Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

[Julio Di Egidio]

Dear all,

"In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in the
form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom line: if
special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."

<http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>

Feedback welcome,

Julio

[qw]

Why not putting it in "Nature"?

[Julio Di Egidio]

[Sorry, I forgot GG loses cross-posts.]

<j***@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:7c82a541-61af-4cd4...@googlegroups.com...

> There is indeed a tabu on this one: all analyses I have managed to find
> are patent nonsense...
>
> Julio

[Julio Di Egidio]

"paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:683a35de-42ce-4755...@googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> What you present is nothing new or original and it is wrong.
> What SR says is that in the symmetric twins case, at the end of the
> journey, both clocks will show the same reading. So there is no a
> violation on causality or anything else.

That is wrong: the clocks may show the same reading only relative to an
observer stationary with the origin all along...

Julio

[Helmut Wabnig]

Yawn.

(That was my feedback)


You are 120 Years too late.

w.

[hanson]

"Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

hanson wrote:
Pentcho Valev posted one. A Great one! Yesterday in
Re: VERIFYING EINSTEIN'S CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwiayZ3sH7U >
wherein Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, says:
>
___ "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about..."
___ "...or he was lying, or both".
>
Read also the comments under the video.
>
Then there is also this about
Relativity which is a pitiful **Physics by hear-say**
... a condemnation from already 60+ years ago,
2 years before he died, when...
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR
Albert concluded that:
____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ & that
____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Julio Di Egidio schreef op 15-jul-2015 om 17:12:

Showing the same "reading relative to" another observer?
Silly.
Proper time IS the reading of a clock, BY DEFINITION.
So BY YOUR OWN EXPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS ["for some fixed
(appropriately long) proper time"], when the clocks
reunite, they show the same reading. Period.

Dirk Vdm

[Julio Di Egidio]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:mo5v6r$j2r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Julio Di Egidio schreef op 15-jul-2015 om 17:12:
>> "paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:683a35de-42ce-4755...@googlegroups.com...
>> <snip>
>>> What you present is nothing new or original and it is wrong.
>>> What SR says is that in the symmetric twins case, at the end of the
>>> journey, both clocks will show the same reading. So there is no a
>>> violation on causality or anything else.
>>
>> That is wrong: the clocks may show the same reading only relative to an
>> observer stationary with the origin all along...
>
> Showing the same "reading relative to" another observer?
> Silly.

Indeed...

> Proper time IS the reading of a clock, BY DEFINITION.
> So BY YOUR OWN EXPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS ["for some fixed
> (appropriately long) proper time"], when the clocks
> reunite, they show the same reading. Period.

Relative to a third observer stationary with the origin all along... The
question (read the original article, not the snipping and nonsense) is what
R's clock looks to L, and what L's clock looks to R when they rejoin. In
fact, a third "stationary" observer adds nothing to the paradox and is not
even mentioned.

Julio

[Maciej Woźniak]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message

> Proper time IS the reading of a clock, BY DEFINITION.

Yes, it is, and proper time of GPS is galilean:(
Good bye, Ingenious Shit.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Julio Di Egidio schreef op 15-jul-2015 om 18:22:

Julio, you missed the /period/ in my reply.

If you don't know the jargon that is used in some field, and you
don't even understand the concepts, the safest best is to avoid
arguing about it altogether. PERIOD. <=== look, another one!

Dirk Vdm

[Sam Wormley]

Quoting from your link, "(Effects of acceleration can be minimised by
making the total proper time the rockets are subject to acceleration
appropriately small relative to the total proper time of the journey.)

"The twins at that point rejoin, again sharing a common frame of
reference (up to arbitrary precision)."

NOPE -- Getting back together requires a switching of reference
frames (via acceleration) which mean NO PARADOX.

Here are the details:
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html




--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:25GdndY8pbscDzvI...@giganews.com...

| NOPE -- Getting back together requires a switching of reference
| frames (via acceleration) which mean NO PARADOX.

No, poor idiot. No thing in the world ever required and ever
will require your moronic "switching frames". One, observer
independent reference frame is enough for any reasonable
model.
Just another thing idiot physicist found necessary, because
so.

[HVAC]

Hey Hulio. I once almost scored with twin sisters. I just couldn't close
the deal. I had my turn at bat and I popped up to the infield.

Infield fly rule = Harlow don't get to bang twins :(


--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/15/15 12:18 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> No, poor idiot. No thing in the world ever required and ever
> will require your moronic "switching frames". One, observer
> independent reference frame is enough for any reasonable
> model.

See: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2015 12:18 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> One, observer
> independent reference frame is enough for any reasonable
> model.

I disagree, and I'm not a physicist.
Do that, and the laws of physics will change depending on your motion.
You think that's just fine and dandy. I don't.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:25Gdnc88pbvdADvI...@giganews.com...

