: EINSTEIN'S 1918 PAPER
121 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 27, 2015, 7:37:31 PM8/27/15
to
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/
Scientific American: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
Albert Einstein 1918: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
Was Einstein "partially informed"?
Pentcho Valev
Scientific American: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
Albert Einstein 1918: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
Was Einstein "partially informed"?
Pentcho Valev
kefischer
Aug 27, 2015, 8:52:49 PM8/27/15
to
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:37:28 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/
> Scientific American: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox."
Acceleration has nothing to do with it, you are spinning
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/
> Scientific American: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox."
your wheels trying to find things wrong with relativity theory,
the twin problem involves more than just the motion, it is
the fact that going faster results in an inordinate distance
covered than at slower speeds.
Try to argue against Divergent Matter on this issue,
it is rational, if you go faster, you can complete the trip
in less time because the distance to destination is less
now than it will be in the future.
What could be more rational than that, but it does
require that matter be expanding.
>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
> Albert Einstein 1918: "During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
>
>Was Einstein "partially informed"?
>
>Pentcho Valev
run slower or faster, ever, observing them from afar will
make it appear they are running at a different rate, and
received timing signals will arrive at a different rate
than was transmitted.
Divergent Matter considers the gravitational effect
on received signals to be the same as Doppler, with any
object above the surface having an upward velocity that
varies with altitude in addition to prior motion.
Pentcho Valev
Aug 28, 2015, 8:03:05 AM8/28/15
to
Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The youthfulness of the traveling twin was totally unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow, the traveling twin sees his brother's clock running slow, and changes of direction involving acceleration are immaterial, as Einstein had implicitly assumed in his 1905 paper and explicitly announced in 1911:
http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368
Albert Einstein: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."
General relativity changed the situation and strenghtened Einstein's position:
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
This is perhaps the most fraudulent text in the history of science but in 1918 general relativity was incomprehensible and opponents were paralyzed - they could not be sure if "the calculation" really existed. Actually there can be no calculation showing that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4". The turning-around "gravitational field" (acceleration) varies with time (from zero to some value, back to zero, then to some other value, back to zero again) and all these variations are arbitrary to some extent - they depend on the preferences of the operator. So no calculation at all based on the turning-around acceleration is possible, let alone one showing that something constitutes "exactly twice as much" as something else.
Nowadays the topic is avoided but still the 1918 hoax does appear in the relativistic literature from time to time:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, 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. (...) 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..."
Pentcho Valev
http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368
Albert Einstein: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."
General relativity changed the situation and strenghtened Einstein's position:
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
This is perhaps the most fraudulent text in the history of science but in 1918 general relativity was incomprehensible and opponents were paralyzed - they could not be sure if "the calculation" really existed. Actually there can be no calculation showing that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4". The turning-around "gravitational field" (acceleration) varies with time (from zero to some value, back to zero, then to some other value, back to zero again) and all these variations are arbitrary to some extent - they depend on the preferences of the operator. So no calculation at all based on the turning-around acceleration is possible, let alone one showing that something constitutes "exactly twice as much" as something else.
Nowadays the topic is avoided but still the 1918 hoax does appear in the relativistic literature from time to time:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, 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. (...) 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..."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Aug 28, 2015, 8:17:40 AM8/28/15
to
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 6:03:05 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-
>younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account
> only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates.
Completely, devastatingly false. The so-called "twin paradox" can be
>
> Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-
>younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account
> only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates.
resolved solely by SR. Here is an instructive article written by John
Cramer which has been referenced previously:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html
Cramer solves it with and without GR. Prevaricating Pentcho either has
severe memory problems or he is fundamentally dishonest (which is also
a severe mental problem).
Gary
Julio Di Egidio
Aug 28, 2015, 8:23:51 AM8/28/15
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64c19e2a-5852-4fef...@googlegroups.com...
> Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the
> traveling-twin-is-younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis
concede to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a
subsequent rendez-vous each has to find the other younger. IOW, whenever
any A and B part from each other, they will never really meet again: they
will rather meet a younger version of each other. -- The point being,
while that is not a proof that SR is a true (physical) theory, it is a proof
that it is (logically) wrong to say that SR is not justifiable.
Julio
news:64c19e2a-5852-4fef...@googlegroups.com...
