Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What is or is not a paradox?

83 views
Skip to first unread message

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 7:17:29 PM12/30/12
to
I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too
trivial. Yet exactly the same issue has arisen again in another thread.

So let's open this specific question to debate.

What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?

I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.

Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.

But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
dishonesty aside).

Sylvia.

kenseto

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 7:39:23 PM12/30/12
to
But the different results cannot be that:
1. in the barn frame the 80 ft long pole can be completely inside the
40 ft barn briefly with both doors close and open simultaneously.
2. in the pole frame the 80 ft long pole is never inside the barn
completely for any brief interval of time.....

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 7:52:13 PM12/30/12
to
Why not? Can you even define the concept "completely inside" without
making reference to time (including implicitly), and therefore involving
simultaneity?

Sylvia.

rotchm

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 8:05:54 PM12/30/12
to

> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?

There are two common definitions of "paradox" as one can find in various dictionaries.

1- An apparent contradiction; Something counter-intuitive.
2- A contradiction.

SR does not define 'paradox'. We do, given our intentions/context.

> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible.

That would satisfy definition 2.

> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.

Correct.

> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
> incompatible if they give different results.

Yup, thats what many conclude.

>I am at a loss to understand why people would seek to regard
> those different results as constituting a paradox that invalidates SR

Those people just dont understand....

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 9:17:10 PM12/30/12
to
I think I'll expand on this a bit. To my mind, in determining whether a
paradox has occurred, one has to imagine that one or both observers is
accelerated after the alleged paradox, so as to bring them into the same
frame. Each observer will then take their previous results, make due
allowance of their acceleration, and then make further predictions as to
the results of future measurements. There is a paradox if those further
predictions differ - clearly, all observers in the same frame should get
the same results (appropriately adjusted for the observers' positions).

In the hypothetical disaster paradox described above, the two observers
might seek to predict the results of a measurement on a coffee shop. One
would predict the presence of a cappucino. The other would predict the
presence of a gaping hole in the ground. Clearly those results would be
incompatible, since only one of the predictions could be correct.

Sylvia.
Message has been deleted

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 11:00:00 PM12/30/12
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akc3sr...@mid.individual.net...
========================================================

A paradox is a direct self-contradiction of which SR (which you have never
read and never understood), has many. As you are a stupid dishonest troll
who challenged Einstein's two clock rod by claiming a paradoxical single
clock your non-intellectual dishonesty cannot be left aside, it is only too
apparent. Stay at a loss to understand mathematics and logic, you stupid
bigoted bastard.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

SRdude

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 11:13:26 PM12/30/12
to
On 12-30-2012, "Sylvia" wrote: <<<<snip all>>>>

Dear Sylvia:

Here are two serious paradoxes in SR:

[1] Given three people born at approximately the same time and place
(e.g., triplets), two of them can age differently sans acceleration,
gravitation, Einsteinian synchronization, the optical Doppler effect,
or anything else *except* pure, unadulterated inertial motions.

This is an SR paradox because SR says flatly that there can be no
noticeable effects of absolute motion, whereas the only possible
explanation for people aging differently in different inertial frames
is their different absolute speeds through space.

[2] Given observers in two inertial frames using Einstein's clocks to
try to measure light's one-way speed, the clocks will conflict with
the experimental result, said result being the fact that the clocks
are started at different times whereas Einstein forces them to read
the same start time.

Here is this paradox shown via simple diagrams:

Frame A
origin clocks start but right-hand clocks unstarted
[0]------------------x------------------[x/c]-->
S~>light emitted
[0]------------------x------------------[x/c]--->
Frame B

Note: A moves to the right relative to S, and B moves to the right
relative to A.

Note: It is not critical that the two distant clocks be perfectly
aligned as shown; all that matters is that the observers in each frame
have separately measured their own distance between their own clocks
to be x, as was given. (For example, x in each frame could be 1 light-
year.)

Related note: In no case does any observer in either frame measure any
distance that is not in his own frame. (No "cross-measurements" are
involved.)

Note: Even though there is zero justification for Einstein's placement
of the time x/c on A's distant clock, we will let this slide.

Frame A A's right-hand clock starts
--------[?]------------x------------[x/c]-->
S------------------------------------>light
--------------------[?]------------x------------[x/c]--->
Frame B B's right-hand still clock unstarted

From the above, we see that Einstein's forced "c-invariance" directly
conflicts with experiment by improperly forcing clocks to read the
same start time when they were really started at different times. (We
know that they were started at absolutely different times because the
two clock-starting events are light-like, and such events have an
absolute before and after.)

The reason for this conflict with experiment is simply the use of
asynchronous clocks, i.e., clocks that cannot possibly correctly
measure time spans or agree with experiment, as was noted above.

Now we can clearly see why no experiment has shown one-way light speed
invariance. It simply cannot happen experimentally because light's one-
way speed actually varies with frame velocity, as would readily be
seen if absolutely synchronous clocks were used.

~CG~

Tom Roberts

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 11:24:07 PM12/30/12
to
On 12/30/12 12/30/12 6:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?

The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple meanings; the relevant
ones are:
1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when
investigated proves to be true.
2. A contradiction.

You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the
sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the
sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were
contradictory or incorrect.


> [... further elaboration, valid using sense (2)]

Note that the mathematics of SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So we can be EXTREMELY confident
that there are no "paradoxes(2)" in SR.

Of course many people around here do not understand SR, and do not understand
the actual meanings (plural) of "paradox", and thus make rather grotesque
mistakes. In particular, kenseto has been making gross errors about SR for more
than a decade; he is not alone in that....


Tom Roberts

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 30, 2012, 11:35:08 PM12/30/12
to
On 31/12/2012 2:59 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On Dec 30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> Here are two paradoxes in SR:
>
> [1] Given three people born at approximately the same time and place
> (e.g., triplets), two of them can age differently sans acceleration,
> gravitation, Einsteinian synchronization, the optical Doppler effect,
> or anything else *except* pure, unadulterated inertial motions.

So they stay next to each other from the time of their birth until their
different ages are determined, at which point their ages are found to be
different? It seems a tad improbable, not least because, given the
symmetry, there would be no way to choose bewteen them.
> --------[?]--------------x--------------[x/c]-->
> S---------------------------------------->light
> --------------------[?]--------------x--------------[x/c]--->
> Frame B B's right-hand still clock
> unstarted
>
> From the above, we see that Einstein's forced "c-invariance" directly
> conflicts with experiment by improperly forcing clocks to read the
> same start time when they were really started at different times. (We
> know that they were started at absolutely different times because the
> two clock-starting events a light-like, and such events have an
> absolute before and after.)
>
> The reason for this conflict with experiment is simply the use of
> asynchronous clocks, i.e., clocks that cannot possibly correctly
> measure time spans or agree with experiment, as was noted above.
>
> Now we can clearly see why no experiment has shown one-way light speed
> invariance. It simply cannot happen experimentally because light's one-
> way speed actually varies with frame velocity, as would readily be
> seen if absolutely synchronous clocks were used.

I've really had a hard time following your argument here. It appears
that you're accepting the absence of a one-way light speed variation,
but then objecting to the fact that both clocks are started a time t =
x/c after the beginning of the experiment, where x and t are both
measured in the particular frame. Since that's exactly what SR predicts,
how does the experimental result differ from that of SR?

Note that a conflict between experimental results and theory (assuming
the experimental result is correct) is a falsification of the theory,
not a paradox. A paradox is where the theory itself makes mutually
incompatible predictions such that one can show that there must exist at
least one valid experiment that would falsify the theory if it were
performed.

SR might yet be falsified (I consider it unlikely), but actual
experiments, not thought experiments, would be required. Thought
experiements can only find paradoxes, and that is only possible if the
theory is not *internally* consistent. That is, if it's incapable of
describing *any* reality, not just possibly not a correct description of
the particular reality that we inhabit.

Sylvia.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 1:04:08 AM12/31/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Dec 30, 4:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too

> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.
>
> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
> incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
> understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
> constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
> dishonesty aside).

From the Lorentz transformations, you can write down the following
equation per Minkowski spacetime. Points #1, #2, and #3 are
observers. They are observing the same target.

** c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 – ds2^2 = c^2 dt3^2 – ds3^2

Where

** dt1 = Time flow at Point #1
** dt2 = Time flow at Point #2
** dt3 = Time flow at Point #3

** ds1 = Observed target displacement segment by #1
** ds2 = Observed target displacement segment by #2
** ds3 = Observed target displacement segment by #3

The above spacetime equation can also be written as follows.

** dt1^2 (1 – B1^2) = dt2^2 (1 – B2^2) = dt3^2 (1 – B3^2)

Where

** B^2 = (ds/dt)^2 / c^2

When #1 is observing #2, the following equation can be deduced from
the equation above.

** dt1^2 (1 – B1^2) = dt2^2 . . . (1)

Where

** B2^2 = 0, #2 is observing itself

Similarly, when #2 is observing #1, the following equation can be
deduced.

** dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 – B2^2) . . . (2)

Where

** B1^2 = 0, #1 is observing itself

According to relativity, the following must be true.

** B1^2 = B2^2

Thus, equations (1) and (2) become the following equations.

