Discussion:
[SR] The precise meaning of words and concepts.
Add Reply
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 12:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is what is most difficult to do in the theory of relativity.
Explaining to the housewife that she has to bring back carrots, potatoes,
and two red peppers from the market is very easy.
And she will understand it easily. Explaining the theory of relativity is
more difficult, even if the equations are trivial.
The point is, it's jam-packed with counterintuitive phenomena and little
pitfalls.
One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.
It's not the same thing.
If one thinks that it is the same thing, a paradox, that is to say a pure
absurdity, will immediately appear. We call this paradox that no one has
ever been able to solve (except by shouting from the rooftops that it has
been solved without having solved anything at all) the real paradox of
Langevin.
Indeed, to say that time passes less quickly for the two twins is absurd.
This is FACTLY absurd. The error stems from the confusion between
measurements taken by watches and the chronotropy of watches.
I want the chronotropy to be reciprocally lower on the other watch: To'=
To/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and that this phenomenon is constant and invariable
with the direction of movement of the observers.
But it is not the same with the time that these watches are going to note.
We must not forget that chronotropy is not the only measure to take into
account, but that the universal anisotropy must also be taken into
account: crossing space is not ONLY moving away in space is also crossing
time, it is also really moving away in the past of the other. Let t'=
t.(1+cosµ.v/c)
The real equation therefore becomes:
t'= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
There is no longer any paradox.
Although the watches have a chronotropy which makes the other watch really
beat and reciprocally less quickly, in the end, the effect on the times
themselves is not reciprocal, which would be, it is true, totally absurd.
, and the road open to all the critics of the world's cranks. And we could
only agree with them.

R.H.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2022-01-06 13:57:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.
ROTFL.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Gary Harnagel
2022-01-06 14:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
This is what is most difficult to do in the theory of relativity.
Explaining to the housewife that she has to bring back carrots, potatoes,
and two red peppers from the market is very easy.
And she will understand it easily. Explaining the theory of relativity is
more difficult, even if the equations are trivial.
The point is, it's jam-packed with counterintuitive phenomena and little
pitfalls.
One of the most famous pitfalls in the history of this theory has been the
confusion that all scientists have made between the notion of chronotropy
and the notion of measuring time by a given watch.
It's not the same thing.
If one thinks that it is the same thing, a paradox, that is to say a pure
absurdity, will immediately appear. We call this paradox that no one has
ever been able to solve (except by shouting from the rooftops that it has
been solved without having solved anything at all) the real paradox of
Langevin.
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
Post by Richard Hachel
Indeed, to say that time passes less quickly for the two twins is absurd.
This is FACTLY absurd.
Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my
basement... let me go upstairs and check." -- M. C. Escher

I believe absurdities are only in the mind of the beholder :-)
Post by Richard Hachel
The error stems from the confusion between measurements taken by watches
and the chronotropy of watches.
Chronotropy: "The rate of muscular contraction, especially of the heart."

So you believe watches are mechanically distorted because of velocity?
What YOU want is irrelevant. What counts is what the universe wants.
Post by Richard Hachel
To'= To/sqrt(1-v²/c²) and that this phenomenon is constant and invariable
with the direction of movement of the observers.
x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), t' = (t - vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

The twin's movement according to the stay-at-home twin is x = vt, so
t' = (1 - v²/c²)t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = sqrt(1-v²/c²)t, not the inverse that you assert.

It's useless to ascribe a mechanical explanation to the so-called "paradox.".
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 18:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit :

Thank you for your reply.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
sentence as if a genius had spoken.
It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
The accelerations? LOL.
And why not the papal balls?

R.H.
--
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence".
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=***@jntp>
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 19:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.
What must above all be understood is that a physicist is first and
foremost a man.
And that when a new idea appears, it is necessarily criticized in fact.
Whether it is correct or not does not matter. We criticize.
As for the Langevin paradox, as I said, the problem is human narcissism.
We made Einstein a religion. nothing is worse than wanting to give a drink
to a religious, and scientific theorists are religious who do not know
themselves.
I explain (and there, it's beautiful to cry about why there is a paradox,
and HOW we solve the paradox).
It is unheard of in the history of mankind. No one had ever done it.
But they answer me: "Uh ... no, there is no paradox, for the good reason
that there is no paradox!"
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
"there are benchmarks", the situation is not symmetrical "," there is a
time-gap "...
I explained that all of these excuses are either "a dog is a dog, but you
can't explain why a dog is a dog" or are downright bogus. Like this dark
story of the Blessed Virgin which makes a time-gap when it revolves around
Tau Ceti. All that is pipe. From religion all learned. There is no
time-gap. When the twin spins he sees the earth which marks t = 3 years
and when he reappears on the other side he still sees the same earth which
still marks 3 years.
On the other hand, and there, we do not talk about it, there is a real
relativistic spatial zoom effect (elasticity of distances and loggers) and
the earth that he saw at 4 light years (longitudinal relativistic
contraction well understood) passes to 36 light years.
The distance the earth must now travel towards him, at an apparent speed
of 4c, and this for the remaining nine years of his journey.
It is a precision and an accomplished beauty.
But that's not what we teach on the college bench.
I know it.
But it's not me who makes the programs.
In fact, I don't exist.

R.H.
rotchm
2022-01-06 19:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
Well, are there?
Post by Richard Hachel
the situation is not symmetrical "
Well, is it symmetrical or not?
Post by Richard Hachel
I explained that all of these excuses
My above questions to you are not excuses...they are QUESTIONS.
rotchm
2022-01-06 19:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
Well, are there?
No anwer?
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
the situation is not symmetrical "
Well, is it symmetrical or not?
No answer?
What must be understood (I beg you to be open-minded) is that the
acceleration phases do not matter, or so little that they can be
neglected.
That is just a claim on your part. Can you support your claims?
For instance, if the Galilean phase lasts only a few micro-seconds and the deceleration/acceleration last a few years, then which phase induces the most time dilation?