On 7/15/15 12:18 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> No, poor idiot. No thing in the world ever required and ever
> will require your moronic "switching frames". One, observer
> independent reference frame is enough for any reasonable
> model.


| See: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html

What for? To see you're not the only brainwashed moron in the
world we inhabit?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2015 1:04 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> What for? To see you're not the only brainwashed moron in the
> world we inhabit?
>

Anybody who believes he is humiliating anyone by calling them names is a
lost cause to humanity.

Maciej, you have greatly overestimated your importance, your impact, and
your general footprint in the world, I'm afraid.

[reber g=emc^2]

Julio The twin leaving Earth and going faster and faster is the one gaining weight.(inertia) its his clock that is going slower,and slower.TreBert PS weight is a measurement of inertia,and inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin

[HVAC]

On 7/15/2015 3:16 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
> Julio The twin leaving Earth and going faster and faster is the one gaining weight.(inertia) its his clock that is going slower,and slower.

Nope. Both their clocks run perfectly fine, and perfectly fine.

[noTthaTguY]

I don't see the problem with symmetrically moving twins;
it's all under "angular momentum of atoms in free space

[hanson]

<herbert...@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier "reber g=emc^2" wrote:
Julio The twin leaving Earth and going faster and faster
is the one gaining weight.(inertia) its his clock that is
going slower,and slower.TreBert PS weight is a measurement
of inertia,and inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin
>

hanson wrote:
Glazier, all that only seems to you to be that way
because of your schizophrenia you brag to have
for the last 27 years, and the other side of that
"same coin" is that even long before that when
you stole "G=EMC^2" off a farmer's barn, in 1946,
it never dawned on you back then nor today, that
"G=EMC^2" is short for:
"Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
Pity.

[Sylvia Else]

What I see is a description of an experiment, together with an assertion
as to the result of applying SR.

What I don't see is any math to support the assertion.

If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've made.

Sylvia.

[Julio Di Egidio]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:d0otdm...@mid.individual.net...

> On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

<snip>
>> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>

>
> What I see is a description of an experiment, together with an assertion
> as to the result of applying SR.

That is correct: the result is obvious, the consequences are not obvious.

> What I don't see is any math to support the assertion.
>
> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've made.

This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
relativity, you would not need to ask.

Julio

[Sylvia Else]

The math of special relativity is only high-school algebra, and plenty
of it gets posted to this forum. Your conclusion that there's a
contradiction certainly arises from an incorrect application of the
Lorentz transform. If you can't, or won't, post your math here, we can
only conclude that either you can't do the math anyway, or know very
well that it's wrong.

Sylvia.

[Michael Moroney]

If you knew about special relativity, you'd do the math, show it, and find
out that the two twins would be the same age (but younger than a
hypothetical triplet left behind on the planet).

[Odd Bodkin]

Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
interest of your readers.

>
> Julio

[HVAC]

On 7/16/2015 10:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've made.
>>
>> This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
>> relativity, you would not need to ask.
>
> Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
> have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
> is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
> relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
> caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
> believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
> and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
> interest of your readers.

I guess that Hulio is in the BJ camp and believes that math has no place
in the real world. Bear in mind that to BJ, ESP and remote viewing are
'real world' science. No offense to BJ of course.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:d0pbut...@mid.individual.net...

|The math of special relativity is only high-school algebra, and plenty
|of it gets posted to this forum.

Show me the place, where high school algebra defines terms
"time", "distance" "simultaneity" or "light speed".

[benj]

On 07/16/2015 10:58 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 10:16 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>> If you had presented the math, we could point to the errors you've
>>>> made.
>>>
>>> This is not a maths forum: anyway, if you knew anything about special
>>> relativity, you would not need to ask.
>>
>> Julio, in order to work out the consequences of any physical theory, you
>> have to do the math. This is why math is part and parcel of physics. It
>> is simply not possible to competently work out the consequences of
>> relativity if you can't do the math of relativity. I think that's the
>> caution that Sylvia is putting out to you. If you now say that you don't
>> believe that math should be a required skill to work out the outcomes
>> and consequences of a theory, then it's quite likely you'll lose the
>> interest of your readers.
>
>
> I guess that Hulio is in the BJ camp and believes that math has no place
> in the real world. Bear in mind that to BJ, ESP and remote viewing are
> 'real world' science. No offense to BJ of course.

Remember, Hulio that HVAC finds math essential for his astrological
calculations! He says astrology without math is unthinkable!

And bear in mind he also believes in Ghosts and Satan and other
"scientific" phenomena like that. (For fun ask him to explain how
crowned roads keep you from riding a bicycle close to the curb. His
"explanation" will be a Hoot! He knows how everything works)



--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[benj]

Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.

[Simoen]

On 7/15/2015 3:01 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> I don't see the problem with symmetrically moving twins;
> it's all under "angular momentum of atoms in free space
>

many places require pre-paid space especially for atoms as they can be
hard to find if they skip out

[Sam Wormley]

Those are common terms used in physics. The algebra is used by the
physics student to calculate quantities in relationships of the
physics.

Maciej, can you calculate the force between to masses M1 and M2
separated by a distance d? The physics concept is Newton Law of
Gravitation. The algebra is the tool to calculate the force of
gravity.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:CN6dnYfmIJ2vTDrI...@giganews.com...