** dt1^2 (1 – B^2) = dt2^2 . . . (3)
** dt2^2 = dt2^2 (1 – B^2) . . . (4)

Where

** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2

The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.
Thus, the twins’ paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>

Within the Lorentz transform, the little professor from Norway, paul
andersen, was able to play a mathemagic trick, and he is not alone.
In doing so, the Minkowski spacetime was not recognized in his little
applet. He is out in the very left field chasing chickens again.
<shrug>

Tom and other self-styled physicists have recognized that fault and
moved on to claim a mythical proper time flow where all local time
flow is a projection of this absolute time flow. Oh, excuse Koobee
Wublee. Not absolute time but proper time whatever $hit it is.
However, these guys cannot explain why the projection did not cancel
out on the traveling twin’s return trip. So, equations (3) and (4)
are still indicating the paradox regardless if projection or not.
<shrug>

Well, sooner or later, these bozos are going to wake up someday and
ask themselves “what the fvck was I thinking?”. Guess what? The time
projection crap is the last piece of float the self-styled physicists
are clinging on to. Take that away. They will sink. That is why the
self-styled physicists are very reluctant to give the time projection
crap a serious thought. <shrug>


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 1:15:35 AM12/31/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Dec 30, 8:24 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/30/12 12/30/12 6:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple
> meanings; the relevant ones are:
> 1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when
> investigated proves to be true.
> 2. A contradiction.

Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
defend these accusations. <shrug>

> You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the
> sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the
> sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were
> contradictory or incorrect.

Total bullshit! <shaking head>

> > [... further elaboration, valid using sense (2)]
>
> Note that the mathematics of SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So we can be EXTREMELY confident
> that there are no "paradoxes(2)" in SR.

What mathematics does Tom believe in? Didn’t Tom has claimed that he
has believed in the projection of proper time where there is no
mathematics involved but faith? <shrug>

> Of course many people around here do not understand SR, and do not understand
> the actual meanings (plural) of "paradox", and thus make rather grotesque
> mistakes. In particular, kenseto has been making gross errors about SR for more
> than a decade; he is not alone in that....

Time after time, it is the idiot who always think others are idiots.
Why? <shrug>

Oh, it is about that religion thing again. <shrug>

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 2:31:20 AM12/31/12
to
I assume you meant to write

dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 - B^2) . . . (4)
>
> Where
>
> ** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2
>
> The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.

Which tells us nothing more than that when two observers observe each
other, the situation is symmetrical. Each will measure the same time for
equivalent displacements of the other. Or more simply, they share a
common relative velocity (save for sign).

> Thus, the twins’ paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform.
> <shrug>

<blink> Where did that come from? The twin "paradox" involves bringing
the two twins back together, which necessitates accelerating at least
one of them, making their frame non-inertial.</blink>

Sylvia.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 3:49:11 AM12/31/12
to
No, Koobee Wublee meant every letter in the equations (3) and (4).
<shrug>

> > Where
>
> > ** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2
>
> > The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.
>
> Which tells us nothing more than that when two observers observe each
> other, the situation is symmetrical. Each will measure the same time for
> equivalent displacements of the other. Or more simply, they share a
> common relative velocity (save for sign).

The symmetry is everything about the twins’ paradox. <shrug>

> > Thus, the twins’ paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform.
> > <shrug>
>
> <blink> Where did that come from?

Have you not been reading Koobee Wublee? Did Koobee Wublee not say
the Lorentz transform? <shrug>

> The twin "paradox" involves bringing
> the two twins back together, which necessitates accelerating at least
> one of them, making their frame non-inertial.</blink>

So, you believe in the nonsense of Born? He was the first one to
propose acceleration thing breaking the symmetry. Can you show any
mathematics that support your/Born’s claim? No self-styled physicists
have now believed in such nonsense. <shrug>


Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 3:52:06 AM12/31/12
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akctab...@mid.individual.net...


<blink> Where did that come from? The twin "paradox" involves bringing
the two twins back together, which necessitates accelerating at least
one of them, making their frame non-inertial.</blink>

Sylvia.

==================================================
"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with
constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then
by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow." -- Einstein.
<blink/> Non-inertial? Where did that come from?
The twin "paradox" involves bringing the two twins back together, which
necessitates keeping one at absolute rest, but the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding
to the idea of absolute rest.
Oh wait, I get it. You are discussing Phuckwit Duck's special relativity,
not Einstein's special relativity. </blink>

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 4:48:44 AM12/31/12
to
(2) doesn't become (4) just be writing B for B2.

> <shrug>
>
>>> Where
>>
>>> ** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2
>>
>>> The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.
>>
>> Which tells us nothing more than that when two observers observe each
>> other, the situation is symmetrical. Each will measure the same time for
>> equivalent displacements of the other. Or more simply, they share a
>> common relative velocity (save for sign).
>
> The symmetry is everything about the twins’ paradox. <shrug>

In the classical twins paradox, there is no symmetry. The travelling
twin has to change velocities in order to be able to get back to the
stay at home twin.

To get symmetry, both twins have to travel, and if the travel is really
symmetrical, their ages will match when they return.

>
>>> Thus, the twins’ paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> <blink> Where did that come from?
>
> Have you not been reading Koobee Wublee? Did Koobee Wublee not say
> the Lorentz transform? <shrug>
>
>> The twin "paradox" involves bringing
>> the two twins back together, which necessitates accelerating at least
>> one of them, making their frame non-inertial.</blink>
>
> So, you believe in the nonsense of Born? He was the first one to
> propose acceleration thing breaking the symmetry. Can you show any
> mathematics that support your/Born’s claim? No self-styled physicists
> have now believed in such nonsense. <shrug>

The symmetry can be broken without acceleration though to bring an
actual person back then involves cloning. It's simpler to forget the
twin, and just take a clock whose time is copied onto another clock
going in the opposite direction halfway through the travel.

But the symmetry is still broken, and once that happens, you have no
paradox.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 6:13:49 AM12/31/12
to
On 31/12/2012 5:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:24 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/30/12 12/30/12 6:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>>
>> The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple
>> meanings; the relevant ones are:
>> 1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when
>> investigated proves to be true.
>> 2. A contradiction.
>
> Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
> methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
> Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
> experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
> justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
> fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
> defend these accusations. <shrug>
>
>> You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the
>> sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the
>> sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were
>> contradictory or incorrect.
>
> Total bullshit! <shaking head>

That's always a convincing argument.

Tom is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least] two meanings
of the word paradox in general use. It is also true that there would be
no point in using a real sense (2) paradox in teaching special
relativity since any real sense (2) paradox would invalidate the very
material being taught.

However, I doubt that anyone posting in this (now these, apparently)
group(s) who's claiming to have found (or more typically, copied) a
paradox is using the word with sense (1). What they may be doing is
taking what was in fact a sense (1) paradox, and through lack of
understanding, trying to present it as a sense (2) paradox.

>
>>> [... further elaboration, valid using sense (2)]
>>
>> Note that the mathematics of SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
>> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So we can be EXTREMELY confident
>> that there are no "paradoxes(2)" in SR.
>
> What mathematics does Tom believe in? Didn’t Tom has claimed that he
> has believed in the projection of proper time where there is no
> mathematics involved but faith? <shrug>

Is that relevant (even if true, and properly represented, which I rather
doubt). Looks like an ad-hominem attack to me. Why would someone who has
a effective reason based argument resort to ad-hominem stuff?

Sylvia.

kenseto

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 10:10:54 AM12/31/12
to
When you invoke RoS you are claiming all possibilities that are contradictory. That means that SR is not refutable....therefore SR is not a scientific theory.
Beside RoS is bogus....in real life simultaneity is absolute.

rotchm

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 10:43:42 AM12/31/12
to

> I think I'll expand on this a bit. To my mind, in determining whether a
> paradox has occurred, one has to imagine that one or both observers is
> accelerated after the alleged paradox,

Is acceleration necessary for the existence of paradoxes (in SR)?

> There is a paradox if those further predictions differ - clearly,
> all observers in the same frame should get the same results
> (appropriately adjusted for the observers' positions).

Why adjust only positions? whats special about it where other observations must not be adjusted to have a paradox?

Although we have an intuitive meaning of 'paradox' (as a math contradiction) but what does it exactly mean wrt observations? Which observations should be the same and which are allowed not to be the same?

One of the "hidden" axioms of SR is that a point (an event) exist for all i-observers (the event is a selection of a point of the global manifold, hence exist for all inertial coords transformations). Thus the observation of a particular event must be observed (exist) for all i-observers else there will be a contradiction. The coords of spacetime events need not be the same for all observers but their predictions for the coords of spacetime events of the other observers must concur, which it does in SR (it forms a group).



> In the hypothetical disaster paradox described above, the two observers
> might seek to predict the results of a measurement on a coffee shop. One
> would predict the presence of a cappucino. The other would predict the
> presence of a gaping hole in the ground.

And here....

>Clearly those results would be incompatible, since only one
> of the predictions could be correct.

