Discussion:
The twin paradox revisited
(too old to reply)
c***@optusnet.com.au
2007-07-10 04:08:18 UTC
Permalink
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.

Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Shubee
2007-07-10 04:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue?
I have never heard of it.
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Has it been published in any peer reviewed journal?
Probably.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sue...
2007-07-10 04:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.

It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.


3 or 4 versions are debunked here.

Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.

C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

Sue...
Shubee
2007-07-10 05:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
In other words, Einstein didn't resolve the twin paradox.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sue...
2007-07-10 07:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
In other words, Einstein didn't resolve the twin paradox.
His 1920 paper seems to have the appropriate changes
so it isn't predicted. (Imaginary time in Minkowski space
and relativistic mass to make the inertial coupling)

I beleive there is even a loose reference to time
dependent Maxwell's equations in the 1923 Nobel
Lecture.

a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

So I'd say it is more the influence of die-hard H.G. Wells and
Ponce de Leon fans that don't want it resolved so they
ignore the latter papers.
<<
Pseudoscience does not progress.
... New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts
are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries,"
since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries."
The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No
natural phenomena or processes previously unknown
to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists.
Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with
phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to
the general public-so that the public will swallow
whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim....>>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html


Sue...
W***@aol.com
2007-07-10 15:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, Indiahttp://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity. The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention here

for his entire journet continuously, but they are curvalinear when the
accelerations take place giving rise to the nonzero Christoffel
symbols that I mention. Those can be interpreted as a gravitational
acceleration from his perspective.
Sue...
2007-07-10 15:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, Indiahttp://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity. The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention
Wouldn't that require the assumption that light
moves inertially?

Sue...
Koobee Wublee
2007-07-10 19:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity.
No, relativity simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
Post by W***@aol.com
The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
for his entire journet continuously, but they are curvalinear when the
accelerations take place giving rise to the nonzero Christoffel
symbols that I mention. Those can be interpreted as a gravitational
acceleration from his perspective.
This is utter BS and nonsense. You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.

Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>
W***@aol.com
2007-07-10 20:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity.
No, relativity simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
Post by W***@aol.com
The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
for his entire journet continuously, but they are curvalinear when the
accelerations take place giving rise to the nonzero Christoffel
symbols that I mention. Those can be interpreted as a gravitational
acceleration from his perspective.
This is utter BS and nonsense. You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.
Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Don't you ever get tired of being called a nut? Go take your meds.
Shubee
2007-07-10 20:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity.
No, relativity simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
Post by W***@aol.com
The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
for his entire journet continuously, but they are curvalinear when the
accelerations take place giving rise to the nonzero Christoffel
symbols that I mention. Those can be interpreted as a gravitational
acceleration from his perspective.
This is utter BS and nonsense. You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.
Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Don't you ever get tired of being called a nut? Go take your meds.
How does it feel to live your life as a shit-throwing chimpanzee?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
jem
2007-07-11 13:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
It doesn't suffer a flaw. In fact the perspective is equivalent to
addressing the matter in terms of relative simultaneity.
No, relativity simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
Post by W***@aol.com
The
accelerated observer can be given coordinates according to an
accelerated frame transformation that I mention http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
for his entire journet continuously, but they are curvalinear when the
accelerations take place giving rise to the nonzero Christoffel
symbols that I mention. Those can be interpreted as a gravitational
acceleration from his perspective.
This is utter BS and nonsense. You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.
Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Don't you ever get tired of being called a nut? Go take your meds.
How does it feel to live your life as a shit-throwing chimpanzee?
You should give it a try, Shooby - I think you'll find that it feels a
whole lot better than living your life on the receiving end. :)
Koobee Wublee
2007-07-11 06:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
No, relative[e] simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.
Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>
Don't you ever get tired of being called a nut?
No. Initially, anyone first seen my point of view can easily identify
me as a nut, yes. However, after reading what I have to back myself
up, even the slightly mentally challenged have since changed their
minds. Only the highly mentally challenged bunch which include a lot
of PhD's as well as professors seem to choose to live in their world
of make-believe playhouse thing. They continue to worship Einstein
the nitwit. Hey, it is a free country. You are allowed to worship
anyone of your choosing. <shrug>
Post by W***@aol.com
Go take your meds.
Sorry to disappoint you. I run. I exercise. I work out. And I am
not taking any meds. <shrug>
W***@aol.com
2007-07-11 09:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by W***@aol.com
No, relative[e] simultaneity arises from the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. It was first noticed by Poincare. Under the concept of
relative simultaneity, it is OK not to compare the time among all
frames of references, and you cannot string a series of events
together like a history timeline showing exactly when each event takes
place. This also means relative simultaneity cannot allow anyone to
observe any consistent interference pattern. This means MMX would
fail even to employ the interferometer that resulted in first the
Voigt transform and then the later Lorentz transform.
You can always design a mission
profile for each twin where each twin would faithfully execute each
command when the time comes. Each twin accelerates away with the same
duration and intensity. Each twin coast a while without any
acceleration. Each twin then decelerates and reunites at rest relative
to each other. With the effect acceleration nulled out, you still
have plenty of relative speed to affect any symmetrical time dilation.
Einstein was a guesser. He guessed some right but mostly wrong.
Using GR to resolve the twin's paradox is one of Einstein's many
blunders. You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
<shrug>
Don't you ever get tired of being called a nut?
No. Initially, anyone first seen my point of view can easily identify
me as a nut, yes. However, after reading what I have to back myself
up, even the slightly mentally challenged have since changed their
minds. Only the highly mentally challenged bunch which include a lot
of PhD's as well as professors seem to choose to live in their world
of make-believe playhouse thing. They continue to worship Einstein
the nitwit. Hey, it is a free country. You are allowed to worship
anyone of your choosing. <shrug>
Post by W***@aol.com
Go take your meds.
Sorry to disappoint you. I run. I exercise. I work out. And I am
not taking any meds. <shrug>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Then you should go back to taking meds.
Eric Gisse
2007-07-10 23:44:07 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 10, 11:54 am, Koobee Wublee <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Post by Koobee Wublee
You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
The only folks who worship Einstein are morons like you.
Koobee Wublee
2007-07-11 07:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisse
Post by Koobee Wublee
You should seriously consider not to worship that nitwit.
The only folks who worship Einstein are morons like you.
How in the world would you construe that I worship Einstein the
nitwit? Is it because your idol Einstein the nitwit is exposed by me
as one such nitwit? Let's see before 1905.

** Length contraction was already proposed by Fitz-Gerald and
Lorentz.

** Constancy in the speed of light was already suggested by Voigt to
explain the null results of Michelson's 1881 experiment which
superseded Michelson's more famous cooperation with Morley six years
later.


** Voigt transform was already identified as a modification to the
Galilean transform that would explain Michelson's the null results of
the 1881 experiment.

** Lorentz transform was already suggested by Larmor after modifying
the Voigt transform to satisfy the principle of relativity.

** Principle of relativity was already suggested by Galileo 300 years
prior.

** Poincare was already established the relative simultaneity
manifested by the mathematics of the Lorentz transform.

Since the Lorentz transform manifests the absurdity of the twin's
paradox, it cannot be considered as a valid piece of physical model,
and yet Professor Roberts sucked the BS all up. In his claim, he is
seeing SR (Lorentz transform) effect in his lab all day long. He is
talking about the observed time dilation. Time dilation alone does
not establish the validity of the Lorentz transform. You must prove
beyond any reason of doubt that the principle of relativity is not
violated. To also prove the principle of relativity, that means the
absurdity of the twin's paradox is a physical law. Well, this is the
trend in physical research. <Sigh>

Continuing with Einstein's contributions in physics in 1916,

** Einstein's professor, Minkowski, who did not have any positive
thing to say about his mentally challenged student, has already weaved
the mathematical construct implied by the Lorentz transform into
something called the spacetime to replace the Aether as already cast
in doubt of its existence by Poincare.

** The Goettingen group of scientists which included Minkowski,
Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild have already modeled a curved spacetime
based on Minkowski's model of flat spacetime. These guys just did not
have any clues on how to identify the metric.