On 7/16/15 10:24 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:d0pbut...@mid.individual.net...
>
> |The math of special relativity is only high-school algebra, and plenty
> |of it gets posted to this forum.
>
> Show me the place, where high school algebra defines terms
> "time", "distance" "simultaneity" or "light speed".
>

| Those are common terms used in physics.

Yes. And they are not terms of high school algebra.
Your math is not high school algebra. Though, it's
inheriting.

[Odd Bodkin]

Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has
nothing to do with reality.

[HVAC]

On 7/16/2015 12:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
>> can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
>> your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.
>
> Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has
> nothing to do with reality.

Since BJ says that your stupid math can't prove that ESP is real, he
feels that it's the MATH that's the problem.

Why should he believe in something stupid like 'math'.

[benj]

You are correct but so brainwashed like Boinker you don't know you are
correct! So what exactly is a "dp/dt" anyway? Where do I find one to
measure? I presume you think Newton's law of gravitation "explains"
gravity? You need to think a bit more.

[benj]

On 07/16/2015 02:03 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 12:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> Julio, Boinker can't understand that math is nothing but fantasy. It
>>> can't sink into his thick skull that when your assumptions are wrong,
>>> your math is "wrong" (but "right" as mathematics). He's just snowed.
>>
>> Right. Like Newtonian math F=dp/dt and F_g = GMm/r^2 is fantasy and has
>> nothing to do with reality.
>
>
> Since BJ says that your stupid math can't prove that ESP is real, he
> feels that it's the MATH that's the problem.
>
> Why should he believe in something stupid like 'math'.
>
>

MAth = Fantasy.

Anything HVAC says = lies.

Hence the equation: Harlow = Math

HVAC needs math to do his Astrology calculations.

[noTthaTguY]

just get the program from j.p.l
(ephemeris

[Odd Bodkin]

Really? You don't know how to measure momentum?
You don't know how to do repeated measurements of momentum over time?
You don't know how to measure a rate of change of a value of a
measurement done repeatedly over time?

Such a shame you were never taught how to measure anything.

> Where do I find one to
> measure? I presume you think Newton's law of gravitation "explains"
> gravity? You need to think a bit more.
>
>
>


--

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment
> that is symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears
> inescapable, in the form of a violation of the principle of causality.
> [...] Bottom line: if special relativity is correct, it must be
> incomplete."
>
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>
> Feedback welcome,
>
> Julio
>
>

At this juncture, I wonder at your motives for posting.

Did you really think your claim would be taken on trust?

Did you not expect that people would want to see your math?

Or was it your goal just to create yet another pointless thread?

Sylvia.

[Sam Wormley]

Why do you think the physics community is brain washed, Maciej?

The original poster doesn't have a good grasp of inertial referece
frames. Perhaps you don't either. Going through this PDF may shed
some light on misconceptions.

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail

> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of
> the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks
> are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
> fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate
> that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have
> serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the
> role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented
> that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which
> the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
> harmoniously co-exist.

> Conclusions

> This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
> students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
> role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
> unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
> whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
> the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
> simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
> the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
> of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
> observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
> confront the startling ideas of special relativity.

> Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble
> relating measurements made by observers in different reference
> frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels,
> do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the
> speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently
> fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed.
> Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas
> that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In
> particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a
> system of observers that determine the same time for any given event.
> Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of
> the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply
> correctly the Lorentz transformations.

> Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel
> student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual
> experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity
> are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to
> recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to
> have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts.
> Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an
> event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of
> measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given
> reference frame, and understanding the relationship between
> measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in
> contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to
> the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This
> investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these
> fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity
> meaningful to students.

[noTthaTguY]

just state your case, dOOd

[noTthaTguY]

or, learn the essentials of "angular momentum of atoms in free space

[Julio Di Egidio]

"Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:mo5s70$vaf$1...@dont-email.me...

> Dear all,
>
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that
> is symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in
> the form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom
> line: if special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."
>
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>
> Feedback welcome,

Thanks for the feedback so far, that was quite useful.

I still have found no reason to think that (special) relativity is
necessarily wrong, it seems apparent to me that the twins paradox rather
calls for multiverses in some specific sense. On the other hand, it is now
clear that special relativity is completely misunderstood/mystified in the
mainstream at least, and already in its very basics. So, let us go back to
those basics (assume collinear motion, assume c=1):

1) The very principle of relativity establishes that there is no privileged
frame of reference. In particular, if you are moving relative to me, I am
moving relative to you in a perfectly symmetrical way, i.e. perfectly
symmetrical are all space-time relations in the two frames.

2) It is clear (and acknowledged) that length contraction is totally
symmetrical between two frames of reference moving relative to each other:

2.1) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and you carry a
meter stick, I will measure a (contracted) length of your meter stick, L =
sqrt(1-v^2) < 1. That is, a moving meter stick looks shorter to me than my
own meter stick.