"Clearly" ? Prove it. Again, it depends on what constitutes (defines) what can be a contradiction (paradox). It is axiomatic that the event exists for all observers. Since the event occurs for one observer with spacetime coords (x,t) then the application of the Lor.Trans *does* give (x',t'), hence this point exist for the other observer. So, we have just shown that the existence of an event implies the existence of the event for any observer hence is in agreement with the "hidden" axiom. No paradoxes here.

kenseto

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 11:49:39 AM12/31/12
to
Similarly if the barn observer predicts the pole can be completely
inside
the barn and the pole observer observer predicts that the pole cannot
be
completely inside the barn are two incompatible results. So according
to
your definition the barn and the pole paradox is a true paradox.

kenseto

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 11:58:03 AM12/31/12
to
There is no inertial frame exists on earth ....does that mean that SR
is not valid
on earth?

rotchm

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 12:03:47 PM12/31/12
to

> There is no inertial frame exists on earth ....does that mean that SR
> is not valid on earth?

Correct. Thats what we have been telling you the past 10 yrs+.

SR is theoretically not applicable on earth but can be *approximately* applied. We use it there where it works. Thats what "locally" means.

kenseto

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 12:10:46 PM12/31/12
to
You are wrong SR predictions are correct when the observed frame has
a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. What SR failed
to
do is that the accelerated observer can't use SR to predict the
behavior of clock in a stationary frame.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 12:24:27 PM12/31/12
to
On 12/31/12 10:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> There is no inertial frame exists on earth ....does that mean that SR
> is not valid
> on earth?

Hey Ken, Happy New Year! Special relativity works just fine as it
always has.

G=EMC^2

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 2:15:16 PM12/31/12
to
Hi Sam To answer your email.Yes I'm still alive,and it was laptop
that died. Now I can type. We use Earth time to relate with SR Its
Earth year of time for LY. Earth miles for distance. We relate all to
Earth. Time,flat,round,heat, weight intelligent life.We are the eyes
of the universe.We make stuff valid in our search for the truth. Our
brain can see even in the pitch dark. The universe gave Earth life so
it can see itself. TreBert

Sam Wormley

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 2:29:54 PM12/31/12
to
Thank you, Trebert, for not being dead.

Absolutely Vertical

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 2:51:18 PM12/31/12
to
On 12/31/2012 12:15 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
> methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.

fascinating. what part of the scientific method determines the
definitions of words to be what you want them to be?

> Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
> experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
> justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
> fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
> defend these accusations. <shrug>

i see that koobee wublee is now so desperate for attention that he will
claim that the sky is a brilliant shade of green and that he's willing
to take on anyone pretending to claim otherwise. perhaps koobee is too
old to go into bars anymore and bellow 'i'll fight anyone here!'


G=EMC^2

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 2:57:02 PM12/31/12
to
Your welcome . Reality is the pleasure to be alive is all mine. I
might live to get my Nobel first hand. Fact is I have not been given
my 20 minutes. Get the picture TreBert

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 6:29:17 PM12/31/12
to
SR would be falsified by any experiment that produced results in
conflict with SR.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 6:39:29 PM12/31/12
to
On 1/01/2013 2:43 AM, rotchm wrote:
>
>> I think I'll expand on this a bit. To my mind, in determining whether a
>> paradox has occurred, one has to imagine that one or both observers is
>> accelerated after the alleged paradox,
>
> Is acceleration necessary for the existence of paradoxes (in SR)?

No, but if there are paradoxes, it should be possible to show that by
accelerating the observers into the same frame, they'll subsequently
predict conflicting results despite the fact that they should get the
same results.

It comes down to whether two events are colocated; that is are separated
in neither space nor time. If they are colocated in one frame, then they
are colocated in all frames. There can then be no disagreement about
whether they occur together or not. A correctly formulated theory will
provide that they occur together for all observers, or for none.


>
>> There is a paradox if those further predictions differ - clearly,
>> all observers in the same frame should get the same results
>> (appropriately adjusted for the observers' positions).
>
> Why adjust only positions? whats special about it where other observations must not be adjusted to have a paradox?

Once they are in the same frame (or strictly, frames with no relative
velocity) they are subject only to galilean transforms, which no one (so
far) has sought to deny the validity of.

>
> Although we have an intuitive meaning of 'paradox' (as a math contradiction) but what does it exactly mean wrt observations? Which observations should be the same and which are allowed not to be the same?
>
> One of the "hidden" axioms of SR is that a point (an event) exist for all i-observers (the event is a selection of a point of the global manifold, hence exist for all inertial coords transformations). Thus the observation of a particular event must be observed (exist) for all i-observers else there will be a contradiction. The coords of spacetime events need not be the same for all observers but their predictions for the coords of spacetime events of the other observers must concur, which it does in SR (it forms a group).
>
>
>
>> In the hypothetical disaster paradox described above, the two observers
>> might seek to predict the results of a measurement on a coffee shop. One
>> would predict the presence of a cappucino. The other would predict the
>> presence of a gaping hole in the ground.
>
> And here....
>
>> Clearly those results would be incompatible, since only one
>> of the predictions could be correct.
>
> "Clearly" ? Prove it. Again, it depends on what constitutes (defines) what can be a contradiction (paradox). It is axiomatic that the event exists for all observers. Since the event occurs for one observer with spacetime coords (x,t) then the application of the Lor.Trans *does* give (x',t'), hence this point exist for the other observer. So, we have just shown that the existence of an event implies the existence of the event for any observer hence is in agreement with the "hidden" axiom. No paradoxes here.
>

Yes, clearly. You go there. There's either a cappucino, or a hole in the
ground. A theory that predicts both will be regarded as clearly invalid.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 6:42:11 PM12/31/12
to
No. It's not possible to accelerate the observers into the same frame
and then find that as a result of extrapolating from their previous
results they get conflicting predictions of future results despite being
in the same frame.

Their previously different observations about the relationship between
the pole and barn have no consequences for the future. Despite their
differing perspectivers, both observers agree that the pole goes through
the barn without hitting anything.

Sylvia.

Y

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 7:48:49 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31 2012, 11:17 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
> I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too
> trivial. Yet exactly the same issue has arisen again in another thread.
>
> So let's open this specific question to debate.
>
> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.
>
> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
> incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
> understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
> constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
> dishonesty aside).
>
> Sylvia.

A paradox is something that shows, that what works in a model does not
work in nature.

-y

John Gogo

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 7:51:06 PM12/31/12
to
Or vise-versa.

Y

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:07:58 PM12/31/12
to
On Dec 31 2012, 11:17 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
> I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too
> trivial. Yet exactly the same issue has arisen again in another thread.
>
> So let's open this specific question to debate.
>
> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.
>
> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
> incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
> understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
> constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
> dishonesty aside).
>
> Sylvia.

If paradox arises within the context of a model, the model is probably
flawed. Zeno's paradoxes of motion show how numerical interfaces to
nature (with midpoints) cannot explain how a moving object in nature
would need to traverse an infinite number of these midpoints thus
never move. This is an example where what works for models doesn't
work for nature.

-y

kenseto

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:22:34 PM12/31/12
to
Then measure the one-way speed of light directly.

Y

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:23:12 PM12/31/12
to
And this is the crux of my time problem. Time is a model. Time is not
natural.

-y

John Gogo

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:24:49 PM12/31/12
to
Ken, you have never given this idea up- and hopefully we will be
rewarded one day.

Y

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:28:49 PM12/31/12
to
The next question is this - can a model break this nature-model
barrier, and become something completely naturally corresponding?

-y

Y

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 8:39:37 PM12/31/12
to
I believe that very simple mathematics can do this. What it takes is
to question and revise the paths we have taken to correlate our
observations with models. For example - when something moves it moves
in the space of nature - not spacetime. From the outset all those that
argue that things occur in spacetime are wrong. Things occur in
nature.

-y

Sylvia Else

unread,
Dec 31, 2012, 10:32:37 PM12/31/12
to
If you throw away the models, then when you make observations, you have
no way of ascribing any meaning to them.

Even if you just look at something, relating your mental perception with
what actually occurs in the real world involves some assumptions about
the behaviour of neurones, optics, and so on.

Sometimes even such a basic observation as looking can deceive you. For
example, while light comes in many frequencies, there are not really any
colours in the sense of red, green, blue, etc. Those are entirely
artefacts of the way the eye works, and not part of nature at all.

Sylvia.

pdo...@adsistor.com

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 1:36:33 AM1/1/13
to
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:17:29 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too
>
> trivial. Yet exactly the same issue has arisen again in another thread.
>
>
>
> So let's open this specific question to debate.
>
>
>
> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
>
>
> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
>
> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
>
> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
>
> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
>
> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
>
>
> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
>
> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.
>
>
>
> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
>
> incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
>
> understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
>
> constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
>
> dishonesty aside).
>
>
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia,

Then start your new year out contemplating an intellectually honest and invalidating instance in SR. Here are not two, but three mutually incompatible, contradictory and antinomous outcomes arising from the
erroneous Einsteinian SR teaching that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. That one event is the decision by a man sitting at a desk with both his arms raised above the top of his desk an equal distance. The man makes the act of mental volition to slapping both of his hands down onto the desktop at the same instance (in his inertial frame).

Ein teaches that observer A traveling at a high rate of speed relative to the slapper's inertial frame would observe that the left hand strikes the desk top first followed by the right hand. Whilst observer B traveling at a high rate of speed in the direction opposite to observer A would observe that the slapper's right hand would strike the desk top first followed by the left hand.