You see, it can't be neglected in this case. In some cases it can and some cases it can't. The computation will tell us if we should neglect it or not.
It is not the accelerations that induce the effects, but the Galilean phases. The accelerations are negligible
and neglected in the problems.
Those problems with accelerations, if they say it's neglected, they should ship port their claim, explain why it's me collected.
When the twin takes off, and passes to 0.8c, we can assume that his
pendulum still marks To = 0 and t = 0.
Pendulum? You mean, clock or wristwatch?
Better yet, which twin paradox and Ariel are you alluding too?
State it clearly here. (I did not read your past posts).
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 19:50:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
No anwer?
J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.
Post by rotchm
No answer?
J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.

R.H.
rotchm
2022-01-06 20:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by rotchm
No anwer?
J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.
Post by rotchm
No answer?
J'ai déjà répondu. Relisez ce que j'ai dit.
Ah, so you did not answer And you just change the language to try to confuse the situation more so.
Don't be a coward and answer the questions directly, yes or no. No word salad, no descriptions, just yes or no.
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
Well, are there?
Yes or no?
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
the situation is not symmetrical "
Well, is it symmetrical or not?
Yes or no?
rotchm
2022-01-06 21:42:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
And I keep getting the same ridiculous excuse "there are accelerations",
Well, are there?
Yes or no?
Post by rotchm
Post by Richard Hachel
the situation is not symmetrical "
Well, is it symmetrical or not?
Yes or no?
Still no answers?
So you admit that you have been cornered and that you have no more rebuttals.
Your silence just shows how much you are of a coward because you can't admit that you were wrong.
A typical reaction of a crank.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 19:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.
What must above all be understood is that a physicist is first and
foremost a man.
And that when a new idea appears, it is necessarily criticized in fact.
Whether it is correct or not does not matter. We criticize.
As for the Langevin paradox, as I said, the problem is human narcissism.
We made Einstein a religion. nothing is worse than wanting to give a drink
to a religious, and scientific theorists are religious who do not know
themselves.
Sorry, Richard, but this is common crank babble.
It’s complaining that accepting relativity is simply religious faith,
rather that a scientifically validated theory.
Well, it is and what can we do, por halfbrain?
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 19:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sorry, Richard, but this is common crank babble.
It’s complaining that accepting relativity is simply religious faith,
rather that a scientifically validated theory. It’s dismissing the
scientific method and saying that people just believe blindly rather than
what they actually did, which is test the idea scientifically.
It’s also crank babble to insist that it’s the obligation of the thinking
mind to question everything, doubt everything, as though nothing is
understood.
It’s also crank babble to say, “If I do not understand it, then nobody
understands it, because I’m smarter than most people, so it’s impossible
that they understand something I do not.”
You are not being at all interesting or unique or original. Instead, you
are repeating all the standard crank babbles.
I'm not saying the theory of relativity is wrong.
I am simply saying that it is very poorly explained.
Take the example of the traveler from Langevin, it is clear (and I do not
even ask myself the question) that the brother will come back younger than
his brother. I don't even need experimentation to find out. I say like
everyone else that the brother will be 18 years old, and the one left on
earth 30.
It is perfectly obvious.
Regarding particles in laboratories, I say the same thing. It is perfectly
obvious.
So no, I'm not criticizing. But I refine, I describe, I demonstrate.
It goes through amputations and pains that hurt men (I have experienced
the same thing in sociology and in theology). Therein lies the main
problem.
For example, this time-gap thing, I don't know where the scientists went
to look for it. It does not exist that. There is NO time-gap during the
U-turn. I don't need this.
Review my little comics on it. You will see that when the twin turns, he
is 9 years old from start to finish, and that the earth is seen there, as
it was at time t = 3 (it has aged three times slower than the traveler at
this moment) and that he still sees it at t = 3 when he reappears on the
other side of the star to begin his return.
There is no time-gap. On the other hand, as Einstein said, and on that, he
is right "space is a reference mollusk". When the traveler turns around
and goes from 0.8c to -0.8c, a relatiistic zoom effect will appear. There
is a colossal space-zoom that falls into place.
This, yes.
The time-gap is the pipe of sincere and honest people who want to explain
things. I wish to believe. But they are wrong.

R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 20:26:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
I'm not saying the theory of relativity is wrong.
I am simply saying that it is very poorly explained.
That is true. Relativity is often poorly explained.
One needs to read a lot in the literature to sift out the better ones
and you finally understand what relativity is about.
And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
moronic, inconsistent religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 19:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are many variants of the twin paradox.
They have a Galilean phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame
jumping.
There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration, then there
is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.
If there are several variants, then none is true, because only one would
suffice.

What is strange is that most of them are broadcast, and that we study
them.

Except mine.

"- In this something strange is evident, if this one were as stupid as he
looks, he would not do all the miracles he does.
- He's a bullet hole, why are you following him?
- I don't know if it's a bullet hole or not, I only know one thing: I was
blind, and now I see. And how could a bullet hole open the eyes of a blind
man like that? "
Gospel according to Saint Machin.


R.H.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 20:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
There are many variants of the twin paradox. They have a Galilean
phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
If the twin paradox scenario under consideration has no acceleration,
then there is no time dilation due to that non-existing phase.
If there are several variants, then none is true, because only one would
suffice.
Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your bunch
of idiots had to announce its oldest, very important part
false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions. And speaking
of your twins idiocy, anyone can check that the clocks made
be serious people (GPS, TAI, UTC) keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 20:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
So let's talk little, let's talk well. I'm not sure everyone is saying the
same thing. But let's admit. What is clear is that no one in the world has
my description of me. So there is at least one other.
Question: Richard Hachel's version is very different from the versions
already given. So: is Richard Hachel's version wrong?
Can we not answer yes or no?

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-06 21:34:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
So let's talk little, let's talk well. I'm not sure everyone is saying the
same thing. But let's admit. What is clear is that no one in the world has
my description of me. So there is at least one other.
Question: Richard Hachel's version is very different from the versions
already given. So: is Richard Hachel's version wrong?
Can we not answer yes or no?
R.H.
No, Richard, not a viable approach.

First, YOU understand the EXISTING presentations of the twin puzzle and how
it’s resolved, and THEN you might get some attention to your alternate.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 22:07:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
No, you are all believing in pseudo science. As far as I can tell, you are all stupid.

Here is the real twin paradox, with unnecessary complications stripped out exactly in the tradition of Einsteins thought experiments where he ignores everything he "thinks" is not important.

1. Two twins in a universe devoid of everything except the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing at a constant rate.

2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.