2.2) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and I carry a meter
stick, you will measure a (contracted) length of my meter stick, L =
sqrt(1-v^2) < 1. That is, a stationary meter stick (moving relative to you)
looks shorter to you than your own meter stick.

2.3) Bottom line, if you and I are moving relative to each other, *at the
same time* your lengths will look shorter to me and my lengths will look
shorter to you.

3) Is is also clear (but usually not acknowledged) that time dilation is
totally symmetrical between two frames of reference moving relative to each
other:

3.1) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and you carry a
clock, I will measure a (dilated) unit of time on your clock, T =
1/sqrt(1-v^2) > 1. That is, a moving clock looks slower to me than my own
clock.

3.2) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and I carry a clock,
you will measure a (dilated) unit of time on my clock, T = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) >
1. That is, a stationary clock (moving relative to you) looks slower to you
than your own clock.

3.3) Bottom line, if you and I are moving relative to each other, *at the
same time* your clocks will look slower to me and my clocks will look slower
to you.

That is indeed already enough to establish the paradox: if you and I move
relative to each other, not only during motion each of us would see the
other's lengths contracted relative one's own (not reciprocal!), but also,
and permanently so (!), each of us would see the other's clocks late in time
relative to one's own (again, not reciprocal!).

On the other hand, note that most presentations of special relativity
problems are set up in terms of a "rest" frame vs. a "moving" frame: that is
not incorrect but it is only half of the coin, because, at the same time and
in a perfectly symmetrical way, the "rest" frame is moving relative to the
"moving" frame. As said, the relations involved are symmetrical, so indeed
solving one case implicitly solves the other (mathematically), but with
special relativity it becomes a mistake to forget that, physically, both
situations occur and they are in fact distinct!

Julio

[hanson]

<ju...@diegidio.name> "Julio Di Egidio" wrote:
I still have found no reason to think that (special) relativity is
> necessarily wrong, it seems apparent to me that the twins paradox rather
> calls for multiverses in some specific sense. On the other hand, it is
> now clear that special relativity is completely misunderstood/mystified in

> the mainstream at least, and already in its very basics. <snip teh rest>
>
hanson wrote:
Never mind your additional hand waving "multi-versed" tripe, Julio.
Your math interpretation attemps got you into the classic
SR trap that you fell into "Inescapable ("symmetric)"... which
is hailed by all morons who are Einstein Dingleberriers, that
worship Albert's Sphincter, about which one poster even
cautioned you of, that you are "120 years too late". Pity.
>
So, Julio ,your belated historic heroic regurgitation efforts not
withstanding, you could have saved yourself a lot of anguish,
doubts and embarrassment had you considered first what....
>
.... hanson cited:
>
||| Edward Teller, the inventor of the H-Bomb, says:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwiayZ3sH7U >
||| "Einstein didn't know what he was talking about..."
||| "...or he was lying, or both".
>
Teller was/is NOT alone with that notion. Other
luminaries said:
>
||| Prof. Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
||| "It is my firm belief that the 20th century will be
|||characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
||| or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
||| Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, all
||| associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
||| or John Beckman, an astronomy professor & Einstein disciple:
||| "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
||| That is probably more a matter of FAITH than of proof."
>
Then there is also this about Relativity which shows that
it is a pitiful **Physics by hear-say** that needs FAITH
and BELIEF in "observers" which was condemned already
60+ years ago, 2 years before he died, when...
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR
in which Albert concluded that:
____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ & that
____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____
end cit
>
Ergo, SR&GR is only "observed" today by RETARDS
and deranged kikes who yearn to preserve Einstein's shit
as Jewish heritage... ahahahaha... like the cut&pasting
Jew Sam Wormey and his schizophrenic understudy,
Swine Glazier, the Face Shitter & Graveyard vandal does,
who also, in stereotypical Jew fashion trumped Einstein
with his "G=EMC^2" that Glazier stole off a farmer's barn.
>
Julio, you really wanna be a member of that sorry cabal?

.

[Apollyon]

Edward Teller wanted to terraform earth with hydrogen bombs, hanson. Is that *your* "cabal"?

[hanson]

<adra...@gmail.com> "Apollyon" is like a dog that barks into

hanson wrote:
Listen, you miserable Green Turd, stay on the subject of SR/GR
instead of lamenting about your Gaja Green Shit that turned out
to be far worse then Teller's approach. Stop barking & think!

[reber g=emc^2]

Julio If one spaceship is going close to c and the other is not moving its easy to tell which one your on.TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/18/15 3:36 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> If one spaceship is going close to c and the other is not moving its easy to tell which one your on.

Going Close to c with respect to what?

Who to say which one is moving?

I always worry, Herb, that somehow you think motion is absolute.
It is not!