Ein teaches that the concreteness and reality of all three observations--left first, right first, both at the same time--are equally valid. But this cannot be the case without negating the reality of the human mind and its volition.

For if the slapper, observer A and observer B rendezvous in the same inertial frame and compare what they each observed, only the slapper can say what intention was in his mind when he slapped down his hands. It contradicts all conscious reality in all frames for either observer A or B to gainsay the slapper and state "No, you may have thought your mind slapped both your hands down on the the desk top simultaneously. But you really slapped down one first and then the other. And your volition has no special standing in reality. My observation is just as real."

The young 25 year old German grad student had a penchant for not thinking things all the way through. But what do you expect from a callow youth?

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 2:07:37 AM1/1/13
to
wrote in message
news:e8837619-2367-4fbd...@googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Quite so. You can expect the same from an equally inexperienced and
dishonest bigot and faggot calling itself "Sylvia".

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 2:13:18 AM1/1/13
to
Observer A says "In my then frame of reference, the left hand slapped
before the right hand." Observer B says "In my then frame of reference,
the right hand slapped before the left hand." The slapper says "In my
then frame of reference the slaps were simultaneous."

They all compare notes, and check the math, and say "Yes, that's seems
right."

They then head to the video cameras that they'd set up in their various
frames. A's camera and B's camera had been arranged so that they'd meet
up with the slapper's camera at the point where that camera sees the
slapper's hands land simultaneously on the table.

A and B do that math again, allowing for the speed of the light
travelling from the slapper's hands to the cameras, and conclude that
their cameras will also record the slapper's hands landing
simultaneously on the table. They then observe the recordings, and note
that that's exactly what was recorded. They all three nod, and say
"Again, just as we expected."

Then they all go home awaiting the next time someone thinks they've
spotted a flaw in special relativity.

Sylvia.

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 8:10:23 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:13:49 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Tom is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least] two meanings

not sure, a paradox cannot be a paradox that latter on can be proven not
to be a paradox

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 8:14:21 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:51:18 -0600, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

> fascinating. what part of the scientific method determines the
> definitions of words to be what you want them to be?

telling that a paradox is a paradox proven not to be a paradox, _IS_ a
paradox

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 8:21:26 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:48:44 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> To get symmetry, both twins have to travel, and if the travel is really
> symmetrical, their ages will match when they return.

how about one of them cheat, stay at home under 1g centrifuge, the other
travel far away at 1g accl, now what?

G=EMC^2

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 8:27:42 AM1/1/13
to
Sam Paradox sounds like Greek to me. When I think of creating a theory
I run into lots of "paradoxes" It goes with searching for reality.
Get the picture TreBert

kenseto

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 10:07:10 AM1/1/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 6:42 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>
Sigh....there is no acceleration involved. The barn observer uses SR
math to predict the length of the pole to be 80/gamma (40 ft) and thus
it is able to fit inside the barn completely for a very brief interval
of time..
The pole observer uses SR math and predicts that the barn is 40/gamma
(20 ft) and thus the pole is not able to fit into the barn.
These are two contradictory predictions and thus a paradox.

>
> Their previously different observations about the relationship between
> the pole and barn have no consequences for the future. Despite their
> differing perspectivers, both observers agree that the pole goes through
> the barn without hitting anything.

Going through the barn using RoS is bogus. Simultaneity is absolute.
The doors are desogned to show that contraction is physical.

hanson

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 10:44:34 AM1/1/13
to

"Jimmy Kesler" <jim...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Tom ROberts is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least]
two meanings.. and.... "Else"where Tom [TR], said in a flash of
lucidity that:
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
"Jimmy Kesler" wrote:
I am not sure, a paradox cannot be a paradox that latter on can be
proven not to be a paradox
>
Absolutely Vertical wrote:
fascinating. what part of the scientific method determines the
definitions of words to be what you want them to be?
>
"Jimmy Kesler" wrote:
telling that a paradox is a paradox proven not to be
a paradox, _IS_ a paradox
>
Sylvia Else wrote:
To get symmetry, both twins have to travel, and if the travel is
really symmetrical, their ages will match when they return.
>
"Jimmy Kesler" wrote:
how about one of them cheat, stay at home under 1g centrifuge,
the other travel far away at 1g accl, now what?
>
hanson wrote:
"now what" above shows clearly that the "paradox" contains
an "oxymoron" aka an "ox and a moron" in order to have a
"parade for the ox" Einstein, who is till paraded by morons
aka Einstein Dingleberries, even now, 60+ years after
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> =
wherein Einstein essentially says that
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____
Thanks for the laughs, you morons,.... ahahaha....
ahahahaha... ahahahanson



Absolutely Vertical

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 11:19:27 AM1/1/13
to
On 12/31/2012 7:07 PM, Y wrote:

> If paradox arises within the context of a model, the model is probably
> flawed. Zeno's paradoxes of motion show how numerical interfaces to
> nature (with midpoints) cannot explain how a moving object in nature
> would need to traverse an infinite number of these midpoints thus
> never move. This is an example where what works for models doesn't
> work for nature.

the other meaning of a paradox is the apparent contradiction which is in
fact not there. such contradictions appear usually because of an
external and unjustified assumption.

in the zeno's paradox case, you say the mathematical model cannot fit
hence the paradox. but the mathematical model does fit. the problem is
the additional assumption that the sum of an infinite number of terms
must also be infinite. that is clearly a wrong assumption.

Pat Dolan

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 2:06:37 PM1/1/13
to
On Monday, December 31, 2012 11:13:18 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
I agree with your analysis. Your analysis points out that SR is far more in the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be calculated away as you have shown. The predictions of SR are only different in degree and not in kind from hearing the report of a distant skyrocket an interval of time after its burst.

My point was that there is real, genuine, strict simultaneity in space and time in absolute contradiction to what SR has to say about the subject.

Sylvia,

You would do well to open your mind to the possibility of the falsifiability of SR. I have read absolutely brilliant logical rebuttals and counter examples in this forum that by the law of the excluded middle, wring down the curtain on this impressionist chapter of physics from the impressionists period at the turn of the 19th century. Learn from these people.

There is no future in this illusion of SR. Only a stifling of progress by disciples dedicated to the preservation of its memory at all costs. Is this the scientific spirit? It's a new year. Time to consign to history what is fairly discredited and apply ourselves to finding new answers that better fit the natural world.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 2:46:35 PM1/1/13
to
OK, consider the case in which "home" is at rest in an inertial frame; one twin
stays at home in a centrifuge, spinning at a few tens of meters per second with
a proper acceleration of 1g; the other twin blasts off in a rocket accelerating
at 1g for a year on his clock, turns around with a maneuver that maintains the
1g acceleration, and returns home executing another maneuver that beings him to
rest at home (the trip takes 4 years on the rocket twin's clock: 1y speed up
headed out, 1y slow down, 1y speed up headed back, 1y slow down, stop). The
rocket twin is unequivocally younger when they meet again, because his average
speed relative to the inertial frame of home is much greater than that of the
centrifuge twin, even though their proper accelerations are equal.

Bottom line: here it is speed relative to the inertial frame of home that
matters, not acceleration. The actual computation involves integrating the
metric over the path followed by each twin between meetings, and comparing the
results; when written in terms of home's inertial coordinates, this integral
involves only speed, not acceleration, not position, and not direction.

Remember that in SR (no gravity) it simply is not possible for
two twins that both move inertially to separate and rejoin.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 2:55:43 PM1/1/13
to
If by natural you mean as part of the world we inhabit, then this is correct.
Time is most definitely part of the model we humans use to interpret and
experience our world.

Note we use clocks to measure "time". They are part of the world,
but interpreting them as measuring "time" is part of the model.
The consistency among extremely varied ways of measuring "time"
makes a pretty convincing case that "time" corresponds to some
actual aspect of the world we inhabit.


> The next question is this - can a model break this nature-model
> barrier, and become something completely naturally corresponding?

If by completely natural you mean part of the world we inhabit, then for humans
that is clearly impossible -- our minds process only thoughts, not "parts of the
world"; the best possible relationship between some phenomenon in the world and
a thought is as a MODEL of the phenomenon.


Note that as opposed to "time", the concept "now" does NOT correspond to any
phenomenon in the world we inhabit, when extended over large distances. We know
this because differently moving observers' notions of "now" are different when
compared over large distances. Think about it a bit, and you'll recognize that
this is merely an aspect of the observation "all physics is local" [Einstein].

Quantum entanglement provides a provocative challenge to that
observation....


