2/1 EXPERIMENT AND THE TWIN PARADOX
Pentcho Valev
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
deux des miennes; dans l’autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d’observer, sans absurdité, que
l’horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."
That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
observer's clocks running slow.
In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
science but who cares.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dono
> Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
> either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> observer's clocks running slow.
>
The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
shit for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
"paradox".
In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either.
Pentcho Valev
> Banesh Hoffmann, ”La relativite, histoire d’une grande idee”, Pour la
> Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
> deux des miennes; dans l'autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
> votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d'observer, sans absurdité, que
> l'horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."
>
> That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
> experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
> either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> observer's clocks running slow.
>
> at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
> would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
> experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
> rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
> are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
> tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
> the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
> at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
> Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
> money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
> science but who cares.
In the case of length contraction the symmetry is not broken and
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, in a world different from Einstein zombie world,
would be quite obvious: it follows from Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate that the long train is short (if trapped inside a short
tunnel), the 80m long pole is 40m long (if trapped inside a 40m long
barn), the bug is both dead and alive etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 2, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
> > either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> > observer's clocks running slow.
>
> The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
> shit for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
> "paradox".
Dono aka Don’t Know Anything is getting as virulent as usual.
> In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> not understand this either.
Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. For
instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so, and there are
thought experiments as modification to the vanilla twin’s paradox that
will nullify any effects due to acceleration.
Twin’s paradox is a manifestation of the Lorentz transform due to the
combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity. Curved
spacetime uses a modification of the flat spacetime. There is no
f*cking way in hell that acceleration can be your savior. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 2, 7:53 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 6:29 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > > Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
> > > either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> > > observer's clocks running slow.
>
> > The above is true for the other "paradox" that you've been munching
> > shit for years since you can't understand it either, the Dingle
> > "paradox".
>
> Dono aka Don’t Know Anything is getting as virulent as usual.
>
> > In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> > follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> > not understand this either.
>
> Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
> about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. For
> instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so
You are lying - the proof has been given to you repeatedly. However,
every time it is given you reject it out of hand with no explanation.
[....]
maxwell
words, restrict discussions of reality to real experiments repeatable
in laboratories and end this nonsense, propagated by Einstein, of
talking about 'gedanken experiments'. This phrase has been a very
successful rhetorical trick to confuse the gullible. If one can ONLY
think and talk about an activity then it is NOT an experiment; it is a
shareable thought. As such it is suitable for novels, philosophy or
playwrights - this is not science. This insight into the centrality
of experimentation was the key to moving science forward; it became
the objective separator of the pre-scientific and scientific ages,
circa 1600. Einstein was simply returning to the pre-scientific
speculative mode of the ancient Greek theorists.
Dono
>
Just because Kookie Wobbler the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
is babbling about relativity it doesn't mean that anybody is giving a
shit about his ranting ......
Koobee Wublee
> On Jan 2, 11:10 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Just because Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar said so
> > about acceleration breaking the symmetry, it is not true. For
> > instance, there is no mathematical proof that shows so, and there are
> > thought experiments as modification to the vanilla twin’s paradox that
> > will nullify any effects due to acceleration.
>
> You are lying - the proof has been given to you repeatedly. However,
> every time it is given you reject it out of hand with no explanation.
You are lying. There has been no definitive resolution to the twin’s
paradox. Despite numerous attempted claims, each claim is
contradicting the others. They all violate the principle of
relativity which in term violates the Lorentz transform. Garbage like
that must be rejected because there is no room for scientific
methodology whenever a claim violates the constraints. In this case,
of course, the constraint is the principle of relativity. <shrug>
shuba
> Could we please return to physics instead of posturing? In other
> words, restrict discussions of reality to real experiments repeatable
> in laboratories and end this nonsense, propagated by Einstein, of
> talking about 'gedanken experiments'. This phrase has been a very
> successful rhetorical trick to confuse the gullible.
Sorry about that. Your confusion may be reduced if you look up
the meaning of 'gedanken'.
Gedankens in special relativity have been quite useful in helping
many people e.g. conceptually understand the relativity of
simultaneity. Ranting about them is useful only for laughs.
---Tim Shuba---
TheoreticalPhysics
<snip>
> In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> not understand this either.
That raises two interesting points:
1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
the system were symetrical?
2) Doesn`t this violate the Uncertainty Principle - not to mention the
Principle of Relativity.
Dono
> On Jan 2, 3:53 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> > follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> > not understand this either.
>
> That raises two interesting points:
>
> 1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
> the system were symetrical?
If the twins followed idendical paths through spacetime, like starting
from a point on a circle in opposite directions and having the same
speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet
again.
> 2) Doesn`t this violate the Uncertainty Principle - not to mention the
> Principle of Relativity.
Non-sequitur.
TheoreticalPhysics
> On Jan 4, 8:26 am, TheoreticalPhysics <phys...@graduate.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 3:53 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> > > follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> > > not understand this either.
>
> > That raises two interesting points:
>
> > 1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
> > the system were symetrical?
>
> If the twins followed idendical paths through spacetime, like starting
> from a point on a circle in opposite directions and having the same
> speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet
> again.
So you could deduce the past histories of a system in unaccelerated
motion simply by looking at it?
This is surely a violation of the Principle of Relativity and the
first postulate?
> > 2) Doesn`t this violate the Uncertainty Principle - not to mention the
> > Principle of Relativity.
>
> Non-sequitur.
No relevance?! Really? I would imagine that most scientists would
consider it a prerequisite of any theory that it can withstand robust
examination of its internal and external consistency.
Out of interest, what do you make of Bell`s Paradox?
Dono
> On Jan 4, 4:34 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 8:26 am, TheoreticalPhysics <phys...@graduate.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 2, 3:53 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> > > > follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> > > > not understand this either.
>
> > > That raises two interesting points:
>
> > > 1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
> > > the system were symetrical?
>
> > If the twins followed idendical paths through spacetime, like starting
> > from a point on a circle in opposite directions and having the same
> > speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet
> > again.
>
> So you could deduce the past histories of a system in unaccelerated
> motion simply by looking at it?
Who told you that?
> This is surely a violation of the Principle of Relativity and the
> first postulate?
>
What gives you this bright idea?
TheoreticalPhysics
> On Jan 4, 9:52 am, TheoreticalPhysics <phys...@graduate.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 4:34 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 4, 8:26 am, TheoreticalPhysics <phys...@graduate.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 2, 3:53 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > In the twin "paradox" the two twins are NOT symmetric since they
> > > > > follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
> > > > > not understand this either.
>
> > > > That raises two interesting points:
>
> > > > 1) If twins paradox is resolved by asymmetry then what would happen if
> > > > the system were symetrical?
>
> > > If the twins followed idendical paths through spacetime, like starting
> > > from a point on a circle in opposite directions and having the same
> > > speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet
> > > again.
>
> > So you could deduce the past histories of a system in unaccelerated
> > motion simply by looking at it?
>
> Who told you that?
You did!
For asymmetrical systems you said: [quote] "In the twin "paradox" the
two twins are NOT symmetric since they
follow different worlines in spacetime, imbecile. Of course, you will
not understand this either. "
And for symmetrical systems you said: [quote] "If the twins followed
idendical paths through spacetime,
like starting from a point on a circle in opposite directions and
having the same
speed regime, they would be exactly the same age when they meet again
"
> > This is surely a violation of the Principle of Relativity and the
> > first postulate?
>
> What gives you this bright idea?
So one could, using your analysis, establish the relationship between
any two FORs as asymmetric or symmetric simply by comparing age of
the twin. You can therefore establish the history ("worlines") by a
single simple observation. This is in directed contradiction of the
Principle of Relativity (Galilean invariance).
TheoreticalPhysics
<snip French text>
>
> That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
> experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
> the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
> either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> observer's clocks running slow.
So far, so good.
> In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
> at rest
Oooops! there are no preferential FORs in any version of Relativity.
>is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
> would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
> experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
> rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
> are running slow.
OK, apart from the notion of a preferential FORs, that`s correct.
> As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
> tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
> the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
> at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
> Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
> money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
> science but who cares.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
It kind of goes of the rails again there, I`m afraid. Since there is
no preferential FOR, both twins observation is identical, i.e. while
either twin`s clock appears to run normally, their twin`s appears to
run slow.
The only way the twins can directly compare their results is to meet
in the same FOR. This notionally requires some sort of acceleration,
which invokes GR. Once acceleration is introduced, either twin is able
to take direct measurements of their motion without external
references - this being true in all version of relativity (Newtonian,
Galilean, Einsteinian).
Pentcho Valev
> Banesh Hoffmann, ”La relativite, histoire d’une grande idee”, Pour la
> Science, Paris, 1999, p. 126: "Dans un cas, je compare votre horloge à
> deux des miennes; dans l’autre, vous comparez la mienne à deux des
> votres; ceci permet à chacun de nous d’observer, sans absurdité, que
> l’horloge de l’autre est plus lente que la sienne."
>
> That is, either observer performs what may be called "the 2/1
> experiment": he compares TWO of his clocks with ONE clock belonging to
> the other observer. Then, if Einstein 1905 light postulate is correct,
> either observer sees his own clocks running fast and the other
> observer's clocks running slow.
>
> In the twn paradox case, the symmetry is broken: the twin (observer)
> at rest is still able to perform the 2/1 experiment but Einsteinians
> would never tell you how the traveller can perform his own 2/1
> experiment. Then the solution is simple: According to the twin at
> rest, his own clocks are running fast whereas the traveller's clocks
> are running slow. As for the traveller, since Einsteinians would never
> tell him how to perform his own 2/1 experiment, he is forced to accept
> the result of the 2/1 experiment performed by the twin at rest: clocks
> at rest are running fast, travelling clocks are running slow. Simple?
> Simple. And profitable: Einsteinians have been extracting career and
> money from this for a century. Some say the process eventually killed
> science but who cares.
How Einstein could have introduced the 2/1 experiment performed by the
traveller:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction,
and which would be interpreted as an effect of inertia (centrifugal
force) by an observer who was at rest with respect to the original
reference-body K. But the observer on the disc may regard his disc as
a reference-body which is “at rest”; on the basis of the general
principle of relativity he is justified in doing this. The force
acting on himself, and in fact on all other bodies which are at rest
relative to the disc, he regards as the effect of a gravitational
field."
By increasing the diameter of the disk while keeping the linear speed
of the periphery constant, Einstein could have reduced the
"gravitational field" to zero: so the rotating observer (sitting
eccentrically on the periphery of the disc K') becomes virtually
inertial. Then the rotating observer performs the 2/1 experiment and,
in accordance with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, sees his own
two clocks fixed on the periphery running fast and non-rotating clocks
located outside the disk but very close to the rotating periphery
running slow. This is in contradiction with Einstein's official result
(rotating clocks run slow, clocks at rest run fast) and in a world
different from Einstein zombie world would be called REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Strich.9
The fallacy is obvious. The stay at home twin is moving with respect
to the travelling observer. Thus the stay at home twin is aging less.
[As I said, either the whole physics community is stupid not to see
this, or there is an undercurrent of suppression.
Preposterous? During the time of Galileo, the Ptolemaic system was
propped up. While most priests may have been stupid, there are
probably some who preferred the Ptolemaic system for its
GEOcentricity, whatever science may say. Currently there may be not a
few who prefer SR/GR whatever purp[ose it may serve their faith.]
Androcles
"Strich.9" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd4348cd-8821-45b1...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
And that is the paradox...
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
Translation:
"Look at me, I'm a prominent theoretical dork who argues for
schoolchildren."
"THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light
is propagated in empty space."
(Except the principle of relativity, an axiom.)
Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.
Except that children do not know this, they are taught to believe it along
with Santa Claus.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Einstein's crap is nothing but persuasive rhetoric...
===============================================
[As I said, either the whole physics community is stupid not to see
this, or there is an undercurrent of suppression.
================================================
So they are stupid...