** Hilbert had already pulled out a mathematical quantity out of his
*ss which is erroneous identified as a density to the very abstract
quantity called the Einstein-Hilbert action.

** Voila. By taking the partial derivative of this quantity with
respect to each element of the metric, Hilbert cooked up the field
equations. In the meantime, the nitwit Einstein was still struggling
to understand and modify Paul Gerber's work on derivations to
Mercury's orbital advance.

** The first solution to the field equations according to history was
solved by Schwarzschild in his war camp which does not manifest any
black holes.

** Since the field equations yield an infinite number of solutions,
Hilbert was disappointed by Schwarzschild's work. Hilbert had to
present a much simpler solution after Schwarzschild's demise in the
disease-stricken eastern front of WWI. History identified Hilbert's
much simpler solution as the Schwarzschild metric.

Well, I just cannot see what and where the nitwit Einstein's
contributions are. Did somebody whisper the Cosmological constant?
In effect, the Cosmological constant is to add a negative mass density
to the Newtonian law of gravity. Since positive mass gives attractive
gravitational effect, it should not be a surprise that negative mass
gives gravitational repulsion. Poisson beat Einstein to it by at
least 100 years. The Cosmological constant cannot be Einstein's
biggest blunder because there has been nothing coming out of Einstein
the nitwit. <shrug>

Have I explained myself more clearly now that I am no worshipper of
the nitwit Einstein?

PS. Quit doing the cowardly thing learnt from Bilger trying to
forward any replies to alt.morons. It would not work in the long run.
Eric Gisse
2007-07-11 08:30:56 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 10, 11:42 pm, Koobee Wublee <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

No, moron. I'm not going to go through yet ANOTHER of your diatribes
and correcting the dozens of mistakes.
W***@aol.com
2007-07-10 17:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, Indiahttp://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
Einsteins resolution had no flaw. It is in fact equivalent to the
resolution in terms of relative simultaneity. At the link
http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
I mention the coordinate transformation from the accelerated frame to
the inertial frame. This transformation yields curvalinear coordinates
for the accelerated observer durring accelerations. I also mention
that this gives rise to nonzero Christoffel symbols. These can be
interpreted as a gravitational acceleration field(not spacetime
curvature field). Furthermore, through a level of equivalence the
effect could then be interpreted in terms of a Doppler shift. It
doesn't really matter which perspective is taken as they are
equivalent and correct.
Sue...
2007-07-10 17:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, Indiahttp://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
Einsteins resolution had no flaw. It is in fact equivalent to the
resolution in terms of relative simultaneity. At the http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
I mention the coordinate transformation from the accelerated frame to
the inertial frame. This transformation yields curvalinear coordinates
for the accelerated observer durring accelerations.
Wouldn't that require the assumption that light
moves inertially?

Yes or No?

Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I also mention
that this gives rise to nonzero Christoffel symbols. These can be
interpreted as a gravitational acceleration field(not spacetime
curvature field). Furthermore, through a level of equivalence the
effect could then be interpreted in terms of a Doppler shift. It
doesn't really matter which perspective is taken as they are
equivalent and correct.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
W***@aol.com
2007-07-10 17:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Advocates of the notion can't even describe the
the physical characteristics the twins reunion.
It is mathematically and physically absurd.
It is the same as:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
...the right calculations in the wrong places.
3 or 4 versions are debunked here.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, Indiahttp://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
Einsteins resolution had no flaw. It is in fact equivalent to the
resolution in terms of relative simultaneity. At the http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
I mention the coordinate transformation from the accelerated frame to
the inertial frame. This transformation yields curvalinear coordinates
for the accelerated observer durring accelerations.
Wouldn't that require the assumption that light
moves inertially?
Yes or No?
Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I also mention
that this gives rise to nonzero Christoffel symbols. These can be
interpreted as a gravitational acceleration field(not spacetime
curvature field). Furthermore, through a level of equivalence the
effect could then be interpreted in terms of a Doppler shift. It
doesn't really matter which perspective is taken as they are
equivalent and correct.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity. According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes. However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame. I give a transformation from his most
suitable choice of frame to an inertial frame, but it yields
curvalinear coordinates for him durring the acceleration according to
which he will reckon that the speed of light and more importantly the
frequency of it is *not* everywhere constant. In accelerated frame
coordinates the speed of light is only everywhere *locally* invariant.
He may interpret what is happening as a transition in standards of
relative simultaneity between two inertial frames that he uses or he
may interpret it as a gravitational acceleration effect in equivalence
to his rocket boosters kicking in or he may even interpret it as a
doppler effect. The analysis for these can all be done in a way that
they are equivalent.
Sue...
2007-07-10 18:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...

A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Sue...

[...]
W***@aol.com
2007-07-10 20:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
Sue...
2007-07-10 21:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.

Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.

Learn what proper-time is and how to transform imaginaries:
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary

R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034


Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)

Sue...
W***@aol.com
2007-07-11 08:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out. Your concerns about the nature of light then are
completely irrelevent. Watch section one. I explicitly state this

http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE
Sue...
2007-07-11 09:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>

If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.

The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?

or

"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."

<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.



Watch section one. I explicitly state this
http://youtu.be/XYVmUzac44Q


I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.

Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-07-11 09:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Now you're being udderly ridiculous.
Sue...
2007-07-11 10:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Now you're being udderly ridiculous.
I am not going to be BULLied into loading a multimedia
viewer that will just slow my PDP-8 and make
Mission Absurd look like Mission Accomplished.

Any theory that resolves SR's posulates without
considering nearfield retarded time is just
sucking hind teat.

Sue...
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 10:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>
If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.
The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?
or
"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."
<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.
Watch section one. I explicitly state http://youtu.be/yEy7OQiHmtE-
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No light itself has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about such
inferences are simply wrong. It is mere coincidence that photons are
massless particles and therefor just happen to travel at the speed c.
If that wasn't so relativity would remain the same aside from some
changes in vocabulary regarding that speed being the vacuum speed of
light. Light doesn't matter. That the invariant speed in the
transformations happens to be finite, does.
Sue...
2007-07-12 10:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>
If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.
The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?
or
"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."
<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.
Watch section one. I explicitly state

I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No light itself has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about such
inferences are simply wrong. It is mere coincidence that photons are
massless particles and therefor just happen to travel at the speed c.
Where do you get the idea that that photons are particles
traveling in the vacuum ?

http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Post by W***@aol.com
If that wasn't so relativity would remain the same aside from some
changes in vocabulary regarding that speed being the vacuum speed of
light. Light doesn't matter. That the invariant speed in the
transformations happens to be finite, does
In that case let's see your derivation of a Lorentz transform that
uses the speed-of-rumour and tell us what it is good for.

Sue...

.- Hide quoted text -
Post by W***@aol.com
- Show quoted text -
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 15:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>
If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.
The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?
or
"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."
<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.
Watch section one. I explicitly state http://youtu.be/XYVmUzac44Qhttp
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No light itself has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about such
inferences are simply wrong. It is mere coincidence that photons are
massless particles and therefor just happen to travel at the speed c.
Where do you get the idea that that photons are particles
traveling in the vacuum ?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Post by W***@aol.com
If that wasn't so relativity would remain the same aside from some
changes in vocabulary regarding that speed being the vacuum speed of
light. Light doesn't matter. That the invariant speed in the
transformations happens to be finite, does
In that case let's see your derivation of a Lorentz transform that
uses the speed-of-rumour and tell us what it is good for.
Sue...
.- Hide quoted text -
Post by W***@aol.com
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Stop smoke screening. Photons have nothing to do with it.
Sue...
2007-07-12 15:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>
If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.
The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?
or
"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."
<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.
Watch section one. I explicitly state http://youtu.be/XYVmUzac44Qhttp
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No light itself has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about such
inferences are simply wrong. It is mere coincidence that photons are
massless particles and therefor just happen to travel at the speed c.
Where do you get the idea that that photons are particles
traveling in the vacuum ?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.htmlhttp://en.wi...
Post by W***@aol.com
If that wasn't so relativity would remain the same aside from some
changes in vocabulary regarding that speed being the vacuum speed of
light. Light doesn't matter. That the invariant speed in the
transformations happens to be finite, does
In that case let's see your derivation of a Lorentz transform that
uses the speed-of-rumour and tell us what it is good for.
Sue...
Stop smoke screening. Photons have nothing to do with it.- -
After visiing your website I am not even sure wiht "it"
is. I believe your indicated in your first post in this
thread that you think rigourous math should result in
paradox.