Tom Roberts

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 3:03:28 PM1/1/13
to
On 31.12.2012 04:59, SRdude wrote:
> On Dec 30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> Here are two paradoxes in SR:
>
> [1] Given three people born at approximately the same time and place
> (e.g., triplets), two of them can age differently sans acceleration,
> gravitation, Einsteinian synchronization, the optical Doppler effect,
> or anything else *except* pure, unadulterated inertial motions.
>
> This is an SR paradox because SR says flatly that there can be no
> noticeable effects of absolute motion, whereas the only possible
> explanation for people aging differently in different inertial frames
> is their different absolute speeds through space.
>
> [2] Given observers in two inertial frames using Einstein's clocks to
> try to measure light's one-way speed, the clocks will conflict with
> the experimental result, said result being the fact that the clocks
> are started at different times whereas Einstein forces them to read
> the same start time.
>
> Here is this paradox shown via simple diagrams:
>
> Frame A
> origin clocks start but right-hand clocks unstarted
> [0]------------------x------------------[x/c]-->
> S~>light emitted
> [0]------------------x------------------[x/c]--->
> Frame B
>
> Note: A moves to the right relative to S, and B moves to the right
> relative to A.
>
> Note: It is not critical that the two distant clocks be perfectly
> aligned as shown; all that matters is that the observers in each frame
> have separately measured their own distance between their own clocks
> to be x, as was given. (For example, x in each frame could be 1 light-
> year.)
>
> Related note: In no case does any observer in either frame measure any
> distance that is not in his own frame. (No "cross-measurements" are
> involved.)
>
> Note: Even though there is zero justification for Einstein's placement
> of the time x/c on A's distant clock, we will let this slide.
>
> Frame A A's right-hand clock starts
> --------[?]--------------x--------------[x/c]-->
> S---------------------------------------->light
> --------------------[?]--------------x--------------[x/c]--->
> Frame B B's right-hand still clock
> unstarted
>
> From the above, we see that Einstein's forced "c-invariance" directly
> conflicts with experiment by improperly forcing clocks to read the
> same start time when they were really started at different times. (We
> know that they were started at absolutely different times because the
> two clock-starting events a light-like, and such events have an
> absolute before and after.)
>
> The reason for this conflict with experiment is simply the use of
> asynchronous clocks, i.e., clocks that cannot possibly correctly
> measure time spans or agree with experiment, as was noted above.
>
> Now we can clearly see why no experiment has shown one-way light speed
> invariance. It simply cannot happen experimentally because light's one-
> way speed actually varies with frame velocity, as would readily be
> seen if absolutely synchronous clocks were used.
>
> ~CG~
>


Have you got your method for absolute synchronization of clocks
patented yet, Brian?


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 3:09:11 PM1/1/13
to
"Pat Dolan" wrote in message
news:800c1117-c365-422f...@googlegroups.com...


Sylvia,

You would do well to open your mind to the possibility of the falsifiability
of SR. I have read absolutely brilliant logical rebuttals and counter
examples in this forum that by the law of the excluded middle, wring down
the curtain on this impressionist chapter of physics from the impressionists
period at the turn of the 19th century. Learn from these people.

There is no future in this illusion of SR. Only a stifling of progress by
disciples dedicated to the preservation of its memory at all costs. Is this
the scientific spirit? It's a new year. Time to consign to history what is
fairly discredited and apply ourselves to finding new answers that better
fit the natural world.

=============================================
Pat,

"Sylvia Else" is a pseudonym of the deranged and psychotic psychopath Paul
Draper, a cardinal in the Holy Church of Relativity with hopes of becoming
pope when Humpty Roberts of
the infamy below shucks his mortal coil. Your appeal can only fall on deaf
ears, you are casting pearls before chimpanzees.

On Nov 1, 8:11 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
For monochromatic light from an approaching source, the wavelength
is OBSERVED to be shorter, the frequency is OBSERVED to be higher,
and the product, wavelength* frequency, is observed to be CONSTANT,
and equal to c.
This is, of course, the MEASURED phase speed of the light wave.

"Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat
their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"
Isaiah 36:12

In case nobody noticed, "the men that sit upon the wall" are chimpanzees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiD5YOZOM7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTku7eE1Jas

"Sylvia Else", like Gerald Kelleher, is for laughing at.

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 3:20:08 PM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:55:43 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Note we use clocks to measure "time". They are part of the world,
> but interpreting them as measuring "time" is part of the model. The
> consistency among extremely varied ways of measuring "time" makes a
> pretty convincing case that "time" corresponds to some actual
> aspect of the world we inhabit.

no, time is simply a tool used to simplify the interpretation

it does not need to exists outside that interpretation!!

> Note that as opposed to "time", the concept "now" does NOT correspond to
> any phenomenon in the world we inhabit, when extended over large
> distances. We know this because differently moving observers' notions of
> "now" are different when compared over large distances. Think about it a
> bit, and you'll recognize that this is merely an aspect of the
> observation "all physics is local" [Einstein].

exactly, as told!

> Quantum entanglement provides a provocative challenge to that
> observation....

this is actually the proof for what i just said, thanks

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 3:39:42 PM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:46:35 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:


> OK, consider the case in which "home" is at rest in an inertial frame;
> one twin stays at home in a centrifuge, spinning at a few tens of meters
> per second with a proper acceleration of 1g; the other twin blasts off
> in a rocket accelerating at 1g for a year on his clock, turns around
> with a maneuver that maintains the 1g acceleration, and returns home
> executing another maneuver that beings him to rest at home (the trip
> takes 4 years on the rocket twin's clock: 1y speed up headed out, 1y
> slow down, 1y speed up headed back, 1y slow down, stop). The rocket twin
> is unequivocally younger when they meet again, because his average speed
> relative to the inertial frame of home is much greater than that of the
> centrifuge twin, even though their proper accelerations are equal.

yes i know, the centrifuge twin would say the same thing about his average
speed wrt the rocket twin


> Bottom line: here it is speed relative to the inertial frame of home
> that matters, not acceleration.

beautiful!!

the centrifuge twin would say that is the inertial frame of the home of
the rocket twin that matters, since there are no preferred homes in nature

> The actual computation involves
> integrating the metric over the path followed by each twin between
> meetings, and comparing the results;

path followed wrt what?

> when written in terms of home's
> inertial coordinates, this integral involves only speed, not
> acceleration, not position, and not direction.

in terms of the home of the rocket twin, this integral would involves
everything

> Remember that in SR (no gravity) it simply is not possible for two
> twins that both move inertially to separate and rejoin.

is acceleration and deceleration forbidden in SR?

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 4:55:52 PM1/1/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 3:13 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2012 5:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 8:24 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> > > The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple
> > > meanings; the relevant ones are:
> > > 1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when
> > > investigated proves to be true.
> > > 2. A contradiction.
>
> > Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
> > methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
> > Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
> > experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
> > justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
> > fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
> > defend these accusations. <shrug>
>
> > > You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the
> > > sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the
> > > sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were
> > > contradictory or incorrect.
>
> > Total bullshit! <shaking head>
>
> That's always a convincing argument.

In this case, it is. <shrug>

> Tom is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least] two meanings
> of the word paradox in general use.

No, Tom is using loose meanings of words to preach the gospel of SR.
<shrug>

> It is also true that there would be
> no point in using a real sense (2) paradox in teaching special
> relativity since any real sense (2) paradox would invalidate the very
> material being taught.

Teaching a paradox just makes no sense. One can explain what a
paradox is, and (2) is what is needed and nothing else. Then, show
what falls into such a paradox. The twin’s paradox is such an
example. <shrug>

> However, I doubt that anyone posting in this (now these, apparently)
> group(s) who's claiming to have found (or more typically, copied) a
> paradox is using the word with sense (1). <more nonsense snipped>

Perhaps, only Tom and PD are. Seeking of PD. Have you seen PD? Or
are you related to PD? Perhaps, PD is borrowing Sylvia’s account.
<shrug>

> What they may be doing is
> taking what was in fact a sense (1) paradox, and through lack of
> understanding, trying to present it as a sense (2) paradox.

> > What mathematics does Tom believe in? Didn’t Tom has claimed that he
> > has believed in the projection of proper time where there is no
> > mathematics involved but faith? <shrug>
>
> Is that relevant (even if true, and properly represented, which I rather
> doubt).

Yes, it is related, and that is all true. Tom believes in the
projection thing. It is one of the make-believe thing for Tom to
believe there is no such manifestation of this paradox. <shrug>

> Looks like an ad-hominem attack to me.

How can the fact that Tom believe in the projection thing be a
personal attack? Well, you can construe that as an attack of his
belief which can hardly be regarded as a personal attack. <shrug>

> Why would someone who has
> a effective reason based argument resort to ad-hominem stuff?

Beats Koobee Wublee. Want to try to discuss more about science rather
ad-hominem bullshit? <shrug>


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 4:59:15 PM1/1/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 1:48 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/12/2012 5:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > From the Lorentz transformations, you can write down the following
> > equation per Minkowski spacetime. Points #1, #2, and #3 are
> > observers. They are observing the same target.
>
> > ** c^2 dt1^2 – ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 – ds2^2 = c^2 dt3^2 – ds3^2
>
> > Where
>
> > ** dt1 = Time flow at Point #1
> > ** dt2 = Time flow at Point #2
> > ** dt3 = Time flow at Point #3
>
> > ** ds1 = Observed target displacement segment by #1
> > ** ds2 = Observed target displacement segment by #2
> > ** ds3 = Observed target displacement segment by #3
>
> > The above spacetime equation can also be written as follows.
>
> > ** dt1^2 (1 – B1^2) = dt2^2 (1 – B2^2) = dt3^2 (1 – B3^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B^2 = (ds/dt)^2 / c^2
>
> > When #1 is observing #2, the following equation can be deduced from
> > the equation above.
>
> > ** dt1^2 (1 – B1^2) = dt2^2 . . . (1)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B2^2 = 0, #2 is observing itself
>
> > Similarly, when #2 is observing #1, the following equation can be
> > deduced.
>
> > ** dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 – B2^2) . . . (2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B1^2 = 0, #1 is observing itself
>
> > According to relativity, the following must be true.
>
> > ** B1^2 = B2^2
>
> > Thus, equations (1) and (2) become the following equations
> > [respectively].
>
> > ** dt1^2 (1 – B^2) = dt2^2 . . . (3)
> > ** dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 – B^2) . . . (4)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2
>
> (2) doesn't become (4) just be writing B for B2.