> Before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the
> taking into account only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905
> postulates. The youthfulness of the traveling twin was totally
> unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow,
> the traveling twin sees his brother's clock running slow, and changes of
> direction involving acceleration are immaterial, as Einstein had
> implicitly assumed in his 1905 paper and explicitly announced in 1911:
There is no logical problem with multiverses: with SR, one rather has to
> unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow,
> the traveling twin sees his brother's clock running slow, and changes of
> direction involving acceleration are immaterial, as Einstein had
> implicitly assumed in his 1905 paper and explicitly announced in 1911:
concede to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a
subsequent rendez-vous each has to find the other younger. IOW, whenever
any A and B part from each other, they will never really meet again: they
will rather meet a younger version of each other. -- The point being,
while that is not a proof that SR is a true (physical) theory, it is a proof
that it is (logically) wrong to say that SR is not justifiable.
Julio
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 28, 2015, 8:37:05 AM8/28/15
to
kefischer wrote:
> Acceleration has nothing to do with it, you are spinning
But he knows what an acceleration is standing for. You apparently don't.
> Acceleration has nothing to do with it, you are spinning
> your wheels trying to find things wrong with relativity theory,
> the twin problem involves more than just the motion,
> it is the fact that
> going faster results in an inordinate distance covered than at slower
> speeds.
secondary significance.
> Try to argue against Divergent Matter on this issue,
> it is rational, if you go faster, you can complete the trip in less time
> because the distance to destination is less now than it will be in the
> future.
> What could be more rational than that, but it does
> require that matter be expanding.
too much, still I bet you can not accomplish this mandatory task. See you
in Glugsburg.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 28, 2015, 8:48:46 AM8/28/15
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
> Cramer solves it with and without GR.
As GR literally rarely solves anything, if any at all.
> Cramer solves it with and without GR.
Tom Roberts
Aug 28, 2015, 11:06:03 AM8/28/15
to
On 8/28/15 8/28/15 - 7:23 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> with SR, one rather has to concede
> to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a subsequent
> rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
This is just plain wrong. In fact, using SR and a sufficiently well-specified
> with SR, one rather has to concede
> to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a subsequent
> rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
scenario, one can compute that upon rejoining the twins agree on their relative
ages, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
If what you claim were true, SR would have been abandoned long ago as
self-inconsistent. But your claim is false, and SR is not inconsistent -- the
math underlying SR has been PROVEN mathematically to be as self-consistent as is
Euclidean geometry and as is real analysis. That's as good as it gets.
> IOW, whenever any A and B part
> from each other, they will never really meet again: they will rather meet a
> younger version of each other.
write about it.
> -- The point being, while that is not a proof
> that SR is a true (physical) theory, it is a proof that it is (logically) wrong
> to say that SR is not justifiable.
confused whatever it is you are trying to say.
In any case, all you have shown is that your PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS are not
justifiable. As you did not actually use SR in your "argument", you cannot make
any conclusion about SR or its validity.
Tom Roberts
Julio Di Egidio
Aug 28, 2015, 4:00:15 PM8/28/15
to
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:06:03 PM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/28/15 8/28/15 - 7:23 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > with SR, one rather has to concede
> > to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a subsequent
> > rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
>
> This is just plain wrong.
<snipped crap>
> On 8/28/15 8/28/15 - 7:23 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > with SR, one rather has to concede
> > to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a subsequent
> > rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
>
> This is just plain wrong.
No, just you are one of the resident spammers and retards...
*Plonk*
Julio
Gary Harnagel
Aug 28, 2015, 5:14:53 PM8/28/15
to
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:06:03 PM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > On 8/28/15 8/28/15 - 7:23 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > with SR, one rather has to concede
> > > to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a
> > > subsequent rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
> >
> > This is just plain wrong.
>
> <snipped crap>
Snip yourself because you WERE and ARE devastatingly wrong.
>
> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 4:06:03 PM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > On 8/28/15 8/28/15 - 7:23 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > with SR, one rather has to concede
> > > to the idea that, whenever any A and B part from each other, at a
> > > subsequent rendez-vous each has to find the other younger.
> >
> > This is just plain wrong.
>
> <snipped crap>
> No, just you are one of the resident spammers and retards...
>
> *Plonk*
>
> Julio
be mathematically-incompetent and extremely arrogant at the same time.
So which is it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Gary
Julio Di Egidio
Aug 28, 2015, 5:23:41 PM8/28/15
to
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 10:14:53 PM UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> You are either a liar
Another of the resident spammers and retards...