[hanson]

<herbert...@gmail.com> "reber g=emc^2", tfe Cretin wrote:
> Julio If one spaceship is going close to c and the other

> is not moving its easy to tell which one your on, to which
>
oderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com>
Harlow Campbell succinctly added & wrote:
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/07/2015 2:11 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> 3) Is is also clear (but usually not acknowledged) that time dilation is
> totally symmetrical between two frames of reference moving relative to
> each other:
>
> 3.1) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and you carry a
> clock, I will measure a (dilated) unit of time on your clock, T =
> 1/sqrt(1-v^2) > 1. That is, a moving clock looks slower to me than my
> own clock.
>
> 3.2) If you are moving relative to me at speed v > 0, and I carry a
> clock, you will measure a (dilated) unit of time on my clock, T =
> 1/sqrt(1-v^2) > 1. That is, a stationary clock (moving relative to you)
> looks slower to you than your own clock.
>
> 3.3) Bottom line, if you and I are moving relative to each other, *at
> the same time* your clocks will look slower to me and my clocks will
> look slower to you.
>
> That is indeed already enough to establish the paradox: if you and I
> move relative to each other, not only during motion each of us would see
> the other's lengths contracted relative one's own (not reciprocal!), but
> also, and permanently so (!), each of us would see the other's clocks
> late in time relative to one's own (again, not reciprocal!).
>

If that did indeed establish the existence of a paradox, do you really
think that it would have been overlooked for the last hundred years,
waiting to be discovered by you?

Such hubris.

Sylvia.

[HVAC]

On 7/18/2015 6:37 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/18/15 3:36 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>> If one spaceship is going close to c and the other is not moving its
>> easy to tell which one your on.
>
>
> Going Close to c with respect to what?
>
> Who to say which one is moving?
>
> I always worry, Herb, that somehow you think motion is absolute.
> It is not!

(Slaps forehead) So *that's* why it's called 'relativity'!

[reber g=emc^2]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:55:55 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
> symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in the
> form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom line: if
> special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."
>
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>
> Feedback welcome,
>

> Julio

The light of stars show the people in space ships the one that's moving.If one space ship is going at c and the other at half c it will show that as well.we use this information to know the universe is expanding.It tell "COMING OR GOING" Hubble did the work for us.Einstein"s static universe was his third biggest mistake. TreBert

[hanson]

<herbert...@gmail.com> Glazier, the Swine "reber g=emc^2" wrote:
<snip idiot Glazerola> Einstein"s static universe was his third biggest
mistake. ... and which one was the third biggest mistake by Swine
Glazier can be seen as soon as
>
<herbert...@gmail.com> :B::ert Glazier, the Swine,
Hate monger, Jewish Jailbird, Faceshitter & Graveyard
vandal, Racist and Bigot "reber g=emc^2" has introduced
himself as/with
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 letters from two Popes. Bert
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: ***** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert *****
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur,carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... which happened after....
>
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015:
when <herbert...@gmail.com>, the Jewish Swine wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Saul Levy & Benj, I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". ... after.
>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, you, Hebe Herbie, said to
"benj" <nob...@gmail.com>: Reality is you always post under
me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have agood laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
>
(above template to be used to snip Bert's Glazierola and
to administer loving "Recall Therapy" for Swine Glazier)
>
to which:
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com>

[Sam Wormley]

On 7/15/15 8:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment
> that is symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears
> inescapable, in the form of a violation of the principle of causality.
> [...] Bottom line: if special relativity is correct, it must be
> incomplete."

Here is an accurate analysis of the twin paradox for
symmetrically traveling twins


Solution
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/TwinParadox.gif
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/solution18.html

> As Alice travels from O to A on the outbound portion of her trip, she
> observes the time in Beth's spaceship to pass from O to I, which is
> shorter than the time from O to A in Alice's frame. During the
> inbound portion of her trip from A to C, Alice observes the time in
> Beth's spaceship to pass from E to C, which is again shorter than the
> time from A to C in Alice's frame. However, when Alice turns around
> at A to switch inertial frames, the point along Beth's worldline
> which is simultaneous with A jumps forward from I to E, which cancels
> out the time dilation effect.

> Similarly, as Beth travels from O to B on the outbound portion of her
> trip, she observes the time in Alice's spaceship to pass from O to H,
> which is shorter than the time from O to B in Beth's frame. During
> the inbound portion of her trip from B to C, Beth observes the time
> in Alice's spaceship to pass from D to C, which is again shorter than
> the time from B to C in Beth's frame. However, when Beth turns around
> at B to switch inertial frames, the point along Alice's worldline
> which is simultaneous with B jumps forward from H to D, which cancels
> out the time dilation effect.

> Both Alice and Beth observe the time in the other spaceship to be
> flowing slower in the outbound and inbound parts of their trips, but
> because of the "jump forward" effect when they turn around, they will
> be of the same age when they meet at C.

[Paul B. Andersen]

https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
https://paulba.no/twins.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[reber g=emc^2]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:55:55 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
> symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in the
> form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom line: if
> special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."
>
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>
> Feedback welcome,
>

> Julio

I was relating the moving space ship to the stars.Thus spaceship front window moving at close to c would be "blue." Back window moving away from stars "red" Side window long "streaks" .Get the picture TreBert

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/15/15 7/15/15 9:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
> symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in the
> form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom line: if
> special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>

Your conclusion is wrong, basically because YOU DID NOT USE SR. You just made up
an answer.