Are you complaining about the typo? It is corrected above. <shrug>

> > The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.
>
> > The symmetry is everything about the twins’ paradox. <shrug>
>
> In the classical twins paradox, there is no symmetry. The travelling
> twin has to change velocities in order to be able to get back to the
> stay at home twin.
>
> [snip more nonsense]

This is the second time, you are asked to show the math that shows
this acceleration breaking the symmetry nonsense. There is no way you
can, and that is because you are totally wrong just like Born.
<shrug>

> > So, you believe in the nonsense of Born? He was the first one to
> > propose acceleration thing breaking the symmetry. Can you show any
> > mathematics that support your/Born’s claim? No self-styled physicists
> > have now believed in such nonsense. <shrug>
>
> The symmetry can be broken without acceleration though to bring an
> actual person back then involves cloning. It's simpler to forget the
> twin, and just take a clock whose time is copied onto another clock
> going in the opposite direction halfway through the travel.
>
> But the symmetry is still broken, and once that happens, you have no
> paradox.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and there is no need to
discuss any further. <shrug>


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 5:35:35 PM1/1/13
to
On Jan 1, 11:46 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> OK, consider the case in which "home" is at rest in an inertial frame; one twin
> stays at home in a centrifuge, spinning at a few tens of meters per second with
> a proper acceleration of 1g; the other twin blasts off in a rocket accelerating
> at 1g for a year on his clock, turns around with a maneuver that maintains the
> 1g acceleration, and returns home executing another maneuver that beings him to
> rest at home (the trip takes 4 years on the rocket twin's clock: 1y speed up
> headed out, 1y slow down, 1y speed up headed back, 1y slow down, stop). The
> rocket twin is unequivocally younger when they meet again, because his average
> speed relative to the inertial frame of home is much greater than that of the
> centrifuge twin, even though their proper accelerations are equal.

Just as Koobee Wublee has predicted:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9c3288cbc93ca08

** Desperation facing with paradox leads to
** Divine visions of showing no paradox to
** Euphoria of rejoicing no paradox to
** Careful examination of these divine visions to
** “what the fvck was I thinking?” rude awakening to
** Desperation once again and the cycle repeats.

<shrug>

The divine visions are:

1) Acceleration breaking the symmetry by Born
2) Spacetime time diagram of a few lines
3) Mathemagic trick by paul andersen and others
4) Coordinate time as projection of proper time

The last time, Tom was in 4) so happy with the projection thing.
Apparently, he had gone through the rude awakening stage and more
desperation. Now, he is back to the first one. That is the life of a
self-styled physicist. Koobee Wublee thinks that is a fvcked up life
style, but what does Koobee Wublee know? Perhaps, Tom enjoys stuck in
these cycles chasing his own tail. <shrug>

Anyway, one can simply redesign the scenario to have both twins
traveling where each twin will experience the same acceleration
profile and thus nullifying the effect of acceleration. Given an
arbitrary amount of time to allow both twins coasting with null
acceleration but with a significant speed between them, the mutual
time dilation building up will obviously never be rectified. Thus,
showing the paradox is very real. <shrug>

> Bottom line: here it is speed relative to the inertial frame of home that
> matters, not acceleration. The actual computation involves integrating the
> metric over the path followed by each twin between meetings, and comparing the
> results; when written in terms of home's inertial coordinates, this integral
> involves only speed, not acceleration, not position, and not direction.
>
> Remember that in SR (no gravity) it simply is not possible for
> two twins that both move inertially to separate and rejoin.

Tom, care to show some math to back up your babbling? <shrug>

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 7:08:35 PM1/1/13
to
On 2/01/2013 6:06 AM, Pat Dolan wrote:

>
> I agree with your analysis. Your analysis points out that SR is far more in the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be calculated away as you have shown. The predictions of SR are only different in degree and not in kind from hearing the report of a distant skyrocket an interval of time after its burst.

I don't accept that. SR has some real consequences. The pole in the barn
is one example. The pole gets through the barn, and in all frames, the
appropriately positioned cameras get pictures showing the pole inside
the barn with the doors closed.

All observers do the math and conclude that they agree about getting the
pictures, and about the pole getting through the barn. One may come up
with a different conception of what's actually happening (although
that's dubious concept, in the absence of any way of accessing what's
actually happening), but unless it comes up with essentially the same
set of coordinate transformations, it's going to have difficulty
explaining the concrete outcomes of the barn and pole experiment.

>
> My point was that there is real, genuine, strict simultaneity in space and time in absolute contradiction to what SR has to say about the subject.
>
> Sylvia,
>
> You would do well to open your mind to the possibility of the falsifiability of SR. I have read absolutely brilliant logical rebuttals and counter examples in this forum that by the law of the excluded middle, wring down the curtain on this impressionist chapter of physics from the impressionists period at the turn of the 19th century. Learn from these people.

I haven't anywhere indicated that I believe that SR is absolutely
unfalsifiable. At most, I've indicated that I think it's unlikely that
it will be falsified.

But we don't see attempted falsifications in this newsgroup - that is,
we don't see reports of actual experiments giving results that conflict
with SR. All we see are attempts to show that SR is internally
inconsistent (the posters may not realise that's what they trying to do,
but it's the case nevertheless). Those attempts are futile, since SR is
known to be internally consistent.

Sylvia.

Y

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 11:12:02 PM1/1/13
to
Time is a model, but length is natural.

-y

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 1, 2013, 11:22:57 PM1/1/13
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akhc45...@mid.individual.net...

On 2/01/2013 6:06 AM, Pat Dolan wrote:

>
> I agree with your analysis. Your analysis points out that SR is far more
> in the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be calculated away as
> you have shown. The predictions of SR are only different in degree and
> not in kind from hearing the report of a distant skyrocket an interval of
> time after its burst.

I don't accept that. SR has some real consequences. The pole in the barn
is one example. The pole gets through the barn.
=================================================================
Not in Einstein's SR, it doesn't.
The natural length of the pole you gave was 80 m, the speed you gave was
0.866c and 80 * 1/sqrt(1-0.866^2) = 160 m.
There is no way a 160 m redwood tree fits in your x = 40 m barn, you queer
wanker. Still, simple algebra always was beyond your capabilities. Why don't
you tell Pat Dolan who you really are, Diaper Draper? He wants to study sick
psychologies like yours.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 12:12:14 AM1/2/13
to
Not if by "natural" you mean a part of the world we inhabit. Length is CLEARLY
part of the model.


Tom Roberts

Y

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 2:48:20 AM1/2/13
to
The world we inhabit is natural. If you look at a table, it
necessarily has length...it does not necessarily have time.

-y

Poutnik

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:01:02 AM1/2/13
to

Y posted Tue, 1 Jan 2013 23:48:20 -0800 (PST)

> >
> > > Time is a model, but length is natural.
> >
> > Not if by "natural" you mean a part of the world we inhabit. Length
> > is CLEARLY part of the model.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
>
> The world we inhabit is natural. If you look at a table, it necessarily
> has length...it does not necessarily have time.
>
> -y

It does not have length. WE created a model of the world, where length is
defined and can be determined.

Similarly our world does not have time. WE created a model, where time is
measure of "distance" between subsequent present "realities", and can be
measured as well.

Length is not more real than time. It is only easier for our mind.

Similar as integer is not more real to real number, and that than of
complex number. All are math model, useful to analyze particular aspects
of the world.

--
Poutnik

Y

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:11:42 AM1/2/13
to
You sound like you think the world is a simulation. It isn't. Time is a model created by a numerical interface and putting something into uniform periodic motion.

Length is naturally exhibited by objects in space.

-y

Y

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:15:25 AM1/2/13
to
On Wednesday, 2 January 2013 19:01:02 UTC+11, Poutnik wrote:
Tim is a model that is produced by a numerical interface and by putting something into uniform periodic motion.

Length is something that is naturally exhibited by objects in space.

-y

Poutnik

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 4:25:11 AM1/2/13
to

Y posted Wed, 2 Jan 2013 00:11:42 -0800 (PST)
>
> You sound like you think the world is a simulation.

Sound ? maybe. But i do not think so.
One has to be careful what really is part of this world
and what is human construct, together with taming of common language.


> It isn't. Time is a
> model created by a numerical interface and putting something into
> uniform periodic motion.

Length is model created by a numerical interface
by calculation from point coordinates of abstract space at he same time.
You can have length of something that does not physically exist.

> Length is naturally exhibited by objects in space.

And duration is naturally exhibited by objects in time.


--
Poutnik

Poutnik

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 4:28:31 AM1/2/13
to

Y posted Wed, 2 Jan 2013 00:15:25 -0800 (PST)

> Time is a model that is produced by a numerical interface
> and by putting something into uniform periodic motion.
>
> Length is something that is naturally exhibited by objects in space.
>

You want a line to be a point, and if it is not,
you say line does not exist.