The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin" and also neither twin can be assigned as the one who is doing the moving. Each can be stationary or moving but none can prove it either way, so therefore none can be experiencing any time dilation and the other not. If the both experience time dilation, then that requires the existence of a Absolute Time to which the Twins times can be dilating in reference to.

So therefore no time dilation is possible, and thus Einstein's claim of Time dilation is irrational nonsense.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-06 22:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
No, you are all believing in pseudo science. As far as I can tell, you are all stupid.
Here is the real twin paradox, with unnecessary complications stripped
out exactly in the tradition of Einsteins thought experiments where he
ignores everything he "thinks" is not important.
1. Two twins in a universe devoid of everything except the twins,
observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing at a constant rate.
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin"
and also neither twin can be assigned as the one who is doing the moving.
Each can be stationary or moving but none can prove it either way, so
therefore none can be experiencing any time dilation and the other not.
If the both experience time dilation, then that requires the existence of
a Absolute Time to which the Twins times can be dilating in reference to.
So therefore no time dilation is possible, and thus Einstein's claim of
Time dilation is irrational nonsense.
Nope, not at all.

You see? You’ve boiled down the twin paradox to precisely one step too far,
where the misconception of the beginning student kicks in.

You have claimed symmetry between the twins, where in fact there IS no
symmetry. That is precisely the mistake the puzzle was designed to caution
against.

All you are doing at this point is saying, “Well, I don’t want to be told
about my mistake. I’m sticking to my guns. I’ve made no mistake. I
acknowledge no mistake. This is YOUR fault.”
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Buddy Good
2022-01-08 15:18:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope, not at all.
You see? You’ve boiled down the twin paradox to precisely one step too
far, where the misconception of the beginning student kicks in.
You have claimed symmetry between the twins, where in fact there IS no
symmetry. That is precisely the mistake the puzzle was designed to
caution against.
There is symmetry if you claimed that a clock second is an absolute
interval of TIME.....It is not. A clock second in different frame
contains a different amount of TIME.
stop stealing tensors, imbecile.
Paparios
2022-01-06 22:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Wrong. By 'several variants' some have the traveling twin travel to Tau
Ceti, others to Alpha Centauri, others to an unspecified location.
Some have the twin take time to turn around, others the turnaround is
instantaneous, others there is a frame jump where the twin meets a third
traveler and gives the time interval to him instead.
They may have different answers but all use the same math, so all are
correct.
No, you are all believing in pseudo science. As far as I can tell, you are all stupid.
Here is the real twin paradox, with unnecessary complications stripped out exactly in the tradition of Einsteins thought experiments where he ignores everything he "thinks" is not important.
1. Two twins in a universe devoid of everything except the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing at a constant rate.
That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time measured by each clock.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they followed different highways (different space paths).
The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
Post by everything isalllies
The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin" and also neither twin can be assigned as the one who is doing the moving. Each can be stationary or moving but none can prove it either way, so therefore none can be experiencing any time dilation and the other not. If the both experience time dilation, then that requires the existence of a Absolute Time to which the Twins times can be dilating in reference to.
So therefore no time dilation is possible, and thus Einstein's claim of Time dilation is irrational nonsense.
Try to read and learns more on this, because you are talking nonsense.
A good explanation is given in https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 23:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time measured by each clock.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they followed different highways (different space paths).
The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
Wrong Paparios:
I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others submit their version on how to solve it.
This is the twin paradox mark 2.
It reveals the very same problem that the original paradox highlighted, but sans the unnecessary parts.
the twin does not have to "return" for Time dilation to work, read the theory of SR sometime.
"We" are observing the twins, in every thought experiment it's WE who are the only observers, imagining whats happening from two different perspectives. (obs 1 and Obs2 or the two twins) Try to think like a person who understand something about Physics please. (or even just imagination and rational thought)
You can't plot any paths on your moronic chart that pretends that such a thing as "spacetime" exists, UNLESS you first claim that you KNOW which twin is absolutely the stationary one. and that's impossible here and forbidden in STR anyway.
Paparios
2022-01-06 23:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time measured by each clock.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they followed different highways (different space paths).
The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others submit their version on how to solve it.
This is the twin paradox mark 2.
It reveals the very same problem that the original paradox highlighted, but sans the unnecessary parts.
the twin does not have to "return" for Time dilation to work, read the theory of SR sometime.
"We" are observing the twins, in every thought experiment it's WE who are the only observers, imagining whats happening from two different perspectives. (obs 1 and Obs2 or the two twins) Try to think like a person who understand something about Physics please. (or even just imagination and rational thought)
You can't plot any paths on your moronic chart that pretends that such a thing as "spacetime" exists, UNLESS you first claim that you KNOW which twin is absolutely the stationary one. and that's impossible here and forbidden in STR anyway.
Try to read and learns more on this, because you are talking nonsense.
A good explanation is given in https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 00:04:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paparios
Try to read and learns more on this, because you are talking nonsense.
A good explanation is given in https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
That link and the excuses it proposes are nonsense nothing new or even rational is explained there.

I gave a revised version of the twin paradox, and that "explanation" is no explanation at all.
The paradox is that Einsteins theory results in a statement that is expressed as:
A>B AND B>A. This is the paradox. This is an impossibility.
My version of the twin story and the original twin story are just stories that draw attention to the above expression.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-07 02:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
That link and the excuses it proposes are nonsense nothing new or even rational
is explained there.
Yes.

Obviously.

But we do not give drink to donkeys who are not thirsty.

The negation, for them, of Langevin's paradox becomes criminal indecency.

We are at the same level as a man who has just killed his wife, she lies
on the ground in blood,
and he said, "No, no, I didn't do anything, my wife is doing absolutely
fine. There is NO problem."

It is on the same level.

But the most dramatic is that it is the biggest pundits of the theory who
say that.

This is totally crazy.

Always, always, always, they will answer: "No, no, there is NO paradox.
It's YOUR bullshit that sees one".

For them, it is quite normal for them that two watches beat each other
less quickly. LOL.

And if you point it out to them by giving them the correct explanation
(notion of effective reciprocal chronotropy, but of proper time however
evolving differently in the two twins due to the sparial anisochrony and
the zooming effects on the distances), they spit you out. the mouth.
You're just a big ass who didn't understand a thing and who had better
open a book!

HELP!

They are absolutely arrogant and blind.

R.H.
Python
2022-01-07 02:09:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Richard "Hachel" Lengrand (M.D.) wrote:
...
Post by Richard Hachel
They are absolutely arrogant and blind.
These words from you are precious. sigh.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 20:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Paparios
That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They
both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time
measured by each clock.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed
times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars
measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they
followed different highways (different space paths).
The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others
submit their version on how to solve it.
This is the twin paradox mark 2.
OK, so you have a completely different scenario, where there is no
asymmetry, where there is no return.

You seem to be concerned about something here, but I’m not sure what you’re
concerned about. Where do you think there is a contradiction?
Post by everything isalllies
It reveals the very same problem that the original paradox highlighted,
but sans the unnecessary parts.
the twin does not have to "return" for Time dilation to work, read the
theory of SR sometime.
"We" are observing the twins, in every thought experiment it's WE who are
the only observers, imagining whats happening from two different
perspectives. (obs 1 and Obs2 or the two twins) Try to think like a
person who understand something about Physics please. (or even just
imagination and rational thought)
You can't plot any paths on your moronic chart that pretends that such a
thing as "spacetime" exists, UNLESS you first claim that you KNOW which
twin is absolutely the stationary one.
What are you TALKING about? Why do you think one twin has to be identified
as absolutely stationary to draw a line on a space vs time graph? Do you
not think this is possible in Galilean relativity, where it’s ALSO not
known which one is absolutely stationary?
Post by everything isalllies
and that's impossible here and forbidden in STR anyway.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 06:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Paparios
That is not the twin paradox. Twins are not observing anything. They
both carry clocks and when they reunite, they compare the elapsed time
measured by each clock.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
That is also nonsense. The explanation of the difference in the elapsed
times is equivalent to the fact that identical odometers in two cars
measure different distances between Chicago and New York, since they
followed different highways (different space paths).
The twin clocks, similarly follow different paths through spacetime.
I am allowed to submit a variation of the twin paradox just like others
submit their version on how to solve it.
This is the twin paradox mark 2.
OK, so you have a completely different scenario, where there is no
asymmetry, where there is no return.
You seem to be concerned about something here, but I’m not sure what you’re
concerned about. Where do you think there is a contradiction?
In the standard of time unit valid also in your moronic physics
in the time when your idiot guru lived and mumbled.
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 23:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That's not the twin paradox. That is an example of ordinary time dilation.
In this case, each twin sees the other's clock AT A DISTANCE running
slow. They will see each other's clock running slow by the same amount.
The twins never meet again so cannot do a side-by-side comparison.
In the traveling twin paradox, one of the twins turns around and
returns, and meets the first twin in person and do a side-by-side
comparison. It is NOT symmetrical.
This is the work of someone who can't think clearly.
The Twin paradox is all about the silly contradictions that can arise due to the concept of Time Dilation.
IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
But its not an essential component is it?
Because he is not going to age as fast as the stationary twin irrespective of whether he decided to return home or not.
And because this is a thought experiment, the actual twins don't exist, you know that right? So its only US, the readers of the paradox that get to IMAGINE what might occur, should Einsteins claims be correct.
So it not like we are privy to the experience of the travelling twin when he get home and see his aged brother.
You totally miss the whole point and value of the thought experiment when you get so anally retentive.

If you believe that asymmetry is the solution for the paradox, then simply remove that asymmetry from the scenario, and run the thought experiment again, time dilation still occurs, BUT the actual problem is still there!
The paradoxical aspect is that the claimed lack of ageing can be equally claimed by either twin.
Now in the real world, if i aged slower than you but you also have claimed that it was you who aged slower than I, then we both aged slower than the each other.... and you think that this is not a problem of rational thought?
Michael Moroney
2022-01-07 04:46:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
That's not the twin paradox. That is an example of ordinary time dilation.
In this case, each twin sees the other's clock AT A DISTANCE running
slow. They will see each other's clock running slow by the same amount.
The twins never meet again so cannot do a side-by-side comparison.
In the traveling twin paradox, one of the twins turns around and
returns, and meets the first twin in person and do a side-by-side
comparison. It is NOT symmetrical.
This is the work of someone who can't think clearly.
The Twin paradox is all about the silly contradictions that can arise due to the concept of Time Dilation.
Nope. It is an explicit "paradox" used to help lay people understand SR
and to preemptively explain "faults" some may find. One of many, the
most famous of which is probably the train struck by lightning bolts. I
don't know if Einstein himself came up with the twin paradox.
Post by everything isalllies
IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
But its not an essential component is it?
It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
the past of the other twin when separated.
Post by everything isalllies
Because he is not going to age as fast as the stationary twin irrespective of whether he decided to return home or not.
They cannot agree on this until they reunite.
Post by everything isalllies
And because this is a thought experiment, the actual twins don't exist, you know that right? So its only US, the readers of the paradox that get to IMAGINE what might occur, should Einsteins claims be correct.
Twins with one going to a distant star and back? No, that doesn't exist.
Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons? That exists! A
portion of the time difference (-7 uS) of the GPS satellites compared to
the ground? That exists. (one 'traveling twin' situation per orbit)
Post by everything isalllies
So it not like we are privy to the experience of the travelling twin when he get home and see his aged brother.
You totally miss the whole point and value of the thought experiment when you get so anally retentive.
Nope. You still don't understand the traveling twin situation.
Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
satellites.
Post by everything isalllies
If you believe that asymmetry is the solution for the paradox, then simply remove that asymmetry from the scenario, and run the thought experiment again, time dilation still occurs, BUT the actual problem is still there!
But the twins can never reunite.
Post by everything isalllies
The paradoxical aspect is that the claimed lack of ageing can be equally claimed by either twin.
That's right, they can't agree on their ages while separated.
Post by everything isalllies
Now in the real world, if i aged slower than you but you also have claimed that it was you who aged slower than I, then we both aged slower than the each other.... and you think that this is not a problem of rational thought?
It's part of the Relativity of Simultaneity.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-07 06:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
portion of the time difference (-7 uS) of the GPS satellites compared to
the ground? That exists.
No, stupid Mike, that doesn't exist. Time (as defined by your
idiot guru himself - what clocks indicate) of a satellite
matches time of the ground with the precision of an
acceptable error, and you're enchanting the reality,
together with your idiot gurus.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 11:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
But its not an essential component is it?
Michael> It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
Post by Michael Moroney
twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
the past of the other twin when separated.....
They cannot agree on this until they reunite.....
Ok,
The fact that each twin assuming they never were reunited, and were seperated by say one light year at the end of the experiment, you claim are "seeing each other in the past", as if that would somehow muck up the claim that one is younger than the other. They can still figure out that one has not aged like the other IF Einstein is correct.

No need to return at all. Both know that it is going to take one year for the information to reach them , and that's not the issue here. So they most certainty agree on their ages whilst separated, but they just have to wait for the messages to travel across that one light year.
Post by Michael Moroney
Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons?
Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
satellites.
Here's the thing with Muons. Its claimed that they only have a minuscule lifetime. And how did they figure out that when they only have a tiny fraction of a second to do their observations of one single Muon? Well they don't do it that way. What they did do is akin to this illustration:

Assume that a fish has a lifetime of only a minute, on the basis that when you took him from the water and placed him on you lab bench, he died a minuter later.

Muons are supposed to be travelling almost the speed of light. You almost stopped them in a block of plastic then observed them briefly creating a short trace in a cloud chamber. I submit that you already were observing almost dead Muon's and the lifetime you believe a Muon has is already mostly used up. Its like observing a 98 yo man and saying that men only live 6 months. You don't KNOW for sure that Muon's are only "created" up in the upper atmosphere, they also could be created down at sea level but just not as many. There are lots of possibilities that are not taken into consideration, even the outlandish ideas might be true. Hell, take a look at the magical un-intuitive claims made for QM. Much of modern Physics and Science is based on someone claiming that "We KNOW that such and such" when really there is much that is speculation at best, and a deal of biased beliefs.

So you are wrong to say that its critical that the twins reunite in order to demonstrate some form of paradoxical aspect of Relativity.
and now that we have those twins not reunited, and yet still a paradox, its up to you to try to solve it. And now you cant claim that its an asymmetry caused by acceleration.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 20:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
IN that scenario, the author of the paradox was only returning the
travelling twin to emphasise the dilemma.
But its not an essential component is it?
Michael> It definitely is! Due to the relativity of simultaneity, the separated
Post by Michael Moroney
twins cannot agree on their ages within a certain amount. Each twin sees
the past of the other twin when separated.....
They cannot agree on this until they reunite.....
Ok,
The fact that each twin assuming they never were reunited, and were
seperated by say one light year at the end of the experiment, you claim
are "seeing each other in the past", as if that would somehow muck up
the claim that one is younger than the other. They can still figure out
that one has not aged like the other IF Einstein is correct.
No need to return at all. Both know that it is going to take one year for
the information to reach them , and that's not the issue here. So they
most certainty agree on their ages whilst separated, but they just have
to wait for the messages to travel across that one light year.
This has nothing to do with the twin puzzle.
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Muons in a storage ring compared to stationary muons?
Physicists don't use actual brothers but particles like muons, or
satellites.
Here's the thing with Muons. Its claimed that they only have a minuscule
lifetime. And how did they figure out that when they only have a tiny
fraction of a second to do their observations of one single Muon? Well
Assume that a fish has a lifetime of only a minute, on the basis that
when you took him from the water and placed him on you lab bench, he died a minuter later.
Well, no, it’s not like that at all. It’s a little more like measuring the
half-life of U-238 without having to follow a uranium atom for 4.5 billion
years.

Do you know how such a half-life is measured?
Post by everything isalllies
Muons are supposed to be travelling almost the speed of light. You
almost stopped them in a block of plastic then observed them briefly
creating a short trace in a cloud chamber. I submit that you already were
observing almost dead Muon's and the lifetime you believe a Muon has is
already mostly used up. Its like observing a 98 yo man and saying that
men only live 6 months. You don't KNOW for sure that Muon's are only
"created" up in the upper atmosphere, they also could be created down at
sea level but just not as many. There are lots of possibilities that are
not taken into consideration, even the outlandish ideas might be true.
Hell, take a look at the magical un-intuitive claims made for QM. Much of
modern Physics and Science is based on someone claiming that "We KNOW
that such and such" when really there is much that is speculation at
best, and a deal of biased beliefs.
In the case of muons, the best measurements of their lifetime is when their
entire lifetime is measured, because the point of creation is very well
known, and the point of decay is very well known. They are made in the lab
and kept in storage rings.
Post by everything isalllies
So you are wrong to say that its critical that the twins reunite in order
to demonstrate some form of paradoxical aspect of Relativity.
You may have some other concern about relativity that doesn’t involve a
return trip, but that doesn’t have to do with the scenario of the twin
puzzle where there IS an asymmetry. You are concerned about something in
the symmetric case, but it’s not clear what you’re actually concerned
about.
Post by everything isalllies
and now that we have those twins not reunited, and yet still a paradox,
its up to you to try to solve it. And now you cant claim that its an
asymmetry caused by acceleration.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 00:53:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
lots of muons to get a half-life.
This Muon conservation is not necessary to discuss STR, Einstein never used Muons in his hypothesis yet claimed to have a solid hypothesis. That's what I want to focus on.

Anyway, in the cloud chamber, I watched them for hours, fascinating.
But the CLAIMED cause for those traces does not match their Physics.
You say we can observe the moment of creation of the Muon, and then its extinction. But that is only one interpretation of what we see. You cant prove that this interpretation is correct or that its the only possibility, that's exactly why its impossible to PROVE a theory from experiments.

So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible) Plus once that object that has Mass (even a tiny bit) but its moving at almost light speed, then according to the equations, it would possess almost infinite MOMENTUM. Almost infinite energy would be released when that Muon collides with any solid matter...

err ... but I never saw that in the cloud chamber....
The energy required to accelerate an object to light speed is infinite, and therefore impossible, so at just a shade under Light speed, even that low Mas Muon would still need enormous application of force, requiring enormous amounts of Energy..... but I don't see that in the cloud chamber....
Michael Moroney
2022-01-08 04:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Bubble chambers have been around since what, the 1940s? 1930s? You can
see the track of a muon or other particle from when it forms to when it
decays, and from the path length, know how long it lasted. Do that for
lots of muons to get a half-life.
This Muon conservation is not necessary to discuss STR, Einstein never used Muons in his hypothesis yet claimed to have a solid hypothesis. That's what I want to focus on.
Anyway, in the cloud chamber, I watched them for hours, fascinating.
But the CLAIMED cause for those traces does not match their Physics.
You say we can observe the moment of creation of the Muon, and then its extinction. But that is only one interpretation of what we see. You cant prove that this interpretation is correct or that its the only possibility, that's exactly why its impossible to PROVE a theory from experiments.
By applying a known magnetic field and measurement, they can determine
the charges and mass of the particles. A large number have a mass of
106 MeV. Physicists started calling them muons.
Post by everything isalllies
So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
classical to make sense.
Post by everything isalllies
Plus once that object that has Mass (even a tiny bit) but its moving at almost light speed, then according to the equations, it would possess almost infinite MOMENTUM.
Nope. Its momentum and energy are predetermined by the decay energy and
the momentum/energy of the particle before decay. Both are conserved.
Post by everything isalllies
Almost infinite energy would be released when that Muon collides with any solid matter...
Nope. Energy predetermined as I just stated. I do believe that cosmic
ray muons typically have a gamma of 10-20.
Post by everything isalllies
err ... but I never saw that in the cloud chamber....
How many muons did you observe decay in flight? Don't worry if none,
googling images for "bubble chamber muon decay" will probably find a lot
of them.

I think you don't understand the physics behind all of this. You should
crack a book.
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 08:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
classical to make sense.....
Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense.
It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed. Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.

You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!

Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.

Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?
Paparios
2022-01-08 13:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
classical to make sense.....
Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist, even though it goes against the your common sense.
It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed. Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity, and doing it with out much applied Energy either! No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.
You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!
Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.
That is clearly nonsense. You are confusing what it is called "relativistic mass" with mass.
The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy (also called total energy).

The term "relativistic mass" tends not to be used in particle and nuclear physics and is often avoided by writers on special relativity, in favor of referring to the body's relativistic energy. In contrast, "invariant mass" is usually preferred over rest energy. The measurable inertia and the warping of spacetime by a body in a given frame of reference is determined by its relativistic mass, not merely its invariant mass. For example, photons have zero rest mass but contribute to the inertia (and weight in a gravitational field) of any system containing them.
Post by everything isalllies
Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?
Michael Moroney
2022-01-08 19:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
So the Muon is created, and the Muon has Mass... it is supposed to accelerate to near light speed instantly? No acceleration period? That would require the application of an infinite amount of FORCE from somewhere, to accelerate ANY object that has Mass, to near light speed in ZERO time. (actually impossible)
Yet they exist. So you need to reexamine your thought processes. I
simply considered that all particles just get created with their speeds,
kinetic energy and momentum. Imagining near-infinite forces
accelerating the muon from rest (with respect to what?) seems too
classical to make sense.....
Yep, you have no idea what Muons are about, but you are ok with simply claiming that they simply exist,
There's no denying the existence of the muon. They do exist, and are
very common. Right now, unless you're thousands of feet underground in a
salt mine, there are thousands of muons streaming through your body
every minute. They exist. Deal with it.
Post by everything isalllies
even though it goes against the your common sense.
As discussed here frequently, "common sense" is a very poor predictor of
science. The existence of muons isn't common sense, and their discovery
was a surprise ("Who ordered that?"), but they do exist.
Post by everything isalllies
It was Einsteins I believe who said that ANY particle ( eve one with practically no Mass) if accelerated to near Light Speed, would gain almost infinite Mass which is why nothing that has Mas can reach Light speed.
You are referring to an obsolete concept called relativistic mass. It is
a confusing idea since "relativistic mass" is frame dependent and
changes, while rest mass is invariant. Nowadays what is taught is that
energy has momentum and a particle moving near c has a lot of (kinetic)
energy, which has momentum, which resists further acceleration. The
momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have, if you
use that concept. If you have older books discussing relativistic mass,
just multiply it by c^2 to get the equivalent energy.
Post by everything isalllies
Yet the Muon can, while NOT gaining Mass to the value near infinity,
It has kinetic energy. Lots of kinetic energy for atmospheric muons
(gamma from 10-20). But not infinite (gamma=infinity).
Post by everything isalllies
and doing it with out much applied Energy either!
Nope. Atmospheric muons mostly come from the decay of pions produced by
cosmic rays. The energy they have is the original kinetic energy of the
pion plus energy from the mass difference between the pion and muon (34
MeV), but this energy gets shared with two neutrinos which are also
formed. The original pion energy can be fairly substantial.
Post by everything isalllies
No detectable force of the Einsteins required magnitude is to be found.. yet Muons are still doing it and our beliefs about Muons is still true.
I wouldn't want to apply classical concepts like acceleration to newly
formed muons. As I said I am satisfied with the idea that they are
"born" with their speed/momentum/energy. Just like a photon, which
never can have a speed other than c. It does not "accelerate" to c when
formed. It can't.
Post by everything isalllies
You should not be referring to Muons in a argument about Einsteins theories, because thay do not do what Einsteins claimed they should!
But they do. They have kinetic energy, which has momentum, which resists
further acceleration. Plus they make a great example of time dilation by
being able to reach the ground even though they should be able to go
only about 600 meters in their own frame.

By your logic we need to eliminate electrons, protons, and (especially)
photons.
Post by everything isalllies
Einstein: Any mass no mater how small, will increase in Mass towards infinity whilst consuming all the energy in the universe if it were to attain near Light speed.
A good example of why "relativistic mass" is confusing and not really
used now.

An atmospheric muon does have energy substantially more than its rest
mass equivalent, but the amount it has is that of the original pion
(large but not infinite) + 34 MeV minus what two neutrinos take.
Post by everything isalllies
Now what are you claiming about Muons? We know it all? Its all been measured?
No scientist ever claims "we know it all", we don't. We have measured
plenty but not everything.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 19:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
As discussed here frequently, "common sense" is a very poor predictor of
science.
But it's a perfect tool for recognizing a fanatic idiot, and
that's why your insane guru had to ban it from physics.
Post by Michael Moroney
You are referring to an obsolete concept called relativistic mass. It is
a confusing idea
Since when a confusing ide is something wrong for you,
stupid Mike? When "confirmed by experiment"?
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 21:53:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:14:18 AM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote:
Nowadays what is taught is that
Post by Michael Moroney
energy has momentum and a particle moving near c has a lot of (kinetic)
energy, which has momentum, which resists further acceleration. The
momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have, if you
use that concept.
This nonsense is typical of the way your brain has to slip into neutral if you accept Einsteins irrational theories.
The belief that Energy can have momentum, is a perfect example of insanity.
It was developed as a concept to try to overcome the impossibility that an object can gain Mass from nowhere just because someone is watching it move past. (that's the STR in a nutshell)

But to claim that a Property of an Object can exist without an Object, (Energy- the capacity to do work) can then have another Property that is only applicable to an object with Mass, (Momentum) is the height of insanity.
It highlights just how stupid people studying Physics have become, which explains why none of you guys can carry on a decent conservation and use rational thinking.
p=mv, that's the equation you apply if you want to calculate a comparative value for Momentum, and any later claimed equations for Momentum better be in accord with this equation. But they are not. Therefore they are wrong and its easy to see why as explained above.

Your statement, "The momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have,"
means that you are claiming that whatever the Mass is, that is also exactly what the Momentum is, therefore your equation becomes p=m or simply Momentum is Mass, same thing.
And "relativistic Mass" does not kick in at some percentage of lights speed, the Mass, if we assume that Einstein is correct, is increasing at any speed, its just hard to detect at lower speeds.

So what Einstein claims is this: And object has a continuously changing Mass linked to its speed as observed from another location from which the velocity was measured.
And to make it even more insane, 500 differently moving observers will all claim that the same objects Mass has 500 different values.

In other words, the Property if an object we have called Mass, is not actually a property of the Object, but is a property of observed speed of the object. We are measuring a property of speed that causes us to get different readings when we measure an objects speed but its not an objective value, its subjective.

Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
Python
2022-01-09 21:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"everything isalllies" wrote:
...
Post by everything isalllies
Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
physics or Relativity is impossible.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 22:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by everything isalllies
Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
physics or Relativity is impossible.
And yet you have never engaged in any discussion, you only offer insults, and occasional post brief statements cut and pasted from the official Physics text book, which is what I'm challenging.
Just offering a repeat of the official view point, which is what I'm saying is incorrect, is not presenting your argument, it is achieving absolutely nothing.

I say that 2+2 =4 but you counter with ,"but you are wrong because the official Physics Bible says its 5".
This I already know, so you repeating it is not countering my claim or explaining why you believe the answer is 5.
Python
2022-01-09 22:57:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
...
Post by everything isalllies
Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
physics or Relativity is impossible.
And yet you have never engaged in any discussion
I've just explained you why.
everything isalllies
2022-01-10 00:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
I've just explained you why.
Was it because you are a fuckwit? Is that what you were trying very poorly to say?
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 14:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
...
Post by everything isalllies
Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally
discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational
ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
What you describe is exactly why any discussion with you about
physics or Relativity is impossible.
And yet you have never engaged in any discussion, you only offer insults,
and occasional post brief statements cut and pasted from the official
Physics text book, which is what I'm challenging.
Just offering a repeat of the official view point, which is what I'm
saying is incorrect, is not presenting your argument, it is achieving absolutely nothing.
I say that 2+2 =4 but you counter with ,"but you are wrong because the
official Physics Bible says its 5".
This I already know, so you repeating it is not countering my claim or
explaining why you believe the answer is 5.
And in the process, you’re also denying the facts that are in BASIC physics
books. When you say you question relativity but don’t question basic
physics, and then you make statements that are in direct contradiction with
basic physics, this proves you don’t have any idea what you’re talking
about.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2022-01-10 14:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Nowadays what is taught is that
Post by Michael Moroney
energy has momentum and a particle moving near c has a lot of (kinetic)
energy, which has momentum, which resists further acceleration. The
momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have, if you
use that concept.
This nonsense is typical of the way your brain has to slip into neutral if you accept Einsteins irrational theories.
The belief that Energy can have momentum, is a perfect example of insanity.
What about light? It's easily demonstrated that light, which is
massless, has momentum p=hf/c and energy E=hf.
Post by Michael Moroney
It was developed as a concept to try to overcome the impossibility that an object can gain Mass from nowhere just because someone is watching it move past. (that's the STR in a nutshell)
"Gaining mass" which is different for different observers is confusing,
so energy having momentum (which falls out of SR) is more understandable.
Post by Michael Moroney
But to claim that a Property of an Object can exist without an Object, (Energy- the capacity to do work) can then have another Property that is only applicable to an object with Mass, (Momentum) is the height of insanity.
Light has momentum without mass.
Post by Michael Moroney
It highlights just how stupid people studying Physics have become, which explains why none of you guys can carry on a decent conservation and use rational thinking.
p=mv, that's the equation you apply if you want to calculate a comparative value for Momentum, and any later claimed equations for Momentum better be in accord with this equation. But they are not. Therefore they are wrong and its easy to see why as explained above.
Your statement, "The momentum is the same as that the relativistic mass would have,"
means that you are claiming that whatever the Mass is, that is also exactly what the Momentum is, therefore your equation becomes p=m or simply Momentum is Mass, same thing.
No, it means p=mv, which you yourself wrote.
Post by Michael Moroney
And "relativistic Mass" does not kick in at some percentage of lights speed, the Mass, if we assume that Einstein is correct, is increasing at any speed, its just hard to detect at lower speeds.
So what Einstein claims is this: And object has a continuously changing Mass linked to its speed as observed from another location from which the velocity was measured.
And to make it even more insane, 500 differently moving observers will all claim that the same objects Mass has 500 different values.
You make my point the concept is confusing. You are just one person
confused by the concept.
Post by Michael Moroney
In other words, the Property if an object we have called Mass, is not actually a property of the Object, but is a property of observed speed of the object. We are measuring a property of speed that causes us to get different readings when we measure an objects speed but its not an objective value, its subjective.
Its hard to write about this because its difficult to rationally discuss the thoughts of an insane mind. Insane minds invent irrational ideas. Irrational ideas can't be analysed rationally.
Just forget "relativistic mass" and use the idea of energy having momentum.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 00:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:15:17 AM UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:
But don’t confuse invariant mass with
relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things,
and if you confuse them you’re going to make a mistake. Relativistic mass
is just energy scaled by a factor (c^2).
BS.
There is no such thing as two different types of Mass, there is ONLY MASS.
This is admitted by Physics. And old ideas such as Relativistic or Rest Mass has been done away with, because it was stupid.