Here is the text from that link, with my comments interspersed:

> In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
> symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in the
> form of a violation of the principle of causality.

Remember that "paradox" can mean "seemingly incorrect but discovered to be
correct upon detailed analysis" -- THAT is the sense in which the second word of
"twin paradox" is used. It is a "paradox" IN THAT SENSE, and not any sort of
inconsistency or contradiction or error.

There is no "violation of the principle of causality", because YOU DID NOT USE SR.


> Here is the experiment (we would argue that effects of acceleration can be
> made arbitrarily small in our setup):

Hmmm. the twins cannot separate and rejoin without acceleration. But then,
acceleration itself does not affect clocks directly.

In SR, the accumulated time on a clock depends upon its path through spacetime,
and the accelerations here serve to separate the paths of the clocks (twins).
That separation cannot be "made arbitrarily small".

As long as the two rockets are identical, and programmed to provide identical
thrust profiles (though in different directions), then any effects of
acceleration will cancel out. I assume this below.

> == The twins, call them L and R, are each given a clock at birth and get the
> clock fixed to their body: the two clocks have been previously synchronised.
> Assume, for simplicity, that the common origin of space-time for the clocks
> is set to the moment and place of the twins' birth, as well as a common
> choice of coordinates is made, such that the twins, at that very moment,
> share the same frame of reference (up to arbitrary precision). Just after
> birth, the twins (with their clocks) are each embarked on a rocket. Assume
> collinear motion for simplicity. The two rockets start in opposite direction
> relative to the origin, carrying L and R respectively. The plan is for the
> rockets to fly away from each other at some fixed (appropriately high)
> constant speed for some fixed (appropriately long) proper time, then simply
> invert course and fly back at opposite speed to the point of origin (in
> space), and stop there. (Effects of acceleration can be minimised by making
> the total proper time the rockets are subject to acceleration appropriately
> small relative to the total proper time of the journey.) The twins at that
> point rejoin, again sharing a common frame of reference (up to arbitrary
> precision). We ask what the two clocks measure for each twin in this common
> frame. ==

OK. With one addition this is just the usual symmetrical twins paradox. The
addition is that the "coordinates" you chose are an inertial frame, and the
locations of the twins' separation and rejoining are the same place in that
inertial frame. (Being the same place happens naturally since their rockets are
identical and they follow the same trajectories relative to that inertial frame
except for direction of travel.)

The answer is well known: when they rejoin, the two twins' clocks indicate the
same total elapsed proper time, for the simple reason that their trajectories
through spacetime are symmetric (relative to the initial inertial frame).


> To compute results, we apply special relativity. (We advise readers go
> through this little but essential exercise by themselves.)

You ought to take your own advice!


> We find that R's clock looks late (i.e. back in time) to L, but, *at the
> same time* (twins and clocks are in a common frame of reference), L's clock
> looks late to R!

This is just plain wrong. The two clocks indicate the same elapsed proper time
after they rejoin.


> This conclusion is an inescapable consequence of the theory,

No, it isn't. It is just plain wrong. You made a gross mistake, and since you
did not show your math, we cannot show you where you made it.


> and now the problem becomes how to make sense of these results. [... further
> incorrect claims]

I suspect you have fallen victim of some books' claiming "moving clocks run
slow". That is a SHORTCUT, and you MUST understand the caveats that lead up to
it. In particular, this is only LOOSELY valid, and ONLY with respect to an
inertial frame. Note that neither twin is at rest in an inertial frame, and that
approach simply cannot be used.

One easily calculate the elapsed proper time of each twin,
using the initial inertial frame. We have:
T_e = integral sqrt(1 - v(t)^2/c^2) dt
Where T_e is the elapsed proper time of the clock in question,
t is the time coordinate of the inertial frame, and v(t) is
the clock's speed relative to that frame. T_e is OBVIOUSLY
the same for both twins, because v(t) is the same for them
(since only v^2 appears, the direction does not matter).
Note that for identical rockets, any acceleration will have
identical effects on the two twins' T_e.


My comments on some other claims you have made in other posts:
> if we had a third observer stationary with the origin, she and only she
> would see L and R's clocks in synch with each other. In fact, adding
> observers changes nothing: still the clocks would be late relative to her own
> clock, and still the twins would see *her* clock late relative to their own.

You are VERY CONFUSED. After they rejoin, the two twins' clocks are co-located.
NO MATTER WHO LOOKS AT THEM their relationship MUST be the same. And it is: when
computed CORRECTLY, all observers calculate equal T_e for the two twins. This
includes each twin, and observer at rest in the inertial frame I introduced
above, and any other observer whatsoever.

It is true that adding observers changes nothing. In particular, it did not
change the fact that YOU MADE A GROSS MISTAKE.

> it is now clear that special relativity is completely misunderstood/mystified

Yes. It is completely misunderstood BY YOU.

> Is is also clear (but usually not acknowledged) that time dilation is
> totally symmetrical between two frames of reference moving relative to each
> other

This is "acknowledged" by any good book on relativity, and by anyone who
understands SR,; but it applies ONLY FOR INERTIAL FRAMES.

> if you and I are moving relative to each other, *at the same time* your
> clocks will look slower to me and my clocks will look slower to you.

Yes, FOR THE SPECIFIC METHOD OF MEASUREMENT IMPLICITLY ASSUMED. This method
requires each observer to use an assistant to measure the rate of the other
clock, because it is MOVING RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER'S FRAME.

In order to avoid effects of propagation delays, we normally
insist that observations are made by someone co-located
with the event being observed. To observe a clock reading
does not require the observer to be co-moving with the clock,
just co-located. This means no single observer can measure
the rate of a clock moving relative to her, she needs an
assistant at rest in her inertial frame, with a clock
synchronized to hers, and pre-positioned along the path
the moving clock will follow in her frame. The assistant
records the value of the moving clock when it passes her,
as well as the value of her own clock. The observer herself
makes the same observations, and from the combination of
both the rate of the moving clock can be computed.

So while the two observers make the same sort of measurements, the two
measurements ARE DIFFERENT (they use different assistants and different
synchronizations of the clocks involved). There is no contradiction when these
two measurements both find the moving clock is ticking slower than their own clocks.

> That is indeed already enough to establish the paradox

Yes, IN THE SENSE ABOVE: to a quick look, SUCH AS YOURS, it seems contradictory;
but to a THOROUGH analysis that is CORRECT, there is no contradiction or
problem. The two measurements are just different.

> On the other hand, note that most presentations of special relativity
> problems are set up in terms of a "rest" frame vs. a "moving" frame: that is
> not incorrect but it is only half of the coin, because, at the same time and
> in a perfectly symmetrical way, the "rest" frame is moving relative to the
> "moving" frame. As said, the relations involved are symmetrical,

The problem here is that this only holds for INERTIAL frames. And neither twin
is at rest in an inertial frame. That's why I introduced the inertial frame in
which their separation and rejoin are at the same location. Using THAT frame,
which _IS_ inertial, the analysis is simple and straightforward.

It is possible to find analyses of this situation on the web. But
BEWARE OF FAKES -- there is lots of misinformation on the web,
SUCH AS YOUR SITE. You are MUCH better off to get a good textbook
on the subject, because it is clear that you are not knowledgeable
enough about SR to distinguish sense from nonsense. I recommend:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.


Do you really think that if your claims were true that nobody else would have
noticed it over the past 110 years? Assuming that thousands of physicists are
wrong and that you alone are right is a VERY BAD ASSUMPTION.


Tom Roberts

[Daniel S. Riley]

To expand (and contract) a bit on what Tom said (because I'm bored):

Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> On 7/15/15 7/15/15 9:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> Here is the experiment (we would argue that effects of acceleration can be
>> made arbitrarily small in our setup):
>
> Hmmm. the twins cannot separate and rejoin without acceleration. But then,
> acceleration itself does not affect clocks directly.

Acceleration can be removed from most twin "paradoxes" via adding a few
more spaceships and co-located clock synchronizations as ships pass each
other. I generally prefer those formulations because they remove the
red herring of acceleration, making it clearer that the action is all in
the change of reference frames.

> The answer is well known: when they rejoin, the two twins' clocks
> indicate the same total elapsed proper time, for the simple reason
> that their trajectories through spacetime are symmetric (relative to
> the initial inertial frame).

Yep. The asymmetry in the standard twin "paradox" is because one twin
(or clock sync, in my preferred formulation) changes inertial frames and
the other doesn't. If both twins change inertial frames symmetrically,
then of course they'll be the same age.

This faux-paradox makes an appearance in Smarandache's "Unsolved
Problems in Special and General Relativity", a veritable cornucopia of
relativity misunderstandings worthy of "Galilean Electrodynamics" (as I
recall, Petr Beckmann made a similar error in this very same newsgroup,
some things never change[1]).

-dan

[1] Beckmann's was actually worse--he had both twins at rest wrt the
origin, but the rest was essentially the same mistake

[YBM]

I was quite previsible tzat a crank in math, as you are, is as well a
crank in physics as you've shown here.

[noTthaTguY]

really, big deal

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/07/2015 12:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> "In the context of special relativity, we present a twins experiment
> that is symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears
> inescapable, in the form of a violation of the principle of causality.
> [...] Bottom line: if special relativity is correct, it must be
> incomplete."
>
> <http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html>
>
> Feedback welcome,
>

> Julio
>
>

The OP seems to have abandoned this thread. It's probably too much to
hope that this is because he's finally grasped the truth, being that
there's no paradox.

Sylvia

[Julio Di Egidio]

"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message

news:d1bglq...@mid.individual.net...

> The OP seems to have abandoned this thread. It's probably too much to hope
> that this is because he's finally grasped the truth, being that there's no
> paradox.