--
Poutnik

Poutnik

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 5:42:15 AM1/2/13
to
Dne středa, 2. ledna 2013 9:15:25 UTC+1 Y napsal(a):

I would be very curious what EXACTLY you mean by time existance/non existance
and how would our world according to that differ....


Sylvia Else

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 6:39:07 AM1/2/13
to
On 2/01/2013 3:22 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akhc45...@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 2/01/2013 6:06 AM, Pat Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with your analysis. Your analysis points out that SR is far
>> more in the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be
>> calculated away as you have shown. The predictions of SR are only
>> different in degree and not in kind from hearing the report of a
>> distant skyrocket an interval of time after its burst.
>
> I don't accept that. SR has some real consequences. The pole in the barn
> is one example. The pole gets through the barn.
> =================================================================
> Not in Einstein's SR, it doesn't.
> The natural length of the pole you gave was 80 m, the speed you gave was
> 0.866c and 80 * 1/sqrt(1-0.866^2) = 160 m.

Are you for real? Didn't they ever strip out the lead piping in Southend?

Sylvia.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 6:45:35 AM1/2/13
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akikit...@mid.individual.net...
=================================================
Yes, I'm for real and I'm honest, you fucking lying whore.

-- Einstein:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = x' * beta where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif

He [Einstein] wrote the lowercase greek letter Xi instead of x', -- Sylvia
Else
Ref news:akfud0...@mid.individual.net, Jan 1st, 2013

What a way to begin a new year - change Einstein's notation and then change
its meaning.
Poor sick sad Sylvia the psychotic whore.

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 7:11:51 AM1/2/13
to
On 2/01/2013 10:45 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akikit...@mid.individual.net...
>
> On 2/01/2013 3:22 PM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akhc45...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 2/01/2013 6:06 AM, Pat Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with your analysis. Your analysis points out that SR is far
>>> more in the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be
>>> calculated away as you have shown. The predictions of SR are only
>>> different in degree and not in kind from hearing the report of a
>>> distant skyrocket an interval of time after its burst.
>>
>> I don't accept that. SR has some real consequences. The pole in the barn
>> is one example. The pole gets through the barn.
>> =================================================================
>> Not in Einstein's SR, it doesn't.
>> The natural length of the pole you gave was 80 m, the speed you gave was
>> 0.866c and 80 * 1/sqrt(1-0.866^2) = 160 m.
>
> Are you for real? Didn't they ever strip out the lead piping in Southend?
>
> Sylvia.
> =================================================
> Yes, I'm for real and I'm honest, you fucking lying whore.

Never, before now, have I ever seen a suggestion that special relativity
involves expansions. Whatever equations you are using to reach your
conclusion, you're misapplying them.

Sylvia.

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 7:55:21 AM1/2/13
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akimg9...@mid.individual.net...
====================================================
Whatever brain you are using to reach your contraction, it's dead.
You chose 80 m for x' (the pole) and 40 m for x (the barn),
I multiply 80 m by beta as Einstein says and the RIGHT answer is 160 m.
If I'm misapplying Einstein's equation, YOU show me where using
Einstein's notation, not your own.

-- Einstein:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = x' * beta where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif

He [Einstein] wrote the lowercase greek letter Xi instead of x', -- Sylvia
Else
Ref news:akfud0...@mid.individual.net, Jan 1st, 2013

No he did NOT, you lying whore. A dumb blonde, are you?

What a way to begin a new year - change Einstein's notation and then change
its meaning.
Poor sick sad Sylvia the psychotic bitch.
Not my fault you are criminally hopeless at elementary linear algebra,
bleating like all the other hopeless blind sheep that its a "contraction".
Better get the rip saw out of the tool barn and lop 60 m off the pole if you
want it to fit between the doors while travelling at 0.866c, then you won't
need any expensive cameras.

G=EMC^2

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 10:11:29 AM1/2/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 6:13 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address>
wrote:
> On 31/12/2012 5:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 8:24 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 12/30/12 12/30/12   6:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> >>> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> >> The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple
> >> meanings; the relevant ones are:
> >>    1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when
> >>       investigated proves to be true.
> >>    2. A contradiction.
>
> > Tom is pretending to be a lawyer.  In science according to scientific
> > methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
> > Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
> > experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
> > justify his voodoo belief.  The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
> > fair.  If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
> > defend these accusations.  <shrug>
>
> >> You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the
> >> sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the
> >> sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were
> >> contradictory or incorrect.
>
> > Total bullshit!  <shaking head>
>
> That's always a convincing argument.
>
> Tom is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least] two meanings
> of the word paradox in general use. It is also true that there would be
> no point in using a real sense (2) paradox in teaching special
> relativity since any real sense (2) paradox would invalidate the very
> material being taught.
>
> However, I doubt that anyone posting in this (now these, apparently)
> group(s) who's claiming to have found (or more typically, copied) a
> paradox is using the word with sense (1). What they may be doing is
> taking what was in fact a sense (1) paradox, and through lack of
> understanding, trying to present it as a sense (2) paradox.
>
>
>
> >>> [... further elaboration, valid using sense (2)]
>
> >> Note that the mathematics of SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
> >> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So we can be EXTREMELY confident
> >> that there are no "paradoxes(2)" in SR.
>
> > What mathematics does Tom believe in?  Didn’t Tom has claimed that he
> > has believed in the projection of proper time where there is no
> > mathematics involved but faith?  <shrug>
>
> Is that relevant (even if true, and properly represented, which I rather
> doubt). Looks like an ad-hominem attack to me. Why would someone who has
> a effective reason based argument resort to ad-hominem stuff?
>
> Sylvia.

Sylvia The time would be the same for both twins if they were at
rest,but once moving their time respect to each other changes. This
has been confirmed by experiments. TreBert

G=EMC^2

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 10:17:18 AM1/2/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, 11:58 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:31 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31/12/2012 5:04 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 4:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> I started writing a post about this yesterday, then scrubbed it - too
>
> > >> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)?
>
> > >> I've expressed the view that to contain a paradox, SR has to predict,
> > >> from different frames, outcomes that are mutually incompatible. An
> > >> example that comes to mind (though not directly arising) from a recent
> > >> discussion is that in one frame, there is massive destruction on a
> > >> citywide scale, and in another other frame, nothing much happens.
>
> > >> Clearly, if SR were to make such predictions for two frames, it would
> > >> have to be regarded as seriously wanting. Of course, it does no such thing.
>
> > >> But people seem to want to regard measurements in two frames as mutually
> > >> incompatible if they give different results. I am at a loss to
> > >> understand why people would seek to regard those different results as
> > >> constituting a paradox that invalidates SR (well, leaving intellectual
> > >> dishonesty aside).
> > > Thus, equations (1) and (2) become the following equations.
>
> > > **  dt1^2 (1 – B^2) = dt2^2 . . . (3)
> > > **  dt2^2 = dt2^2 (1 – B^2) . . . (4)
>
> > I assume you meant to write
>
> > dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 - B^2) . . . (4)
>
> > > Where
>
> > > **  B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2
>
> > > The only time the equations (3) and (4) can co-exist is when B^2 = 0.
>
> > Which tells us nothing more than that when two observers observe each
> > other, the situation is symmetrical. Each will measure the same time for
> > equivalent displacements of the other. Or more simply, they share a
> > common relative velocity (save for sign).
>
> > > Thus, the twins’ paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > <blink> Where did that come from? The twin "paradox" involves bringing
> > the two twins back together, which necessitates accelerating at least
> > one of them, making their frame non-inertial.</blink>
>
> There is no inertial frame exists on earth ....does that mean that SR
> is not valid
> on earth?

Well think of this. "Time in a plane flying east is less than that for
those flying west". The Earth speed of rotation sees to it. Get the
picture TreBert

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 11:28:33 AM1/2/13
to
> The world we inhabit is natural. If you look at a table, it
> necessarily has length...it does not necessarily have time.

You are not thinking clearly about this, and are repeatedly confusing world and
model.

A table has whatever constituents it has [*], which we model (ultimately) as
atoms and molecules. They are arrayed in the world however they are arrayed,
which we model as extent in x, y, and z. The table has an existence such that we
say it exists over a period of time; its constituents have a much larger period
of existence in our model (the atoms persist even if a wooden table is burned or
a metal table melted down).

[*] We know it has constituents, because some human built
the table out of them.

Claiming the table "has length" is CLEARLY part of the model, because it is your
MIND that made that assignment. There may well be some aspect of the world
corresponding to length, but we humans can only model it. Similarly the table
"has duration" in our model, which may also correspond to some aspect of the world.

In short, EVERYTHING you put into words or mathematics is
part of the model, because your mind can handle only thoughts,
and words and math are thoughts. The writing on a page is
part of the world, but it is specifically intended to
elicit certain thoughts in your mind; the meaning is transferred
directly from mind to mind via writing and reading.


Tom Roberts


Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 11:40:37 AM1/2/13
to
On 12/31/12 12/31/12 - 9:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> If you throw away the models, then when you make observations, you have no way
> of ascribing any meaning to them.