> You are either a liar
*Plonk*
Gary Harnagel
Aug 28, 2015, 5:48:07 PM8/28/15
to
YBM
Aug 28, 2015, 6:07:19 PM8/28/15
to
Either you understand this (at least try):
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
or shut the fuck up, crank.
Julio Di Egidio
Aug 28, 2015, 6:30:12 PM8/28/15
to
Now feel free to go fuck yourself, again.
*Plonk*
Julio
YBM
Aug 28, 2015, 6:49:11 PM8/28/15
to
Koobee Wublee
Aug 28, 2015, 7:47:05 PM8/28/15
to
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 8:06:03 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> the math underlying SR has been PROVEN mathematically to be as
> self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry and as is real analysis.
The self-styled physicists have agreed that the observed mutual time dilations occur when both are in inertial frames of reference. Then the following is what Tom means by "SR has been PROVEN mathematically to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry and as is real analysis". <shrug>
> the math underlying SR has been PROVEN mathematically to be as
> self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry and as is real analysis.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/mJPcffq2O0I/PQZ9GsNWWuMJ
It is amazing Tom can say that with no shame. It must be the phd thing. <shrug>
Pentcho Valev
Aug 30, 2015, 11:05:44 AM8/30/15
to
There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around acceleration.
2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around acceleration.
Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
Pentcho Valev
1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around acceleration.
2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around acceleration.
Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847
Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion."
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html
Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity."
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Aug 30, 2015, 11:25:50 AM8/30/15
to
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>
> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
>
> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
>
> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>
> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
>
> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2). No amount
of acceleration will result in a difference of t and t' if L = 0.
Brain-dead Pentcho can't fathom phenomena that involve just one factor,
so he is totally befuddled when two are involved.
Gary
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 11:39:18 AM8/30/15
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>
> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
>
> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the
> turning-around acceleration.
>
> Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing
> one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets
> total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find
> Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around
> acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the
> youthfulness of the travelling twin:
I believe Einstein got it right in the beginning, but later on,
> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>
> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> acceleration.
>
> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the
> turning-around acceleration.
>
> Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing
> one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets
> total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find
> Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around
> acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the
> youthfulness of the travelling twin:
convoluted in discussions with the wannabe famous by associaton, lost his
track and went into the forest.
Nothing wrong in it, you can easily get lost into the forest, even as
essentially being 100% right.
kenseto
Aug 30, 2015, 12:30:21 PM8/30/15
to
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> >
> > 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
> >
> > 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
>
> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> >
> > 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
> >
> > 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
>
> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
No amount
> of acceleration will result in a difference of t and t' if L = 0.
>
> Brain-dead Pentcho can't fathom phenomena that involve just one factor,
> so he is totally befuddled when two are involved.
al...@interia.pl
Aug 30, 2015, 12:38:49 PM8/30/15
to
W dniu piątek, 28 sierpnia 2015 17:06:03 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> In fact, using SR and a sufficiently well-specified
> scenario, one can compute that upon rejoining the twins agree on their relative ages, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Yes. The relativistic result is plainly wrong...
> In fact, using SR and a sufficiently well-specified
> scenario, one can compute that upon rejoining the twins agree on their relative ages, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
you should learn the basics of arithmetic, preimbecile.
> If what you claim were true, SR would have been abandoned long ago as
> self-inconsistent. But your claim is false, and SR is not inconsistent -- the
> math underlying SR has been PROVEN mathematically to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry and as is real analysis. That's as good as it gets.
thus it can be abandoned jet. :)
YBM
Aug 30, 2015, 2:00:49 PM8/30/15
to
Le 30/08/2015 13:30, kenseto a écrit :
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>
>>> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>>>
>>> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
>>> acceleration.
>>>
>>> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
>>> acceleration.
>>
>> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
>> phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
>
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
Fortunately, idiot Ken, as if it had the dimension of time, then t*(1 +
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:05:44 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>
>>> There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
>>>
>>> 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
>>> acceleration.
>>>
>>> 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the turning-around
>>> acceleration.
>>
>> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
>> phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
>
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
a*L/c^2) would have (time)^2 dimension, not time.
You'd better give up on physics and math, stupid Ken, you're making a
fool of yourself.
Gary Harnagel
Aug 30, 2015, 4:23:15 PM8/30/15
to
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> > phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
>
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
What a mathematically-incompetent fool you are! OF COURSE it doesn't
>
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> > phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
>
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
have the units of time, imbecile, it is a dimensionless value which is
multiplied by time, doofus.
> > No amount of acceleration will result in a difference of t and t' if L = 0.
>
> Idiot.....if L=0 then the clocks are side by side how can they have any
> acceleration?
accelerating. Did you flunk middle school?
> > Brain-dead Pentcho can't fathom phenomena that involve just one factor,
> > so he is totally befuddled when two are involved.
>
> Describing yourself again ....eh?
Odd Bodkin
Aug 31, 2015, 9:58:17 AM8/31/15
to
On 8/30/2015 11:30 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
>> >phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
Oh, dear. Ken fails 5th grade algebra and 9th grade dimensional
>> Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
>> >phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
> Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
analysis. By the formula above, the term (a*L/c^2) has to be unitless.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
kenseto
Aug 31, 2015, 12:02:09 PM8/31/15
to
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 4:23:15 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> > > phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
> >
> > Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
>
> What a mathematically-incompetent fool you are! OF COURSE it doesn't
> have the units of time, imbecile, it is a dimensionless value which is
> multiplied by time, doofus.
Yes I goofed but it is not as bad as your claim that a clock can have residual/day by comparing to itself.
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Stupid, stupid Pentcho just can't wrap his delusional brain around a
> > > phenomenon that involves two factors: t' = t*(1 + a*L/c^2).
> >
> > Idiot...The term (a*L/c^2) does not have the dimension of time.
>
> What a mathematically-incompetent fool you are! OF COURSE it doesn't
> have the units of time, imbecile, it is a dimensionless value which is
> multiplied by time, doofus.
Koobee Wublee
Sep 1, 2015, 1:47:52 AM9/1/15
to
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> >
> > 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
> >
> > 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the
> > turning-around acceleration.
> >
> > Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing
> > one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets
> > total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find
> > Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around
> > acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the
> > youthfulness of the travelling twin:
>
> I believe Einstein got it right in the beginning,
Dude, your belief in the religion of relativity is a basket case. All mathematics involved with this religion says Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > There are two popular truths in Einstein's schizophrenic world:
> >
> > 1. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the turning-around
> > acceleration.
> >
> > 2. The youthfulness of the travelling twin is not due to the
> > turning-around acceleration.
> >
> > Einstein discovered that, when teaching both truths rather than choosing
> > one and abandoning the other, the confusion in the gullible world gets
> > total and opponents become helpless. Today's Einsteinians find
> > Einstein's discovery breathtaking and teach that the turning-around
> > acceleration is both responsible and not responsible for the
> > youthfulness of the travelling twin:
>
> I believe Einstein got it right in the beginning,
> [rest of mindless comments on how the self-styled physicist shitting all over the forest snipped]
Science is not a democracy. Science is not about being a bully. Science is not about believing. Sadly, current affairs of science follow the Orwellian indoctrination to a tee. <shrug>
** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NOISE IS COHERENCY
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS REALITY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS THEORY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION
** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY
<shrug>
Odd Bodkin
Sep 1, 2015, 9:25:59 AM9/1/15
to
On 9/1/2015 12:47 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Science is not a democracy. Science is not about being a bully. Science is not
> about believing. Sadly, current affairs of science follow the Orwellian indoctrination
> to a tee. <shrug>
Your psychological complexes are hanging down below the hem of your skirt.
> Science is not a democracy. Science is not about being a bully. Science is not
> about believing. Sadly, current affairs of science follow the Orwellian indoctrination
> to a tee. <shrug>
Been bullied by physicists, have you?
JanPB
Sep 1, 2015, 5:28:59 PM9/1/15
to
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 10:47:52 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
[his usual garbage, so I won't address it here; meanwhile:]
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:39:18 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > I believe Einstein got it right in the beginning,
>
> Dude, your belief in the religion of relativity is a basket case. All mathematics involved with this religion says Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> > [rest of mindless comments on how the self-styled physicist shitting all over the forest snipped]
> Science is not a democracy. Science is not about being a bully. Science is not about believing. Sadly, current affairs of science follow the Orwellian indoctrination to a tee. <shrug>
cannot answer simplest physics questions. Give the readers one reason
why they should believe one word of what you're saying.
--
Jan
0 new messages