You are not offering any physical or mathmatical reason
that should be true and you are showing little insight
to which objects move inertially.

You might want to study a bit more bacic electromagnetism
before investing too much in another version of the
"Missing dollar paradox".

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html


Sue...
- Show quoted text -
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 17:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Post by W***@aol.com
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I assume you mean to ask
if light from the "nasa clocks" moves to the "rocket man's" telescope
at constant velocity.
No...
A bullet moves inertially and has mass.
A wave propagates across a pond and
has no mass.
Post by W***@aol.com
According to the coordinates of any inertial
frame, the answer is yes.
That seems probematic if the speed of
light is dependent on neither the speed of
the emitter nor the speed of the absorber.
Post by W***@aol.com
However at the turn around the rocket man
isn't using an inertial frame.
Let's clear up one issue at a time.
Can you find some support for the light propagaion
model you are using in this article which speifically
discusses some of Einstein's work?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Post by W***@aol.com
Post by Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Inertial mass is resistance to deviation from geodesic motion in GR,
the m in the four-vector equation F = mA. Inertial in this context
refers to being able to be assigned and inertial frame, or in other
words not accelerated and has nothing to do with having inertial mass.
Wave-particle duality is not relevent to the topic at hand.
You are claiming to support a preopstrous notion
about ageing twins with a light propagtion model
that has failed numerous considerations by the
physics community. It is your calculations that
are irrelevant.
Your faulty assumptions are discussed here:http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
It is quite a leap of faith to accept your notion
of anomalous aging twins solely on the basis
of a cesium and a Mossbauer oscillator that
slows with proximity to a planet. My wrist
watch slows in an oven but I don't sleep their
and expect to will live longer.
<< if you know about complex numbers you will
notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry -
that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative
to time. >>http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.htmlhttp://e...
Here is the correct way to resolve SR's postulates.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<< Light itself has nothing to do with it. >>
If both twins have a common view of Jupiter's moons
then light has a lot to do with it.
The result of your trasforms implies that Io can
hide orbits from one twin but display them to
the other. Aburd notion, Eh ?
Post by W***@aol.com
Einstein's second postulate
needn't even reference light.
It certaintly must.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Post by W***@aol.com
All one needs is to consider the
possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
needs for the postulates of relativity light itself can be left
completely out.
How do think a spatial/temporal translation is derived
in a Lorentz transformation ? Speed of rumours?
or
"Dairy farmer's don't need gorvernment protection because
we can get all the milk we want at the grocer."
<< Your concerns about the nature of light then are completely
irrelevent.
Watch section one. I explicitly state http://youtu.be/XYVmUzac44Qhttp
I would have to use light to watch it and you contend
light is irrelevant. I think I'll milk a cow instead.
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No light itself has nothing to do with it. Your assumptions about such
inferences are simply wrong. It is mere coincidence that photons are
massless particles and therefor just happen to travel at the speed c.
Where do you get the idea that that photons are particles
traveling in the vacuum ?
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.htmlhttp://en.wi...
Post by W***@aol.com
If that wasn't so relativity would remain the same aside from some
changes in vocabulary regarding that speed being the vacuum speed of
light. Light doesn't matter. That the invariant speed in the
transformations happens to be finite, does
In that case let's see your derivation of a Lorentz transform that
uses the speed-of-rumour and tell us what it is good for.
Sue...
Stop smoke screening. Photons have nothing to do with it.- -
After visiing your website I am not even sure wiht "it"
is. I believe your indicated in your first post in this
thread that you think rigourous math should result in
paradox.
You are not offering any physical or mathmatical reason
that should be true and you are showing little insight
to which objects move inertially.
You might want to study a bit more bacic electromagnetism
before investing too much in another version of the
"Missing dollar paradox".
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Sue...
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Saying as you think elementary algebra and integration of one variable
is rigorous math, you obviously don't have the background to suggest
what a master like myself needs.

Androcles
2007-07-11 11:43:58 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

: Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
: needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
: needs for the postulates of relativity


Einstein's third postulate:

"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "


Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
W***@aol.com
2007-07-11 17:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
: needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
: needs for the postulates of relativity
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
There is no third postulate moron.
Androcles
2007-07-11 17:55:27 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 11, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:***@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
: > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
: > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: >
: > Einstein's third postulate:
: >
: > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel
from A
: > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: >
: > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
:
: There is no third postulate moron.

Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A " and it's
not a postulate.
Got it, FUCKHEAD.



:
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 00:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: >
: >
: > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
: > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
: > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: >
: >
: > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel
from A
: > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: >
: > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: There is no third postulate moron.
Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time required by
light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to
A " and it's
not a postulate.
Got it, FUCKHEAD.
You're the one saying it was the third postulate moron and I never
said who wrote it.
Androcles
2007-07-12 11:15:30 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 11, 10:55 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:***@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Jul 11, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote:: >
<***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : >news:***@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second
postulate
: > : > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: > : > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions
one
: > : > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: > : >
: > : > Einstein's third postulate:
: > : >
: > : > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to
travel
: > from A
: > : > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: > : >
: > : > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: > :
: > : There is no third postulate moron.
: >
: > Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time required
by
: > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B
to
: > A " and it's
: > not a postulate.
: > Got it, FUCKHEAD.
: >
:
: You're the one saying it was the third postulate

Yes, I did say that because it is Einstein's third postulate upon which
he depends to derive the cuckoo malformations, fuckhead.

Which you claim doesn't exist, you STOOOPID fuck!
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 15:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: >
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second
postulate
: > : > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: > : > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions
one
: > : > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to
travel
: > from A
: > : > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: > : >
: > : > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: > : There is no third postulate moron.
: >
: > Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time required
by
: > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B
to
: > A " and it's
: > not a postulate.
: > Got it, FUCKHEAD.
: >
: You're the one saying it was the third postulate
Yes, I did say that because it is Einstein's third postulate upon which
he depends to derive the cuckoo malformations, fuckhead.
Which you claim doesn't exist, you STOOOPID fuck!
You keep changing your mind moron, and I don't care whether or not he
originally used it. I am telling you that it can be done without any
such assumption.
Androcles
2007-07-12 15:54:41 UTC
Permalink
<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 12, 4:15 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:***@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Jul 11, 10:55 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote:: >
<***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : >news:***@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : On Jul 11, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:: ><***@aol.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >news:***@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second
: > postulate
: > : > : > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : > : > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : > : > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein
was
: > : > : > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal
assumptions
: > one
: > : > : > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Einstein's third postulate:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to
: > travel
: > : > from A
: > : > : > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: > : > :
: > : > : There is no third postulate moron.
: > : >
: > : > Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time
required
: > by
: > : > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel
from B
: > to
: > : > A " and it's
: > : > not a postulate.
: > : > Got it, FUCKHEAD.
: > : >
: > :
: > : You're the one saying it was the third postulate
: >
: > Yes, I did say that because it is Einstein's third postulate upon which
: > he depends to derive the cuckoo malformations, fuckhead.
: >
: > Which you claim doesn't exist, you STOOOPID fuck!
:
: You keep changing your mind moron,

Look, fuckhead, Einstein said "we establish by definition that the time
required
by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B
to A" and YOU are the stupid bastard that said it wasn't a postulate.



: and I don't care whether or not he
: originally used it. I am telling you that it can be done without any
: such assumption.

Go on then, fuckhead. Let's see you do it.
Derive the cuckoo malformations from first principles, shit for brains.
Put your fuckin' stupid head in a noose, Mr. Smarter-than-Einstein.
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 17:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: >
: >
: > : >
: >
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second
: > postulate
: > : > : > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : > : > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : > : > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein
was
: > : > : > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal
assumptions
: > one
: > : > : > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to
: > travel
: > : > from A
: > : > : > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: > : > : There is no third postulate moron.
: > : >
: > : > Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time
required
: > by
: > : > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel
from B
: > to
: > : > A " and it's
: > : > not a postulate.
: > : > Got it, FUCKHEAD.
: > : >
: > : You're the one saying it was the third postulate
: >
: > Yes, I did say that because it is Einstein's third postulate upon which
: > he depends to derive the cuckoo malformations, fuckhead.
: >
: > Which you claim doesn't exist, you STOOOPID fuck!
: You keep changing your mind moron,
Look, fuckhead, Einstein said "we establish by definition that the time
required
by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B
to A" and YOU are the stupid bastard that said it wasn't a postulate.
: and I don't care whether or not he
: originally used it. I am telling you that it can be done without any
: such assumption.
Go on then, fuckhead. Let's see you do it.
Derive the cuckoo malformations from first principles, shit for brains.
Put your fuckin' stupid head in a noose, Mr. Smarter-than-Einstein.
I already did go read the site this time moron.
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/prob1.htm
If you didn't know how to do that as it is a chapter one section one
level problem for special relativity then you really have nothing to
say concerning these matters.
Jeckyl
2007-07-11 23:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second postulate
: needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions one
: needs for the postulates of relativity
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
Why do you find it so hard to believe ?
Shubee
2007-07-10 04:56:49 UTC
Permalink
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
c***@optusnet.com.au
2007-07-10 06:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
When I read that initial posting I responded with several comments
relating to its asininity. The traveller could obliterate all life on
the planet using his gas pedal.

I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.

Bill
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 07:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
The stay-at-home twin ages at the usual rate .. as he does not move in his
initial rest frame (he must be very patient, waiting for his twin to return)
the rate of time doesn't change for him.

Of course .. from the point of view of the travelling-twin, he doesn't
notice time in the spaceship being any different .. he will perceive that
his stay-at-home twin just got really old.

[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 08:13:49 UTC
Permalink
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall. But it
can be amusing.

If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.

But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !

And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection. In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?

Read http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm and watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
Sue...
2007-07-10 08:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
The stay-at-home twin ages at the usual rate .. as he does not move in his
initial rest frame (he must be very patient, waiting for his twin to return)
the rate of time doesn't change for him.
Of course .. from the point of view of the travelling-twin, he doesn't
notice time in the spaceship being any different .. he will perceive that
his stay-at-home twin just got really old.
Jecky is an expert in the biological processes of
hair growth and skin wrinkling. His opinion is so
highly regarded in this field that NPL and NIST
frequenty call on his services to calibrate standard
clocks by the elephant skin and orangutan beard
method. :o)

<<
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and
advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known
about nature. They not only provide no evidence that their
claims are true. They also ignore all findings that
contradict their conclusions. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
[unsnip]
<< When I read that initial posting I responded with several comments
relating to its asininity. The traveller could obliterate all life on
the planet using his gas pedal.

I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it. >>

Yep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute
Post by Jeckyl
Which particular nonsense is that?
Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 09:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Jecky is an expert in the biological processes of
hair growth and skin wrinkling. His opinion is so
highly regarded in this field that NPL and NIST
frequenty call on his services to calibrate standard
clocks by the elephant skin and orangutan beard
method. :o)
Indeed .. some call me Father Time :)

Oh .. and we use oranutan bums .. not their beards.
c***@optusnet.com.au
2007-07-10 23:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
That a space traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but
that his earth-bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only
during the period of acceleration following turn around.

Bill
Sue...
2007-07-11 07:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
That a space traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but
that his earth-bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only
during the period of acceleration following turn around.
Jecky and cosmo each have hand held counters.
Cosmo takes a voyage. Jeckly stays home.

Cosmo increments his counter when Jupite'rs
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiters surface.

Jeckyl increments his counter when Jupiter's
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiter's surface.

Is there any case for differential ageing if these counters
agree at reunion? How could they disagree?

Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Bill
Sue...
2007-07-11 07:20:52 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 11, 4:01 am, "Sue..." <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Historical note:
<< On August 23, 1806, Pike camped with the
Osage Amerindians in their villages near the
Kansas-Missouri border. On that day he wrote
in his journal, "Took equal altitudes and a meridional
altitude of the Sun, but owing to flying clouds,
missed the immersion of Jupiter's satellites."
In the middle of what Pike would later call "the
great American Desert," surrounded by hostile
Amerindians, hundreds of kilometers from civilization,
he was looking through a telescope. Isn't this rather
strange behavior for a rugged adventurer? Actually
no, for Pike was doing what explorers had been
doing for over 100 years: He was using Jupiter's
moons to determine his longitude. >>
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_03/jupiter.html

Sue...


[...]
Post by Sue...
Is there any case for differential ageing if these counters
agree at reunion? How could they disagree?
Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-07-11 08:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
That a space traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but
that his earth-bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only
during the period of acceleration following turn around.
Jecky and cosmo each have hand held counters.
Cosmo takes a voyage. Jeckly stays home.
Cosmo increments his counter when Jupite'rs
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiters surface.
Jeckyl increments his counter when Jupiter's
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiter's surface.
Is there any case for differential ageing if these counters
agree at reunion? How could they disagree?
Because there is a different durations of time between the counters for the
two travellers.

BTW: Why am I the poor bunny who has to stay at home and grow old .. I want
to go to Jupiter and back !!
Sue...
2007-07-11 09:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
That a space traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but
that his earth-bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only
during the period of acceleration following turn around.
Jecky and cosmo each have hand held counters.
Cosmo takes a voyage. Jeckly stays home.
Cosmo increments his counter when Jupite'rs
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiters surface.
Jeckyl increments his counter when Jupiter's
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiter's surface.
Is there any case for differential ageing if these counters
agree at reunion? How could they disagree?
Because there is a different durations of time between the counters for the
two travellers.
No clocks were even mentioned. Both are on
Jovian lunar time. Cosmo can correct for
doppler if he doesn't like infrequent meals departing
and too frequent meals returning.
Post by Jeckyl
BTW: Why am I the poor bunny who has to stay at home and grow old .. I want
to go to Jupiter and back !!-

Choices have consequences. You shudda tho't
of that when you passed on the jazzy screen-names
like Stella, Cosmo and Travis. 'Who is goiing to
trust a Jeckyl that might Hyde the data...
...or the orbit count?

Sue...
Jeckyl
2007-07-11 09:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue...
Post by Jeckyl
Post by Sue...
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Jeckyl
[snip]
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
Which particular nonsense is that?
That a space traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but
that his earth-bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only
during the period of acceleration following turn around.
Jecky and cosmo each have hand held counters.
Cosmo takes a voyage. Jeckly stays home.
Cosmo increments his counter when Jupite'rs
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiters surface.
Jeckyl increments his counter when Jupiter's
moon Io is directly over a landmark on Jupiter's surface.
Is there any case for differential ageing if these counters
agree at reunion? How could they disagree?
Because there is a different durations of time between the counters for the
two travellers.
No clocks were even mentioned.
I didn't mention clocks either.
Post by Sue...
Both are on Jovian lunar time. Cosmo can correct for
doppler if he doesn't like infrequent meals departing
and too frequent meals returning.
Post by Jeckyl
BTW: Why am I the poor bunny who has to stay at home and grow old .. I want
to go to Jupiter and back !!-
Choices have consequences. You shudda tho't
of that when you passed on the jazzy screen-names
like Stella, Cosmo and Travis. 'Who is goiing to
trust a Jeckyl that might Hyde the data...
...or the orbit count?
:):)
jem
2007-07-10 13:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Shubee
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
When I read that initial posting I responded with several comments
relating to its asininity. The traveller could obliterate all life on
the planet using his gas pedal.
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
It's only believed by the kooks - you know, the kind of people who
support nonsense like "an hour contains 60 minutes".
kenseto
2007-07-10 13:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jem
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Shubee
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
When I read that initial posting I responded with several comments
relating to its asininity. The traveller could obliterate all life on
the planet using his gas pedal.
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
It's only believed by the kooks - you know, the kind of people who
support nonsense like "an hour contains 60 minutes".
So Paul you don't believe that "an hour contains 60 minutes".????
jem
2007-07-10 13:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by jem
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Shubee
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
When I read that initial posting I responded with several comments
relating to its asininity. The traveller could obliterate all life on
the planet using his gas pedal.
I merely wanted to know if the people who supported this nonsense at
the time still believed it.
It's only believed by the kooks - you know, the kind of people who
support nonsense like "an hour contains 60 minutes".
So Paul you don't believe that "an hour contains 60 minutes".????
No, Jack, I happen to be one of those kooks who do believe it.
Surfer
2007-07-10 08:28:58 UTC
Permalink
... the acceleration time for the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Which would seem to suggest that the slower aging of the traveling
twin must be a real dynamical effect of motion relative to a physical
substratum of space.

That is, although it can be mathematically modeled as the result of
a "geometric projection" of the twins onto different coordinate
systems, that does not seem adequate to explain the permanent physical
consequences.


-- Surfer
harry
2007-07-10 12:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
... the acceleration time for the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
Which would seem to suggest that the slower aging of the traveling
twin must be a real dynamical effect of motion relative to a physical
substratum of space.
That is, although it can be mathematically modeled as the result of
a "geometric projection" of the twins onto different coordinate
systems, that does not seem adequate to explain the permanent physical
consequences.
Yup. Mathematics should not be confused with physics. The problem with the
"geometric projection" is that it mixes space and time; it's therefore only
acceptable as *physical* model for those who claim that space is time - but
that does not seem tenable.

Harald
jem
2007-07-10 13:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
That can't possibly be right because the acceleration time for
the traveling twin can be made arbitrarily small.
LOL (Lack of Logic)
harry
2007-07-10 08:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
messy. See for example a discussion of a few years back:
http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv

Cheers,
Harald
Pentcho Valev
2007-07-10 08:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv
The reference is good: there is a quotation in it that shows how
students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign are converted
into zombies:

Tom Roberts: "Physics is LOCAL -- don't worry how the distant twin is
aging during the trip; all that can be tested experimentally is the
comparison of their clocks when they rejoin; compute that correctly
and be happy."

Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation:

http://www.iit.edu/~bcps/database/search.cgi/Roberts/T/Physics/:/frontend/faculty/faculty_web_page

Pentcho Valev
Shubee
2007-07-10 13:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by harry
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv
The reference is good: there is a quotation in it that shows how
students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign are converted
Tom Roberts: "Physics is LOCAL -- don't worry how the distant twin is
aging during the trip; all that can be tested experimentally is the
comparison of their clocks when they rejoin; compute that correctly
and be happy."
The students aren't being converted into zombies. The professor is
merely instructing them on how to believe in a perfect mathematical
fantasy.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Pentcho Valev
2007-07-10 13:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by harry
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv
The reference is good: there is a quotation in it that shows how
students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign are converted
Tom Roberts: "Physics is LOCAL -- don't worry how the distant twin is
aging during the trip; all that can be tested experimentally is the
comparison of their clocks when they rejoin; compute that correctly
and be happy."
The students aren't being converted into zombies. The professor is
merely instructing them on how to believe in a perfect mathematical
fantasy....
and so converts them into zombies. But I made a mistake - Tom Roberts
does not convert students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign into zombies. Rather, he converts students at Illinois
Institute of Technology, Department of Biological, Chemical, and
Physical Sciences, into zombies:

http://www.iit.edu/~bcps/database/search.cgi/:/frontend/index

But he will convert all University students into zombies sooner or
later - nothing can stop him.

Pentcho Valev
The_Man
2007-07-10 19:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by Shubee
Post by Pentcho Valev
Post by harry
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv
The reference is good: there is a quotation in it that shows how
students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign are converted
Tom Roberts: "Physics is LOCAL -- don't worry how the distant twin is
aging during the trip; all that can be tested experimentally is the
comparison of their clocks when they rejoin; compute that correctly
and be happy."
The students aren't being converted into zombies. The professor is
merely instructing them on how to believe in a perfect mathematical
fantasy....
and so converts them into zombies. But I made a mistake - Tom Roberts
does not convert students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign into zombies. Rather, he converts students at Illinois
Institute of Technology, Department of Biological, Chemical, and
http://www.iit.edu/~bcps/database/search.cgi/:/frontend/index
But he will convert all University students into zombies sooner or
later - nothing can stop him.
The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign is one of the best
schools in the U.S. (and the world). What is your highest level of
education? Do you lie about your academic qualifications like
Androcles does?
Post by Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Shubee
2007-07-10 12:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
No. That idea may stem from Einstein's 1918 GRT solution of the twin
paradox, but it is not widely accepted: "induced gravitational fields" are
messy. See for example a discussion of a few years back:http://tinyurl.com/2mu4jv
Cheers,
Harald
In other words, Einstein demonstrated very clearly that he didn't know
how to resolve the twin paradox in that relatively unknown, unusual
and rarely cited paper written in 1918.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 08:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall. But it
can be amusing.

If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.


But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !

And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection. In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?

Read http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm and watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such a the Twins Paradox.
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 08:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall. But it
can be amusing.

If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
since all is relative, for your clock actually has not changed at
all.


But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !

And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection. In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?

Read http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm and watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such as the Twins Paradox.
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 08:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by THE_ONE
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall.
You just need to understand it.
Post by THE_ONE
But it can be amusing.
Indeed
Post by THE_ONE
If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
No .. you don't. (ignoring acceleration and gravity) All moving clocks
appear slower to all stationary clocks .. no matter which clock you take as
stationary
Post by THE_ONE
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.
Changed relative to what? To your frame of reference, then no.
Post by THE_ONE
But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !
Fortunately that law has never been passed.
Post by THE_ONE
And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection.
Well .. you're the one rejecting it .. so I guess you'll need to see a
psychologist to work that out
Post by THE_ONE
In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?
Amazing .. and what system would that be that is so silly as to reject any
truths?
Post by THE_ONE
Read http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm and watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such a the Twins Paradox.
Yes .. it possible to have absolute garbage and still end up with the right
answers. That doesn't mean that it isn't garbage.
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 09:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall.
You just need to understand it.
Post by THE_ONE
But it can be amusing.
Indeed
Post by THE_ONE
If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
No .. you don't. (ignoring acceleration and gravity) All moving clocks
appear slower to all stationary clocks .. no matter which clock you take as
stationary
Post by THE_ONE
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.
Changed relative to what? To your frame of reference, then no.
Post by THE_ONE
But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !
Fortunately that law has never been passed.
Post by THE_ONE
And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection.
Well .. you're the one rejecting it .. so I guess you'll need to see a
psychologist to work that out
Post by THE_ONE
In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?
Amazing .. and what system would that be that is so silly as to reject any
truths?
Post by THE_ONE
Readhttp://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htmand watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such a the Twins Paradox.
Yes .. it possible to have absolute garbage and still end up with the right
answers. That doesn't mean that it isn't garbage.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh. That's funny !

Yes, you are quite correct, SR is absolute garbage.

I present the foundation that produces the ...

1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation

... equations, but everyone is quite happy to accept SR, which reveals
no foundation at all.

Yep, that's fuuny !
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 09:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by THE_ONE
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall.
You just need to understand it.
Post by THE_ONE
But it can be amusing.
Indeed
Post by THE_ONE
If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
No .. you don't. (ignoring acceleration and gravity) All moving clocks
appear slower to all stationary clocks .. no matter which clock you take as
stationary
Post by THE_ONE
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.
Changed relative to what? To your frame of reference, then no.
Post by THE_ONE
But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !
Fortunately that law has never been passed.
Post by THE_ONE
And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection.
Well .. you're the one rejecting it .. so I guess you'll need to see a
psychologist to work that out
Post by THE_ONE
In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?
Amazing .. and what system would that be that is so silly as to reject any
truths?
Post by THE_ONE
Readhttp://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htmand watch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such a the Twins Paradox.
Yes .. it possible to have absolute garbage and still end up with the right
answers. That doesn't mean that it isn't garbage.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh. That's funny !
Yes, you are quite correct, SR is absolute garbage.
No .. that constant motion stuff is .. absolute crap:
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 09:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by THE_ONE
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
The entire nonsense about relativity drives me up the wall.
You just need to understand it.
Post by THE_ONE
But it can be amusing.
Indeed
Post by THE_ONE
If even time is a relative thing, then if ones clock is ticking slower
than another's for what ever reason, then you have, thanks to
relativity, sped up everyone else's clocks across the entire universe,
No .. you don't. (ignoring acceleration and gravity) All moving clocks
appear slower to all stationary clocks .. no matter which clock you take as
stationary
Post by THE_ONE
since all is relative, for your clock actual has not changed at all.
Changed relative to what? To your frame of reference, then no.
Post by THE_ONE
But you also have to understand that if you come up with a theory
concerning the mechanics of reality, and it produces equations such
as .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... then it MUST be reject completely. That is the law of today !
Fortunately that law has never been passed.
Post by THE_ONE
And so it is necessary to understand what kind of mentality exists
today that is required to draw such an intense form of rejection.
Well .. you're the one rejecting it .. so I guess you'll need to see a
psychologist to work that out
Post by THE_ONE
In
short, todays system insists absolutely that all TRUTHS must be
rejected and banned. It is amazing isn't it ?
Amazing .. and what system would that be that is so silly as to reject any
truths?
Post by THE_ONE
Readhttp://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htmandwatch
how your mind rejects every single word even though the outcome leads
to .....
1) The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation,
2) The Time Dilation Equation,
3) The Lorentz Transformation Equations, and
4) The Velocity addition Equation
.... and how it shows at the bottom of the page the " C " dome that
helps clarify problems such a the Twins Paradox.
Yes .. it possible to have absolute garbage and still end up with the right
answers. That doesn't mean that it isn't garbage.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh. That's funny !
Yes, you are quite correct, SR is absolute garbage.
No .. that constant motion stuff is .. absolute crap:http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are partially correct, it is " Absolute " !
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 09:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by THE_ONE
Post by THE_ONE
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
You are partially correct, it is " Absolute " !
Constant motion of the bowel gives you a continuum of absolute crap.
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 10:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
Post by THE_ONE
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
You are partially correct, it is " Absolute " !
Constant motion of the bowel gives you a continuum of absolute crap.
If the shit hits the fan, it may seem as through the magnitude of the
motion of the stool has changed, however, the fan has simply changed
its direction of travel across the open four dimensions of Space-
Time.

Or, for instance, if a stool flies out of your butt faster than usual,
it simply means that you have used your internal muscles to change the
direction of travel of the your stool, which is in motion across Space-
Time, a tad more than you usially do.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 10:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
Post by THE_ONE
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
You are partially correct, it is " Absolute " !
Constant motion of the bowel gives you a continuum of absolute crap.
If the shit hits the fan, it may seem as through the magnitude of the
motion of the stool has changed, however, the fan has simply changed
its direction of travel across the open four dimensions of Space-
Time.

Or, for instance, if a stool flies out of your butt faster than usual,
it simply means that you have used your internal muscles to change the
direction of travel of the your stool, which is in motion across Space-
Time, a tad more than you usually do.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
THE_ONE
2007-07-10 10:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeckyl
Post by THE_ONE
Post by THE_ONE
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
You are partially correct, it is " Absolute " !
Constant motion of the bowel gives you a continuum of absolute crap.
If the shit hits the fan, it may seem as through the magnitude of the
motion of the stool has changed, however, the fan has simply changed
the stool's direction of travel across the open four dimensions of
Space-Time.

Or, for instance, if a stool flies out of your butt faster than usual,
it simply means that you have used your internal muscles to change the
direction of travel of your stool, which is in motion across Space-
Time, a tad more than you usually do.

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm
Martin Hogbin
2007-07-10 08:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.

Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.

According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.



--
Martin Hogbin
Pentcho Valev
2007-07-10 08:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Hogbin
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
Try to find places where hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult say the
greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the acceleration
he undergoes and places where other (or even the same) hypnotists say
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with
the acceleration. You may even find a place where a hypnotist say both
truths simultaneously.

Pentcho Valev
Androcles
2007-07-10 11:56:58 UTC
Permalink
"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: Martin Hogbin wrote:
: > <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:***@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
: > > When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
: > > expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
: > > traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
: > > bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
: > > of acceleration following turn around.
: > >
: > > Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
: > > reviewed journal?
: >
: > I do not quite understand your question but there is only
: > one theory of space and time that has been taught and
: > used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
: > century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
: >
: > Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
: > published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
: > completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
: > like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
: >
: > According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
: > found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
: > they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
: > measured by the other twin during the journey is
: > described in many places and web sites. If you are
: > interested I will try to find one for you.
:
: Try to find places where hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult say the
: greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the acceleration
: he undergoes and places where other (or even the same) hypnotists say
: the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with
: the acceleration. You may even find a place where a hypnotist say both
: truths simultaneously.
:
Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
Pentcho Valev
2007-07-10 12:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: > > When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
: > > expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
: > > traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
: > > bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
: > > of acceleration following turn around.
: > >
: > > Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
: > > reviewed journal?
: >
: > I do not quite understand your question but there is only
: > one theory of space and time that has been taught and
: > used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
: > century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
: >
: > Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
: > published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
: > completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
: > like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
: >
: > According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
: > found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
: > they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
: > measured by the other twin during the journey is
: > described in many places and web sites. If you are
: > interested I will try to find one for you.
: Try to find places where hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult say the
: greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the acceleration
: he undergoes and places where other (or even the same) hypnotists say
: the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with
: the acceleration. You may even find a place where a hypnotist say both
: truths simultaneously.
Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
No.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2007-07-10 15:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: > > When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
: > > expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
: > > traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
: > > bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
: > > of acceleration following turn around.
: > >
: > > Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
: > > reviewed journal?
: >
: > I do not quite understand your question but there is only
: > one theory of space and time that has been taught and
: > used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
: > century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
: >
: > Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
: > published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
: > completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
: > like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
: >
: > According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
: > found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
: > they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
: > measured by the other twin during the journey is
: > described in many places and web sites. If you are
: > interested I will try to find one for you.
: Try to find places where hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult say the
: greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the acceleration
: he undergoes and places where other (or even the same) hypnotists say
: the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with
: the acceleration. You may even find a place where a hypnotist say both
: truths simultaneously.
Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
No.
By the way, guess who is the Albert Einstein of our generation
teaching both truths simultaneously (I am still not sure whether it is
hypnotism or lobotomy):

A 2004 discussion in sci.physics.relativity:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c51c3061f6a083e6?
Tom Roberts: The problem with your first two statements is they are
not specified precisely enough to have a definite answer.
1. The travelling twin is younger because he undergoes acceleration.
Tom Roberts: Well, sort of. A better way of stating this is that the
traveling twin is younger because he did not follow a geodesic path
while her inertial twin did. But a necessary ingredient of his
following a non-geodesic path is that he accelerates somewhere. The
point is, the elapsed proper time of a path is an integral over the
PATH, not the acceleration. One can arrange a situation for 2 clocks
which follow trajectories that periodically meet, in which the clock
with the larger proper acceleration also has the larger elapsed proper
time betwen meetings.
2. The acceleration can be neglected and yet calculations based on
uniform motion show that the travelling twin is younger.
Tom Roberts: I'm not sure what you mean by "the acceleration can be
neglected". I'm guessing that you mean the "3-clock approach", in
which the "traveling twin" is replaced by two inertial clocks that
meet at his nominal turning point, and the time is transferred when
they meet -- one clock is his outbound trip and the second is his
return trip. This way there is no acceleration, but one time
measurement takes an out-and-back trip and the other measurement
remains at home (in an inertial frame). Yes, for that 3-clock approach
the traveling 2 clocks show a total elapsed proper time less than the
inertial clock. The point is, the elapsed proper time of a path is an
integral over the PATH, not the acceleration.
3. Special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox - only general
relativity can.
Tom Roberts: This was thought to be true a long time ago, by Einstein
and others. It is now known to be false. SR can be used to compute any
measurement in this situation, because it occurs in Minkowski
spacetime (i.e. there is no curvature present).
________________________________
[end of the 2004 discussion]

Pentcho Valev
Androcles
2007-07-10 16:55:14 UTC
Permalink
"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:
: Androcles wrote:
: > "Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
: > : Martin Hogbin wrote:
: > : > <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:***@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
: > : > > When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
: > : > > expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
: > : > > traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his
earth-
: > : > > bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the
period
: > : > > of acceleration following turn around.
: > : > >
: > : > > Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
: > : > > reviewed journal?
: > : >
: > : > I do not quite understand your question but there is only
: > : > one theory of space and time that has been taught and
: > : > used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
: > : > century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
: > : >
: > : > Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
: > : > published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
: > : > completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
: > : > like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
: > : >
: > : > According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
: > : > found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
: > : > they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
: > : > measured by the other twin during the journey is
: > : > described in many places and web sites. If you are
: > : > interested I will try to find one for you.
: > :
: > : Try to find places where hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult say the
: > : greater youthfulness of the travelling twin is due to the acceleration
: > : he undergoes and places where other (or even the same) hypnotists say
: > : the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with
: > : the acceleration. You may even find a place where a hypnotist say both
: > : truths simultaneously.
: > :
: > Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
:
: No.
:
: Pentcho Valev

Know what you mean. I'm still uncertain whether Einstein
was an extremely cunning and clever charlatan or a raving loonie.
"Idiot savant" comes to mind.
Martin Hogbin
2007-07-10 21:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
: > Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
: No.
: Pentcho Valev
Know what you mean. I'm still uncertain whether Einstein
was an extremely cunning and clever charlatan or a raving loonie.
"Idiot savant" comes to mind.
Looks like you have found a friend, Androcles.



--
Martin Hogbin
Androcles
2007-07-11 00:47:36 UTC
Permalink
"Martin Hogbin" <***@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:f9-***@bt.com...
:
: "Androcles" <***@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:SROki.633$***@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:***@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > :
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > Are you sure it's hypnotism and not lobotomy?
: > :
: > : No.
: > :
: > : Pentcho Valev
: >
: > Know what you mean. I'm still uncertain whether Einstein
: > was an extremely cunning and clever charlatan or a raving loonie.
: > "Idiot savant" comes to mind.
:
: Looks like you have found a friend, Androcles.

Looks like the straw is bent and broken, Pigbin.
Loading Image...


Looks like you are a moron, Pigbin, but then, looks can sometimes
be deceptive. Not so in your case, though.

All you Einstein Dingleberry cranks rely on "looks like", "seems like",
"could be", "might be" for argument and never offer a shred of
proof of what IS.
Sue...
2007-07-10 09:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Hogbin
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
That is a fantastic statement for a bright chap like Einstein
to make. If he ever made it surely the ever persistent
world wide web has it archived somewhere.

Can you please provide an exerpt and URL?

Sue...
Post by Martin Hogbin
--
Martin Hogbin
Shubee
2007-07-10 12:31:44 UTC
Permalink
I ... was informed that a space traveller does not physically
age at a slower rate but that his earth-bound twin physically
ages at a faster rate and only during the period of
acceleration following turn around.
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any
peer reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
--
Martin Hogbin
The question is this: Since the time to accelerate for the traveling
twin can be made arbitrarily small, why do the twins age
asymmetrically? The questioner is not satisfied with the answer,
"because that's what the equations of special relativity imply." The
questioner is focused on the seeming contradiction of the unresolved
riddle that says that each twin sees the clock of the other twin run
slow.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Mike Fontenot
2007-07-11 19:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shubee
The
questioner is focused on the seeming contradiction of the unresolved
riddle that says that each twin sees the clock of the other twin run
slow.
It is NOT true that each twin concludes that the other twin ages more
slowly DURING THE ENTIRE JOURNEY. That IS true for the home twin,
but the traveling twin only comes to that conclusion during the two
constant-speed portions of his trip. During his turnaround, the
traveler concludes that his twin ages FASTER than he is ageing. The
TOTAL amount of ageing of the home twin during the entire trip is
greater than the traveler's ageing, and BOTH travelers get the same
answer for that.

For an example with 1g accelerations, see my web page:

http://home.comcast.net/~mlfasf

Mike Fontenot
W***@aol.com
2007-07-12 00:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Fontenot
Post by Shubee
The
questioner is focused on the seeming contradiction of the unresolved
riddle that says that each twin sees the clock of the other twin run
slow.
It is NOT true that each twin concludes that the other twin ages more
slowly DURING THE ENTIRE JOURNEY. That IS true for the home twin,
but the traveling twin only comes to that conclusion during the two
constant-speed portions of his trip. During his turnaround, the
traveler concludes that his twin ages FASTER than he is ageing. The
TOTAL amount of ageing of the home twin during the entire trip is
greater than the traveler's ageing, and BOTH travelers get the same
answer for that.
http://home.comcast.net/~mlfasf
Mike Fontenot
Why are you hung up on constant proper acceleration problems. Just use
my transformation equations for arbitrary accelerations.
Surfer
2007-07-10 14:31:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:46:08 +0100, "Martin Hogbin"
Post by Martin Hogbin
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted.
That may have been the case, but recent papers show that aspects of
the theory are now being seriously questioned.

"On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity"
Vasco Guerra and Rodrigo de Abreu
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

"Can relativity be considered complete ? From Newtonian nonlocality to
quantum nonlocality and beyond"
Nicolas Gisin
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512168

Cosmic quantum measurement
Ian C. Percival
Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond. A456 (2000) 25-37
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811089

The Copernican Principle in Compact Spacetimes
Authors: John D. Barrow, Janna Levin (DAMTP)
Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 346 (2003) 615
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304038

"From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window
for a preferred frame"
Physics Letters A 333 (2004) 355
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410245

"'Dark Matter' as a Quantum Foam In-Flow Effect"
Reginald T. Cahill
Trends in Dark Matter Research, ed. J. Val Blain, Nova Science Pub. NY
2005
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405147
harry
2007-07-10 14:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:46:08 +0100, "Martin Hogbin"
[...]
Post by Surfer
"Can relativity be considered complete ? From Newtonian nonlocality to
quantum nonlocality and beyond"
Nicolas Gisin
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512168
Thanks for that link, I'll read it. :-)
Harald
Koobee Wublee
2007-07-10 20:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Hogbin
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
He meant there are so many different resolutions to the twin's
paradox. Each resolution is contradicting the others. Since all are
under the concept of SR, when you embrace one, you must find reasons
to reject the others, and this obvious has not been done. There goes
so much for peers review. hanson is going to get a laugh out of this
one.
Post by Martin Hogbin
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
Well, crackpots have been pulling out resolutions to the twin's
paradox out of their *ss since Langevin first identified the
mathematical absurdity of the Lorentz transform as the twin's paradox
in 1911.
Post by Martin Hogbin
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
The twin's paradox is manifestation of the combination of the time
dilation and the principle of relativity. The Lorentz transform
indicates both phenomena. You cannot shrug away the twin's paradox
like all these crackpots since the time of the nitwit Einstein.
<shrug>
c***@optusnet.com.au
2007-07-10 23:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Hogbin
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
My question is - does the claim that the traveller does not age at the
slower rate but that his twin ages at a faster rate and only during
the ships period of acceleration following turn around still have any
support?

On the basis of a lack of responses to the positive so far it seems
that it does not.
Post by Martin Hogbin
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
If there was no dissent there would be no progress.Several authors
have accepted that special theory may eventually be replaced.
Post by Martin Hogbin
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
--
Martin Hogbin
Thanks Martin, although, as you point out, the respective ageing of
the twins during the journey has several interpretations perhaps you
could let me know of one that has been completely accepted by the
scientific community?
Preferably one that is presented in everyday language and is not
reliant on mathematical equations.

I'm trying to find one that makes sense.

Bill
harry
2007-07-11 07:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
Post by Martin Hogbin
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
I do not quite understand your question but there is only
one theory of space and time that has been taught and
used by physicists throughout the world for nearly a
century and that is Einstein's theory of relativity.
My question is - does the claim that the traveller does not age at the
slower rate but that his twin ages at a faster rate and only during
the ships period of acceleration following turn around still have any
support?
On the basis of a lack of responses to the positive so far it seems
that it does not.
Post by Martin Hogbin
Various aspects of relativity have, of course, been
published in peer-reviewed journals and the theory is
completely accepted. The only dissent is in places
like this newsgroup where any crackpot is free to post.
If there was no dissent there would be no progress.Several authors
have accepted that special theory may eventually be replaced.
Post by Martin Hogbin
According to relativity, the earthbound twin will be
found to have aged more than the travelling twin when
they meet up again. How the aging of each twin is
measured by the other twin during the journey is
described in many places and web sites. If you are
interested I will try to find one for you.
--
Martin Hogbin
Thanks Martin, although, as you point out, the respective ageing of
the twins during the journey has several interpretations perhaps you
could let me know of one that has been completely accepted by the
scientific community?
Preferably one that is presented in everyday language and is not
reliant on mathematical equations.
I'm trying to find one that makes sense.
Interpretations are not hard science - it depends on personal taste.
- Langevin's explanation makes perfect sense to me: the twin paradox started
out as an illustration by him for his argument.
- Minkowski's explanation appears to be most popular nowadays; but it's hard
to find people who REALLY believe that time and space are of the same
nature...

Cheers,
Harald
Koobee Wublee
2007-07-11 07:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Interpretations are not hard science - it depends on personal taste.
But SR and GR are full of such interpretations. <shrug>
Post by harry
- Langevin's explanation makes perfect sense to me: the twin paradox started
out as an illustration by him for his argument.
I don't know where you got that. Langevin's twin's paradox is
serious, and despite numerous attempts in crackpot fashion to resolve
this paradox, all attempts contradict each other.
Post by harry
- Minkowski's explanation appears to be most popular nowadays; but it's hard
to find people who REALLY believe that time and space are of the same
nature...
What explanation of Minkowski on the twin's paradox? Minkowski died
in 1908 from a rupture in is appendix. Langevin identify the twin's
paradox in 1916.
harry
2007-07-11 09:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by harry
Interpretations are not hard science - it depends on personal taste.
But SR and GR are full of such interpretations. <shrug>
Post by harry
- Langevin's explanation makes perfect sense to me: the twin paradox started
out as an illustration by him for his argument.
I don't know where you got that.
I studied his paper. Did you?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Langevin's twin's paradox is
serious, and despite numerous attempts in crackpot fashion to resolve
this paradox, all attempts contradict each other.
For Langevin there was nothing paradoxical about it.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by harry
- Minkowski's explanation appears to be most popular nowadays; but it's hard
to find people who REALLY believe that time and space are of the same
nature...
What explanation of Minkowski on the twin's paradox? Minkowski died
in 1908 from a rupture in is appendix. Langevin identify the twin's
paradox in 1916.
1911, not 1916. And people nowadays use Minkowski's idea that space can be
rotated into time as explanation for what they call the twin paradox.

Cheers,
Harald
kenseto
2007-07-10 11:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
The twin paradox arise because SR makes the following bogus assertions:
1. SR asserts that a clock second in A's frame (the stay-at-home frame) can
be compared directly with a clock second on the B clock ( the traveling twin
clock) when B rejoins A.
2. During the journey, the duration (the time content) of a clock second in
B's frame has the same duration (the time content) as a clock second in A's
frame.

Item #1 is not true even in SR. In SR the passage of a clock second in A's
frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame. In other
words one of B's second is worth gamma of A's second. So if we want to
compare the passage of time directly we must convert B's time into A's time
before we make the comparison.
When we do that the so call twin paradox disappears. The lower clock seconds
recorded on the B clock converted to the A clock seconds is gamma A seconds
and that's exactly what the A clock will read.

A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" (IRT) incorporates the above
analysis is available in my website. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
2007-07-10 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 10, 3:36 am, "kenseto" <***@woh.rr.com> wrote:
[...]

It is nice to see that in 13 years you have made absolutely zero
effort to clean up your confused language.
Jeckyl
2007-07-10 12:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenseto
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
1. SR asserts that a clock second in A's frame (the stay-at-home frame) can
be compared directly with a clock second on the B clock ( the traveling twin
clock) when B rejoins A.
Of course it can .. its just a clock
Post by kenseto
2. During the journey, the duration (the time content) of a clock second in
B's frame has the same duration (the time content) as a clock second in A's
frame.
A clock second is a clock second in every frame in which a clock is at rest
Post by kenseto
Item #1 is not true even in SR. In SR the passage of a clock second in A's
frame corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma second in B's frame.
No .. you should say a clock in B observed from A runs slower than a clock
at rest in A

AND .. a clock in A observed from B runs slower than a clock at rest in B

Please .. get it right
Post by kenseto
In other
words one of B's second is worth gamma of A's second.
And vice versa
Post by kenseto
So if we want to
compare the passage of time directly we must convert B's time into A's time
before we make the comparison.
Not when the twin returns ,because then when the twin stops, it is at rest
in the SAME frame of reference.

You really have no idea what you're rambling on about, do you
Post by kenseto
When we do that the so call twin paradox disappears.
It is indeed so-called, because it is not a paradox at all.
Post by kenseto
The lower clock seconds
recorded on the B clock converted to the A clock seconds is gamma A seconds
and that's exactly what the A clock will read.
Yes .. you could do some math to make corrections. The fact remains that
the twin the went away and returned is younger.
Post by kenseto
A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory" (IRT) incorporates
... a lot of bullshit
The Ghost In The Machine
2007-07-12 05:23:55 UTC
Permalink
In sci.physics.relativity, ***@optusnet.com.au
<***@optusnet.com.au>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:08:18 -0000
Post by c***@optusnet.com.au
When I previously had access to the internet about ten years ago I
expressed interest in this topic and was informed that a space
traveller does not physically age at a slower rate but that his earth-
bound twin physically ages at a faster rate and only during the period
of acceleration following turn around.
Is this idea still in vogue? Has it been published in any peer
reviewed journal?
Well, first off, as usually portrayed the twin paradox
uses impossible velocities. The best I can do is about
0.10-0.20 c, and that's with refueling at both ends and
a virtually impossible 4-proton reaction, which only
happens in the heart of stars under intense pressure
and temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

indicates a number of largely theoretical reactions that
can result in helium nuclei, which can simply be expelled
from a hypothetical rocket. For various reasons the best
reaction appears to be impinging protons on boron-11,
yielding 3 helium nuclei and 8.7 MeV -- or 2.9 MeV per
nucleus. Since the alpha particle has a mass of 3.72738
GeV, one can calculate gamma = 1.0007780264, or v_e =
0.039424 c. Using the admittedly Newtonian rocket equation
with this velocity and a propellant-to-payload ratio of
20:1, I get a maximum possible velocity of
v_f = v_e * log(20) = 0.118 c -- and that's with no brakes
and perfect thermodynamics (all the energy goes into the exhaust) --
which can't happen anyway, but never mind...

A more realistic velocity (unless one is contemplating a
suicide mission and/or shelling an enemy planet from very
long range) divides that in half -- 0.06 c -- and most of
the trip will be done in free flight. If we accelerate
at 1 g for almost 21 days, we're at cruising speed and
can shut off the engines (except for electrical power).

So, let's take a conceptual trip to Sirius, 8.6 lightyears away,
and assume they have a boron/hydrogen refueling station there.

Newtonian physics would have one believe that the trip
will take about 8.6 / 0.06 = 143.333 years there, and
143.333 years back -- and that's assuming the destination
has minable boron and hydrogen. (If they don't, crusing
speed is reduced to 0.03 c and we're talking a round trip
of over half a millennium.)

SR will shave off about 6 months off this trip, at v = 0.06 c,
a 0.18% savings. Not exactly worth the trouble, is it? :-)

Of course things get far more interesting at the atomic or
subatomic level; the Large Hadron Collider in particular
is assumed to throw particles at near-lightspeed, despite
pouring in far more energy than is needed to generate
Newtonian lightspeed particles. SR also neatly explains
why we see muons on the Earth's surface.
--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...