If you "throw away the models", you cannot even find your bed at night. We
humans live our lives via the models we have constructed of the world we
inhabit. You have been doing this since birth. Think about it, and you'll see
that you find your bed by mentally navigating a model of your house that you
have constructed in your mind, before actually climbing the stairs and opening
your bedroom door (or whatever). This has become so automatic that you don't
even think about it, unless specifically prompted to do so.

Indeed, such models you make of the world are science, in that you constantly
validate them via experiments (traversing the mental model and comparing to a
physical traversal), and update them (noticing a toy left on the stairs by a
wayward child).

In physics, our models have become immensely more detailed, and have
applicability in domains far removed from our everyday experience, such that it
requires major instruments to validate them. But the underlying process is the
same as you use to find your bed at night.


Tom Roberts

benj

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 11:41:47 AM1/2/13
to
Treeb is right. Every schoolkid knows that if you fly east, it's a time
machine. Every time you go around the earth you go back in time a day!
Get the Picture?






Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 1:07:39 PM1/2/13
to
On 1/1/13 1/1/13 - 1:06 PM, Pat Dolan wrote:
> SR is far more in
> the nature of a time of flight illusion which can be calculated away as you
> have shown. The predictions of SR are only different in degree and not in
> kind from hearing the report of a distant skyrocket an interval of time after
> its burst.

This is just plain not true.

For instance, there are pion beams in the world that are about a kilometer long,
both at CERN and at Fermilab. The pions are measured to travel with speed c
relative to the lab, with an errorbar of 0.1% or so. The lifetime of a pion is
measured to be 26 ns, so without "time dilation" essentially no pions could
travel 1 km at that speed; in practice, >95% of the pions make it to the end.

SR is not "illusion".


> My point was that there is real, genuine, strict simultaneity in space and
> time in absolute contradiction to what SR has to say about the subject.

Just making things up like this has no ability to convince other people, you
need real EXPERIMENTS. Unfortunately for you, the experiments ALL support SR and
show that your claim is wrong.


> You would do well to open your mind to the possibility of the falsifiability
> of SR. I have read absolutely brilliant logical rebuttals and counter
> examples in this forum that by the law of the excluded middle, wring down the
> curtain on this impressionist chapter of physics from the impressionists
> period at the turn of the 19th century. Learn from these people.

Nonsense. Such "rebuttals and counter examples" are pure fiction, based on their
authors' MISUNDERSTANDINGS. They do not affect SR at all.

Your opinion of "brilliant" is useless, as YOU do not understand
the issues.


> There is no future in this illusion of SR. Only a stifling of progress by
> disciples dedicated to the preservation of its memory at all costs. Is this
> the scientific spirit? It's a new year. Time to consign to history what is
> fairly discredited and apply ourselves to finding new answers that better fit
> the natural world.

You REALLY do not understand the working of science.

At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. NONE. SR will not be
replaced or supplanted until some better theory is found, and that will take
EXPERIMENTS; indeed, it will take experiments that are inconsistent with SR and
consistent with the new theory, presumably in a domain unreachable at present.
Then the new theory can supplant SR, with SR being a limit or approximation to
the better theory; just as NM was supplanted by SR in the 1910s-20s.

But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
which aren't science.


Tom Roberts

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 1:38:06 PM1/2/13
to
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> [snipped SR sermons]
>
> At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.
>
> [snipped more SR scriptures]
>
> But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
> inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
> which aren't science.

Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.
Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. <shrug>

Antitheses to SR are:

** Voigt transformation
** Larmor’s transformation
** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz

Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
results of the MMX and more. <shrug>

The following sum up the self-styled physicists.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

Absolutely Vertical

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 2:04:09 PM1/2/13
to
On 1/2/2013 12:38 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> [snipped SR sermons]
>>
>> At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.
>>
>> [snipped more SR scriptures]
>>
>> But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
>> inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
>> which aren't science.
>
> Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
> invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
> to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.
> Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
> became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
> verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
> verify any of the antitheses to SR.

crap

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:21:35 PM1/2/13
to
On Dec 31 2012, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 12:15 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
> > methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
>
> fascinating. what part of the scientific method determines the
> definitions of words to be what you want them to be?

For such a stupid question, ask Tom. <shrug>

> > Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional
> > experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to
> > justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very
> > fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to
> > defend these accusations. <shrug>
>
> i see that koobee wublee is now so desperate for attention that he will
> claim that the sky is a brilliant shade of green and that he's willing
> to take on anyone pretending to claim otherwise.

PD is blind then. <shrug>

> perhaps koobee is too
> old to go into bars anymore and bellow 'i'll fight anyone here!'

How come Einstein Dingleberries love to change their handles? <shrug>


Koobee Wublee

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:24:56 PM1/2/13
to
Oh, another PD’s deranged personality. Is PD getting insane in
believing the crap of SR and GR for so long? <shrug>


Absolutely Vertical

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:32:01 PM1/2/13
to
On 1/2/2013 2:21 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Dec 31 2012, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>> On 12/31/2012 12:15 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific
>>> methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else.
>>
>> fascinating. what part of the scientific method determines the
>> definitions of words to be what you want them to be?
>
> For such a stupid question, ask Tom. <shrug>

why? you made the stupid statement. why ask someone else to back up your
stupid statement?

Absolutely Vertical

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:35:12 PM1/2/13
to
On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:04 am, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>> On 1/2/2013 12:38 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
>>> invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
>>> to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.
>>> Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
>>> became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
>>> verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
>>> verify any of the antitheses to SR.

crap

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:39:57 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:32:01 -0600, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

>> For such a stupid question, ask Tom. <shrug>
>
> why? you made the stupid statement. why ask someone else to back up your
> stupid statement?

you cannot falsify a paradox, since such one would not possibly be a
paradox;

PD

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:42:56 PM1/2/13
to
I drop in for a sec and I find this. Very amusing.

Jimmy Kesler

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 3:56:59 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:42:56 -0800, PD wrote:

> I drop in for a sec and I find this. Very amusing.

well comeback then, now that we know you are not a women

howza going with your relativity, me fine, i am digesting some food

Paul Cardinale

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 4:26:27 PM1/2/13
to
A paradox is something that, on the surface appears to be a
contradiction, but on closer examination, turns out not to be a
contradiction.

SR has paradoxes, but no contradictions.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 5:14:03 PM1/2/13
to
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> [snipped SR sermons]
>>
>> At present, there are no experiments that refute SR.
>>
>> [snipped more SR scriptures]
>>
>> But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is
>> inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations,
>> which aren't science.
>
> Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus
> invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments
> to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method.

SIC!!!!

> Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he
> became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental
> verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also
> verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because
> it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack
> of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright
> deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. <shrug>
>
> Antitheses to SR are:
>
> ** Voigt transformation
> ** Larmor’s transformation
> ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz
>
> Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null
> results of the MMX and more. <shrug>

Dirk, immortal fumble?


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

Sylvia Else

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 6:14:37 PM1/2/13
to
He then says a whole bunch of other stuff, and many pages later we find

tau = beta * (t - vx/c^2)
xi = beta * (x - vt)
eta = y
zeta = z

Now, you explain how you think that those equations lead to your stated
conclusion.

Sylvia.


Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 8:10:30 PM1/2/13
to
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message news:akjtb0...@mid.individual.net...
=======================================================
Simple enough:

(x-vt) = 80 m (Your choice of pole length)
beta = 2 ( = 1/sqrt(1- 0.866^2) which you erroneously thought was 0.5)

xi = 2 * 80
= 160 metres.
A 160 m pole doesn't fit in a 40 m barn with the doors closed.

In case you are wondering what x-vt means, it's the Galilean coordinate
transformation between frame K (stationary 80 m pole) to frame k (80 m pole
now moved three miles up the road and still going like a bunny out of a
ferret warren -- we have to subtract the three miles). At t = 0, x' = x and
0' = 0.
The length of the pole is the same length tomorrow, next Sunday and forever,
independent of time. As Einstein wrote, "so ist klar". You do read Deutsch,
don't you?
Only I wouldn't want any argument from you over the inconvenience of
language transformation.
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf
Setzen wir x' = x-vt, so ist klar, dass einen im System k ruhenden Punkte
bestimmes, von der Zeit ... and it can't be any clearer.


-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.


-- Einstein:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = x' * beta where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif

He [Einstein] wrote the lowercase greek letter Xi instead of x', -- Sylvia
Else
Ref news:akfud0...@mid.individual.net, Jan 1st, 2013

What a way to begin a new year - change Einstein's notation and then change
its meaning.
Poor sick sad Sylvia the psychotic whore.

John Gogo

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 8:50:30 PM1/2/13
to
When Galileo rolled the balls on inclined planes- this is where the
concepts of velocity and acceleration came from- from gravity.

John Gogo

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 9:14:25 PM1/2/13
to
This reminds me of the Young/Forbes toothed-wheel of 1891- the toothed-
wheel observed two line of sight light sources that were separated by
a distance- and determined that their distances were instant and
simultaneous through the aperture of the wheel. This at once, created
extreme criticism because it predicted something that was not
anticipated like the results of the MM experiment.

John Gogo

unread,
Jan 2, 2013, 9:25:19 PM1/2/13
to
It is the models which produce the philosophical paradoxes. If
Michelson would have predicted an aether- relativity would have lived
an everlasting life. But, this did not happen.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages