Discussion:
TWIN PARADOX OR TWIN HOAX ?
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-06 07:45:10 UTC
Permalink
According to special relativity, time dilation is mutual so each inertial observer sees the other inertial observer's clock go slower. This implies that, if the effects of the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin can be ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. This is obviously fatal for special relativity so in 1918 Einstein was forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there was no other way to save the theory): According to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_objections_against_the_theory_of_relativity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein 1918: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

So in the last century scientists' minds had to oscillate between two contradictory wisdoms taught by Einsteinians:

Wisdom 1: The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness and cannot be ignored:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Wisdom 2: The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness and can be ignored:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** [There is no turn-around acceleration at all] Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Nowadays scientists' minds do not oscillate between the two contradictory wisdoms anymore. Einsteinians continue to teach them but of all official scientists in Divine Albert's world not one could think of a reason why the contradiction should be discussed, let alone resolved. Just the late effects of doublethink:

Loading Image...

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

Pentcho Valev
Wizard-Of-Oz
2013-10-06 08:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:436b41ed-73b6-4d30-8858-***@googlegroups.com:

Neither a paradox or a hoax. Just a scenario that the crackpots and the
ignorant, like you, stumble over and misunderstand.
Post by Pentcho Valev
According to special relativity, time dilation is mutual so each
inertial observer sees the other inertial observer's clock go slower.
This implies that, if the effects of the turn-around acceleration
suffered by the travelling twin can be ignored,
They can't
Post by Pentcho Valev
the travelling twin
returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and
older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary
brother. This is obviously fatal for special relativity
Not at all.
Post by Pentcho Valev
so in 1918
Einstein was forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there was no
other way to save the theory): According to the travelling twin, the
sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than
compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences
That's what SR predicts and is consistent with experimental results and
observations

You're just another ignorant crackpot who can't get his head around
relativity and rather admt that you're stupid, you make a lot of noise
about how wrong it must e .. which just makes you look even MORE stupid.

[snip more exhibitions of Pentcho dishonest and ignorance]

You lose, moron.
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-06 09:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Initially the exercises in doublethink are accompanied by some internal struggle in scientists' minds:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.7.html
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4611948391_4122552b04_z.jpg

The late effects of doublethink are characterized by the absence of any internal struggle - scientists' minds are split into two incompatible but still harmonically coexisting moieties:

Loading Image...

So in Divine Albert's world it is both safe and normal to teach that the speed of light is both variable and constant in a gravitational field:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

If life is too dull, Einsteinians can go further and explain to ordinary scientists that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is two times more variable than the speed of ordinary falling objects:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Ordinary scientists would not react - their minds can easily be split into more than two moieties.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2013-10-06 18:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Triplethink in Divine Albert's world:

1. The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field:

http://www.oapt.ca/newsletter/2004-02%20Newsletter%20Searchable.pdf
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

2. In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary falling objects:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "In 1907, Einstein had also concluded that the speed of light, and not just its direction, would be affected by the gravitational field."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."


"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

3. In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling objects:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
h***@yahoo.com
2013-10-06 13:48:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 1:45:10 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snipped this stuff 'cause Wiz handled it quite well]
Post by Pentcho Valev
Wisdom 2: The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has
aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins
are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the
accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect.
However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating
phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give
twice the amount of time gained."
Hi Pentcho,

Much as I find it hard to accept from a person with such an imposing and
illustrious given name, and a member of the Royal Society to boot, Gibbons
may have made an error here.

He did not explain why he decided the resolution of the twin paradox was
not due to the acceleration other than to say it was "not plausible" because
the experiment could be carried out over a longer period of time with
identical accelerations at the turn-around. Of course, he would have been
twice as far away if the journey lasted twice as long.

And, of course, deciding what is responsible for the traveling twin to be
younger upon returning is an interpretation of the result. Interpretations
are always suspect and should be examined carefully and from different
perspectives. Here is a link that looks at it from two different approaches:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html

One of them uses three observers, similar to Morin's exercise for the student
which you referenced below. A second invokes the equivalence principle to
derive an equation relating the time Jill sees Jack's clock jump ahead by a
factor of (1 +a*L/c^2), implying that distance from Jack IS important and
contrary to Gibbons' interpretation.

A perusal of the Minkowski worldline interpretation implies that the effect
is due to some property of spacetime, so perhaps that is what Gibbons was
thinking when he made his somewhat puzzling statement.

Pentcho, you are arguing about interpretations of the results, not about the
results themselves. To my knowledge, there are three interpretations of
quantum mechanics, and I find ALL of them to be ridiculous. But the
predictions of QM are spot on. We must be careful not to let interpretations
cloud our judgment. If we do so, we are likely to throw out the baby with
the bathwater.

I know, we seem to be hard-wired to seek for the reasons behind the events
we observe, but history has proven we have been wrong much more often than
we have been right :-(
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions,
David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin
paradox *** [There is no turn-around acceleration at all] Consider the
following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock.
In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B
passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame,
C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C
pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C
passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."
Yep, that's the first scenario that Cramer entertained in the link I gave
you. Note that the equations give the same answer even when approached
from three different perspectives.
Post by Pentcho Valev
Nowadays scientists' minds do not oscillate between the two contradictory
wisdoms anymore. Einsteinians continue to teach them but of all official
scientists in Divine Albert's world not one could think of a reason why
the contradiction should be discussed, let alone resolved. Just the late
effects of doublethink
Nope, just three different interpretations of the resolution of the twin
paradox. Your hard-wiring seems to be harder than the average human :-)

[snip]
Post by Pentcho Valev
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary." Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, that seems to be describing YOU, not the scientists you demean.
You forget facts that are inconvenient in your continued false belief that
c' = c + v. Experiments with moving sources prove beyond the shadow of
a doubt that this is false, yet it is contrary to the deep furrows you
have plowed into your brain by drinking kool-aid. So when are you going
to get off the sauce and rehabilitate yourself?

Gary
Mike Fontenot
2013-10-06 15:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
According to special relativity, time dilation is mutual so each inertial observer sees
the other inertial observer's clock go slower. This implies that, if the effects of the
turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin can be ignored, the travelling
twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as
judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother.
The effects of the turn-around acceleration of the traveling twin CAN'T
be ignored. The traveler returns younger, according to both the
perpetually-inertial twin's and the traveling twin's respective
reference frames. The effects are explained and quantified here:

https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

and here:

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS,
December 1999, p629.
--
Mike Fontenot
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 15:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Fontenot
The effects of the turn-around acceleration of the traveling twin CAN'T
be ignored. The traveler returns younger,
Or older
Post by Mike Fontenot
according to both the
No
Post by Mike Fontenot
perpetually-inertial twin's and the traveling twin's respective
No need
Y
2013-10-06 16:19:30 UTC
Permalink
This is simply absurd. People do not age depending on their speed. People are viewed as having different ages depending on the position and motions of the observer.

Imagine moving constantly away from a person at c. One could predict that the view of this person would be 'frozen' in time and the person would never appear to age. It is more likely that the observer would never see this person. The observer is constantly chasing away from the persons light signals and unable to form an image. Now lets say the observer turns around and heads towards the person and into their light signals at .50 c. Will the person appear to age unnaturally fast ? Possibly. I think these are the effects that relativity predicts. Time was not running 'fast' or 'slow', it was merely the position of the observer with respect to light signals and their ability to form images using light signals.


-y
Tom Roberts
2013-10-06 17:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y
People do not age depending on their speed. People are
viewed as having different ages depending on the position and motions of the
observer.
Right. And when twins rejoin after following different paths through spacetime,
they can have aged by different amounts. This is merely the fact that different
paths between a given pair of points can have different path lengths. In
spacetime, the twin scenario is just a triangle, and everybody knows that two
sides of a triangle have a different path length than the third side.

BTW this is not "time dilation" -- that is the variations in
projected lengths after rotations, while this is different
path lengths over different paths.
Post by Y
[... all sorts of irrelevant nonsense]
Tom Roberts
rotchm
2013-10-06 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 12:19:30 PM UTC-4, Y wrote:
...
Post by Y
Time was not running 'fast' or 'slow', it was merely the position
of the observer with respect to light signals and their
ability to form images using light signals.
-y
Are you just saying that to cause noise?
Imaging the age is not measuring the age, just as imaging a fast moving object is not measuring its length.

Time does 'run slow' in the sense that when I compare my clockS to the moving clock as they coincide, my clocks *always* indicate a greater value; the moving one a lesser value.
Post by Y
This is simply absurd. People do not age depending on their speed.
You do realize that your claim/belief contradicts actual experiments?
Wizard-Of-Oz
2013-10-06 18:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y
This is simply absurd. People do not age depending on their speed.
Apparently they do
Post by Y
People are viewed as having different ages depending on the position
and motions of the observer.
Its not a 'view' .. its not an optical illusion we're talkng about here.
It is REAL differences in elapsed time.
Post by Y
Imagine moving constantly away from a person at c. One could predict
that the view of this person would be 'frozen' in time and the person
would never appear to age.
It is more likely that the observer would
never see this person. The observer is constantly chasing away from
the persons light signals and unable to form an image.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about optical illusions here
Post by Y
Now lets say
the observer turns around and heads towards the person and into their
light signals at .50 c. Will the person appear to age unnaturally fast
? Possibly.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about optical illusions here
Post by Y
I think these are the effects that relativity predicts.
Then you're ignorant
Post by Y
Time was not running 'fast' or 'slow',
There is a difference in elapsed time between events.
Post by Y
it was merely the position of
the observer with respect to light signals and their ability to form
images using light signals.
No.
Mike Fontenot
2013-10-07 15:34:29 UTC
Permalink
The correspondence between the current ages of the two twins, according
to the traveling twin at each instant of his life during his trip, that
is given in the references below, is the same result obtained by Taylor
and Wheeler, in their example (Example 49) in their "Spacetime Physics"
book, pp. 94-95. It is also the same result given by Brian Greene in
his NOVA series on the "Fabric of the Cosmos". And it is the same
result given in the gravitational "time dilation" explanation, in which
the equivalence principle is used to formulate an equivalent GR problem
using fictitious forces and a perpetually-unaccelerated "traveler".

So the "value added" by the CADO equation described in the references
below is not that it gives a new and different answer to the twin
"paradox", but rather that it makes the process of getting that answer
much quicker, easier, and less error-prone. The CADO equation gives the
same answer that can be obtained from the Lorentz equations ... but in
an easier, simpler way.
Post by Mike Fontenot
The effects of the turn-around acceleration of the traveling twin CAN'T
be ignored. The traveler returns younger, according to both the
perpetually-inertial twin's and the traveling twin's respective
https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame
"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December
1999, p629.
--
Mike Fontenot
Sam Wormley
2013-10-06 18:58:57 UTC
Permalink
15. The Twin Paradox
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
Consider sending an astronaut to a distant star in a spaceship at
very high speed. Assume that the astronaut has a twin sibling waiting
back on Earth.
In the Earth frame of reference, time on the spaceship will be
observed to pass more slowly than on the Earth due to time dilation. It
may seem as if only a few years have past on the ship while decades pass
on the Earth. So the twin of the astronaut waiting on the Earth expects
the astronaut to be the much younger of the two upon return.
In the spaceship frame of reference, it is the Earth that is moving
at a very high speed so time on Earth will be observed to pass more
slowly than on the spaceship. Decades will pass on the ship while only a
few years pass on Earth. So the astronaut expects that the twin sibling
waiting on the Earth to be the much younger of the two upon return.
Isn't this a contradiction? What happens when the astronaut comes
back to Earth? Which of the twin siblings will be older? How can both
observations be correct? This problem is known as the twin paradox.
Loading Image...
Changing direction involves acceleration which puts the astronaut
in a non-inertial frame.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 19:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
15. The Twin Paradox
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
Consider sending an astronaut to a distant star in a spaceship at
very high speed. Assume that the astronaut has a twin sibling waiting
back on Earth.
[snip]

What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Sam Wormley
2013-10-06 20:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Sam Wormley
15. The Twin Paradox
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
Consider sending an astronaut to a distant star in a spaceship at
very high speed. Assume that the astronaut has a twin sibling waiting
back on Earth.
[snip]
What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Einstein was right, the traveling twin returns home younger that
his/her stay-at-home sibling. The space-time diagram shows why.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 21:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Einstein was right, the traveling twin returns home younger that
his/her stay-at-home sibling. The space-time diagram shows why.
Post by Garth Schroder
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Then you do not understand your theory, and Einstein. The travelling twin
may return OLDER to Earth.

I have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims. What do YOU have?
hanson
2013-10-06 21:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Einstein was right, the traveling twin returns home younger that
his/her stay-at-home sibling. The space-time diagram shows why.
Post by Garth Schroder
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Then you do not understand your theory, and Einstein. The travelling twin
may return OLDER to Earth.
I, Garth, have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims.
What do YOU,Sam, have?
hanson wrote:
You all have each other as a set pf splendid
Einstein Dingleberriess, who worship Albert's
Sphincter, from your very own Frame of Reference.
Get help from the "observers" and maybe they
will give you the "travelling twins" terrestrial
home address where you could go and verify.
Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 21:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Get help from the "observers" and maybe they will give you the
"travelling twins" terrestrial home address where you could go and
verify. Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
You laugh and laugh, all the time, for no reason. What is wrong with you,
asshat? Tell something I can relate to, whatever, it does not even need to
make sense.
hanson
2013-10-06 22:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Einstein was right, the traveling twin returns home younger that
his/her stay-at-home sibling. The space-time diagram shows why.
Post by Garth Schroder
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Then you do not understand your theory, and Einstein. The travelling twin
may return OLDER to Earth.
I, Garth, have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims.
What do YOU,Sam, have?
hanson wrote:
You all have each other as a set of splendid
Einstein Dingleberriess, who worship Albert's
Sphincter, from your very own Frame of Reference.
Get help from the "observers" and maybe they
will give you the "travelling twins" terrestrial
home address where you could go and verify.
Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
"Garth Schroder" wrote:
You laugh and laugh, all the time, for no reason.
What is wrong with you, asshat?
hanson wrote:
That only seems to you to be that way, Barth.
It is the general dementation & depravity of all
Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, to be
angry and uptight, like you are, during your
worship of Albert's Sphincter... Pity.....
"Garth Schroder" wrote:
Tell something I can relate to, whatever, it does
not even need to make sense.
hanson wrote:
All Einseitn Dingleberries like yourself are
BELIEVERS, not thinkers, like Bible Beaters or
Islamists. You believe in SR/GR crap that makes
no sense unles you become an Einstein Dingleberry
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 22:20:45 UTC
Permalink
All Einseitn Dingleberries like yourself are BELIEVERS, not thinkers,
like Bible Beaters or Islamists. You believe in SR/GR crap that makes no
sense unles you become an Einstein Dingleberry
The father of relativity was not Einstein but his wife Mileva (Milena?)
hanson
2013-10-06 23:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
All Einseitn Dingleberries like yourself are BELIEVERS,
not thinkers, like Bible Beaters or Islamists. You believe
in SR/GR crap that makes no sense unles you become
an Einstein Dingleberry
The father of relativity was not Einstein but his wife Mileva (Milena?)
hanson wrote:
History, the historic record, of/on/about all public figures
are suspect, dubious and profit motivated. The Einstein
Tale is not any different. Here are some old posts that
were discussed at lenght, year after year, here in s.p.
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein>
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2>
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity>
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-Thievery-n-Plagiari>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-1>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Vordergasse-pt-2>
<http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/einsteinmarity.htm>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
h***@yahoo.com
2013-10-06 23:35:39 UTC
Permalink
History, the historic record, of/on/about all public figures are suspect,
dubious and profit motivated. The Einstein Tale is not any different. Here
are some old posts that were discussed at lenght, year after year, here in
s.p. <http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
[snip]

Hi Hanson,

The question you need to ask yourself is not, "Who is responsible for the
derivation of SR" but rather, "What is wrong with the premises of SR?"
If the premises are true and the derivation is correct, then you must
accept the conclusion. OTOH, if you disbelieve the consequences of the
theory, then prove that either the derivation is incorrect or one of the
premises are wrong. This is the ONLY rational approach. Making
unsubstantiated claims is just bloviating and ranting.

Gary
Sam Wormley
2013-10-06 21:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
What is your position then. May the twin return OLDER?
Einstein was right, the traveling twin returns home younger that
his/her stay-at-home sibling. The space-time diagram shows why.
Post by Garth Schroder
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
Then you do not understand your theory, and Einstein. The travelling twin
may return OLDER to Earth.
I have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims. What do YOU have?
I doubt Tom Roberts and Paul B Anderson support any of your claims,
Garth. After all, they understand relativity theory.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 21:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
I have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims. What do YOU have?
I doubt Tom Roberts and Paul B Anderson support any of your claims,
Garth. After all, they understand relativity theory.
Yes, they likely do. Dare to ask them so. Tell them that I sent you to do
that.
Sam Wormley
2013-10-06 21:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
I have Mr Tom and Mr PB Anderson to support my claims. What do YOU have?
I doubt Tom Roberts and Paul B Anderson support any of your claims,
Garth. After all, they understand relativity theory.
Yes, they likely do. Dare to ask them so. Tell them that I sent you to do
that.
It is possible that you have a reading comprehension problem... but
more likely you are just trolling.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-06 22:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
Yes, they likely do. Dare to ask them so. Tell them that I sent you to
do that.
It is possible that you have a reading comprehension problem... but
more likely you are just trolling.
I just answered to Mr. Tom, proving him that he is wrong. Are you
supporting me or Mr. Tom. Let's see how far you can go.
Wizard-Of-Oz
2013-10-06 23:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
Yes, they likely do. Dare to ask them so. Tell them that I sent you to
do that.
It is possible that you have a reading comprehension problem... but
more likely you are just trolling.
I just answered to Mr. Tom, proving him that he is wrong. Are you
supporting me or Mr. Tom. Let's see how far you can go.
The condition is that there is no gravity effects considered (just SR) at
the non-travelling twin implies that that twin remains at rest in its
inertial frame (does not accelerate), and the travelling twin travels awa
and returns. And that the ages of the twin are the same at the start of
the experiment.

Of course, if you cheat and name that the one that accelerates away as the
start at home twin, and the name one that is in an inertial frame
throuhgout as the travelling twin, then that doesn't count.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-07 18:25:00 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Tom Roberts
2013-10-07 18:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Who is cheating
YOU.
Post by Garth Schroder
It was totally EXPLICIT. [...]
I can't make it more EXPLICIT than it is, nobody can. I told you the twin
departing from Earth in his spaceship returns OLDER, no GR involved but SR.
And then you EXPLICITLY gave a situation that is not within the domain of SR,
which requires gravitation as an essential aspect.

Moreover, you gave your personal GUESS and acted as if it were a fact.

That's "cheating" by any reasonable standard.


Tom Roberts
Garth Schroder
2013-10-07 19:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Garth Schroder
It was totally EXPLICIT. [...]
I can't make it more EXPLICIT than it is, nobody can. I told you the
twin departing from Earth in his spaceship returns OLDER, no GR
involved but SR.
And then you EXPLICITLY gave a situation that is not within the domain
of SR, which requires gravitation as an essential aspect.
I must conclude then, sadly, that you are an idiot. Same level as your
friend "Wizard".

I guess there is not much else to tell about it. Thanks.
paparios
2013-10-07 19:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Garth Schroder
It was totally EXPLICIT. [...]
I can't make it more EXPLICIT than it is, nobody can. I told you the
twin departing from Earth in his spaceship returns OLDER, no GR
involved but SR.
And then you EXPLICITLY gave a situation that is not within the domain
of SR, which requires gravitation as an essential aspect.
I must conclude then, sadly, that you are an idiot. Same level as your
friend "Wizard".
I guess there is not much else to tell about it. Thanks.
Name changer troll is attacking again. This guy is very easy to detect and it is amazing how knowledgeable guys over here continue to respond to him.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-07 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by paparios
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Tom Roberts
And then you EXPLICITLY gave a situation that is not within the domain
of SR, which requires gravitation as an essential aspect.
I must conclude then, sadly, that you are an idiot. Same level as your
friend "Wizard".
I guess there is not much else to tell about it. Thanks.
Name changer troll is attacking again. This guy is very easy to detect
and it is amazing how knowledgeable guys over here continue to respond
to him.
You misinterpret the situation, Sir. I am attacked. I am the victim here.
And Relativity is the victim here as well.

Let's see where you belong, EXPLICITLY:

The travelling twin jumps on his spaceship, departs, then return 25 years
latter, seemingly OLDER than his brother twin left at home on Earth. Only
SR involved, consider 100% flat space (no curvature) (actually upthere in
empty space the spacetime feels pretty flat).

Am I right or am I wrong?
h***@yahoo.com
2013-10-07 21:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
The travelling twin jumps on his spaceship, departs, then return 25 years
latter, seemingly OLDER than his brother twin left at home on Earth. Only
SR involved, consider 100% flat space (no curvature) (actually upthere in
empty space the spacetime feels pretty flat). Am I right or am I wrong?
Hi Garth,

You are wrong. SHow me the math you used to back up your claim and I'll even
show you where you went wrong. It's apparent you need to hit the books a
little harder. Here's a couple of links where you can start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html

Some good reading there. I highly recommend them.

Gary
Garth Schroder
2013-10-07 22:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by Garth Schroder
The travelling twin jumps on his spaceship, departs, then return 25
years latter, seemingly OLDER than his brother twin left at home on
Earth. Only SR involved, consider 100% flat space (no curvature)
(actually upthere in empty space the spacetime feels pretty flat). Am I
right or am I wrong?
Hi Garth,
You are wrong. SHow me the math you used to back up your claim and I'll
No. You show that, since you tell I'm wrong already, I guess you already
have the math :) !??.

Funny that a big mouth like you dare to demand math, and also even think
that there is a need of "math" as supposedly a numerical approach or
something.

You looks like clown, Sir. A stand-up comedian at best.
Post by h***@yahoo.com
even show you where you went wrong. It's apparent you need to hit the
Keep them for yourself mister, impress your girlfriend or something. Idiot.
Sam Wormley
2013-10-07 01:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
Yes, they likely do. Dare to ask them so. Tell them that I sent you to
do that.
It is possible that you have a reading comprehension problem... but
more likely you are just trolling.
I just answered to Mr. Tom, proving him that he is wrong. Are you
supporting me or Mr. Tom. Let's see how far you can go.
I have gained some insight from Tom Robert's posting over the years,
and I thank him for posting to USENET.
Garth Schroder
2013-10-07 18:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
I just answered to Mr. Tom, proving him that he is wrong. Are you
supporting me or Mr. Tom. Let's see how far you can go.
I have gained some insight from Tom Robert's posting over the years,
and I thank him for posting to USENET.
I almost knew it. That much for your integrity, You could however had been
still stupid with unaltered integrity. Looks like these two things walks
hand in hand together.
Paul B. Andersen
2013-10-08 08:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garth Schroder
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Garth Schroder
I just answered to Mr. Tom, proving him that he is wrong. Are you
supporting me or Mr. Tom. Let's see how far you can go.
I have gained some insight from Tom Robert's posting over the years,
and I thank him for posting to USENET.
I almost knew it. That much for your integrity, You could however had been
still stupid with unaltered integrity. Looks like these two things walks
hand in hand together.
Troll alert!
--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
unknown
2013-10-06 22:43:19 UTC
Permalink
<PRE Style='White-Space: PRE !important; Font-Size: 18px !important;Font-Family: DejaVu Sans Mono, monospace !important;'> 
There are two kinds of trolls:

1. The profoundly clueless.

2. Sarcastic jokers.

Garthâ‹…Schroder is profoundly clueless, I think.
Loading...