You wish. This discussion has rather confirmed that there is a problem with
relativity rooted into special relativity already. But I keep monitoring
the thread, just nothing new is coming up: e.g. that you are only
contributing fallacies has been pointed out already (you incompetent troll).

BTW, my idea so far is not that relativity is inconsistent, in fact I still
have found no evidence for that, but relativity, at least the common picture
we are given of it, is certainly incomplete: the paradoxes rather call for
something more fundamental than space-time, and that is or has to do with
conscience and causality. Well, that is the line of research anyway...

No worries, I'll keep you posted.

Julio

[Sylvia Else]

We're still waiting for your math.

Sylvia.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/23/15 7/23/15 8:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> This discussion has rather confirmed that there is a problem with
> relativity rooted into special relativity already.

No, you just fantasize that. No post here (or in any other thread) has displayed
any problem, inconsistency, or internal contradiction in SR.

> BTW, my idea so far is not that relativity is inconsistent, in fact I still have
> found no evidence for that,

Yes, Because the math underlying SR has been PROVEN to be as self-consistent as
is Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. That means you aren't going to
find any such evidence unless you have found evidence to overthrow essentially
all of mathematics as we know it.

> but relativity, at least the common picture we are
> given of it, is certainly incomplete:

Yes, of course. PHYSICISTS know that SR is incomplete -- it does not include
gravitation. PHYSICISTS also know that GR is incomplete -- it does not include
quantum phenomena.

But your prattling here has not demonstrated any "incompleteness", you have
merely demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of SR. That's YOUR problem,
not SR's or anybody else's.

> the paradoxes rather call for something
> more fundamental than space-time,

Yes. They call for UNDERSTANDING ON YOUR PART. That is fundamental FOR YOU.

I repeat: these "paradoxes" use that word in the sense of a
seemingly contradictory or incorrect statement that upon
detailed analysis is found to be true.


Tom Roberts

[wugi]

Julio Di Egidio schreef op 15/07/2015 om 16:53:

> ntext of special relativity, we present a twins experiment that is
> symmetric between the twins, so that a paradox appears inescapable, in
> the form of a violation of the principle of causality. [...] Bottom
> line: if special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete."

Make that, well, see the bottom line here.

Let's quote the latter part of your "problosal" and comment on it.

<<The twins at that point rejoin, again sharing a common frame of
reference (up to arbitrary precision). We ask what the two clocks
measure for each twin in this common frame. ==>>

Once back in a common frame, the clocks would tick together again of
course.

<< To compute results, we apply special relativity. (We advise readers

go through this little but essential exercise by themselves.) We find >>

Despite everyone asking you, you didn't do that (for) yourself.

<<that R's clock looks late (i.e. back in time) to L, but, *at the same
time* (twins and clocks are in a common frame of reference), L's clock

looks late to R! This conclusion is an inescapable consequence of the
theory, and now the problem becomes how to make sense of these results. >>

While in different inertial frames, either clock ticks slower according
to the other one. This can be measured during or at "some time" for
either, but due to relativity of simultaneity you can't state it to be
done *at the same time*. And to make a statement about comparing elapsed
times along different paths, some calculations have to be made.

<<In fact, since all clocks are affected, including the biological ones,
at the end of the journey each twin effectively finds the other younger
than himself: >>

Your mistake. During each halve of their voyage (away, then back) each
twin will conclude the other "runs" at a slower pace *but* (rel. of
simult., remember) during a larger time interval than his own. Resulting
in equal elapsed times. BTW, the return point of the other twin is not
simultaneous with his own return point, neither in his outbound system
nor in his homebound one.

<<then, per *reciprocity* (causality), i.e. that in the same frame of
reference, if I am older than you, you must be younger than me, we can >>

But I am not, and you are not either.

<<argue that each twin is at the same time younger and older than the
other, which is indeed absurd!>>

Is it indeed.

<< Note that the absurdity would not be so patent if we just let the >>

... if we just understood the business...

<<two clocks travel, hence we sent the twins, too: not because the
presence of the twins is necessary for relativistic effects to occur,
the clocks must be late relative to each other regardless of anyone
observing them, rather because only the twins can "testify" that the
conclusion of the experiment, so special relativity theory, is indeed at
odds with the principle of *causality*.>>

The twins don't have to testify anything different from their very clocks.
Consider yet the following alternatives.
1) Let the "left" twin make the "right" voyage. Everything being
symmetric, he must conclude left = right. And not left <> right
according to your exposition.
2) Put a large mirror in the home system and watch the left twin's
mirror image embark on the "right" voyage, with the same conclusions.

<< Bottom line: if special relativity is correct, it must be incomplete.>>

Make that: if special relativity is correct, I (ie my understanding it)
must be incomplete.

--
guido
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

[Emmerich Schultheiß]

Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> Ok. I'm talking to a complete idiot, so, let it be, again.
> Quoting your fellow Gary (quoting your poor idiot Guru):
>
> Best definition of "common sense":
> “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen”
> -- Albert Einstein end of quote.

Well, here is where Einy was definitely wrong. It takes actually centuries
to acquire the right commons sense.