If Relativistic Mass is "Energy * a velocity", then that does NOT equate too Mass, it equates to just MORE ENERGY.
rotchm
2022-01-09 01:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
don’t confuse invariant mass with
relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things, ...
BS.
So you are claiming that "mass" and "relativistic mass" are not different things/meanings?
You are claiming that they mean the same thing?
Your "BS" above implies that.

So now you are disagreeing on the meanings of the expressions used, you are disagreeing on definitions??
Post by everything isalllies
There is no such thing as two different types of Mass, there is ONLY MASS.
Nope. There are many other kinds of "mass" :

" ...A large number of people or objects crowded together"
" the majority of."
" any of the main portions in a painting or drawing that each have some unity in color..."
" the ritual of chants, readings, prayers, ..."

etc.

You need to understand that words have meanings in context. A word can mean many different things in many different languages.
You must have the brains to know which definition to use.

In physics,
There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 05:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
In physics,
There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).
Rotchm,
You idiot.
In Physics "relativistic Mass" is "fading out? You mean its DEAD and no longer used more to the point.
So Relativistic Mass is valid in Physics but no one is even going to use it again?
No, its been thoroughly done away with, because having two definition of Mass is not possible in Physics.
There was always and can only ever be just Mass, to start saying that an Object possess two types of Mass that each have different values whilst at the same time saying that Mass is defined as a Measurement of Inertia, which gives only one result, not two.

The reason why the decided to kill off Relativistic Mass was because its really stupid to claim that a Mass can increase just because some is watching some object move. Where does the additional Mass come from?
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 21:26:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
In physics,
There is what we call "proper Mass" (aka rest mass, or just "mass") and there is
relativistic Mass (a valid *expression* that is fading out).
Rotchm,
You idiot.
In Physics "relativistic Mass" is "fading out? You mean its DEAD and no longer used
You must be a grade A moron. You say it is no longer used yet it was invoked by others in this discussion. It was even used by you.
Can you say it is not used. It's right there in your face in front of you and you say it is not there.
You are very delusional and a reality denier.
Post by everything isalllies
So Relativistic Mass is valid in Physics
I never said that. You do not understand what you read. We *all* have been telling you this.
You must Realize by now that you do not have the appropriate understanding and reading skills.
I said that it is a "valid expression". This means, it is an expression that we understand, That we know what it refers to.
Post by everything isalllies
but no one is even going to use it again?
Since it was invoked in this thread and in other threads by the way it is still in use. But it is obsolescent.
I cant believe how ridiculous your statements are. You have poor reason skills. Or are just trying to win an argument in any way you can, hoping that others wont see the stupidity in your claims.

A term is obsolete, meaning its not used, and its obsolete because it is invalid in Physics.
You can still physically write down that word, or speak it, but in Physics, Physicists no longer use any qualifiers for Mass. There is only Mass, and that it.
So I care not if you want to call your dog, "Relativistic Mass" but its not useful in any way in Physics.
It is useful in a Historical context, but not otherwise.
rotchm
2022-01-10 00:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
You have poor reason skills.
I guess that is why I can solve do simple math problems and whereas you have failed them.
Post by everything isalllies
Or are just trying to win an argument in any way you can,
YOU are the one who started arguing about the use of "relativistic mass".
If you did not want to argue about it you should have not started it, DuH...
Post by everything isalllies
A term is obsolete, meaning its not used,
Again you are arguing about irrelevant words which are irrelevant to the discussion.
Why are you invoking the meaning of "obsolete" when I havent used that word?
Are you just looking for more useless arguments?
Post by everything isalllies
and its obsolete because it is invalid in Physics.
You are also confused about the meaning of the word obsolete.
Post by everything isalllies
but in Physics, Physicists no longer use any qualifiers for Mass. There is only Mass, and that it.
That is what we have been telling you. Yet YOU are the one discussing 'relativistic Mass'. I never invoked such an expression.
Google kept a record.
everything isalllies
2022-01-10 04:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Why are you invoking the meaning of "obsolete" when I havent used that word?
You play duck and dodge, in an effort to avoid at any cost the direct discussion of the problems because you know you can't win.
You play silly word games as if it matters to the issues I raised.
You think that is correct to claim that If I don't want to , or even cant figure out your math test, that therefore everything I say has to be wrong. Again, what I talk about is not MY ideas, and those people from whom I learned that there are unsolved problems, certainly can solve your math problem, but its nothing to do with what we are talking about. Duck and dodge.
Now you most certainly did say that Relativistic Mass is Obsolete. And that's the "approved" statement of Mainstream Physics.
You used the tense of obsolete "obsolescent" suggesting that its "in the process of becoming" obsolete. But that's stupid. The Physics community is hardly going to say from 2023 the idea of "relativistic Mass" will no longer be acceptable in Physics, so in the meantime we can occasionally use it but gradually do away with it.

Did Einstein say when his theory was accepted as fact by the scientists , that they should slowly grow out of the Physics of Galileo and ever so gradually replace it with his Physics?
No of course not.
I cant help but note that never have you responded to my claims other than criticising if I crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Moot points that have zero to do with my claims.
I'm done with replying to your stupid comments, Ill wait til someone who is capable to a direct discussion to come along.
I do expect one final stupid comment that is totally off topic from you though.
But i wont be responding.
rotchm
2022-01-10 05:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<rants & cries snipped>
Post by everything isalllies
Now you most certainly did say that Relativistic Mass is Obsolete.
And can you quote me on that?
I didn't think so...
You resort to lies and diversions. Typical crank behavior.
Post by everything isalllies
You used the tense of obsolete "obsolescent" suggesting that its "in the process of becoming" obsolete.
Ah... So now you are agreeing that I did not say it was obsolete. So you lie and contradict yourself in a few sentences.
Typical crank characteristics.
everything isalllies
2022-01-10 08:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

<rants & cries snipped>(deleted by itsalllies)

End of useful information from Rotchm.

obsolescent- obsolete. whatever...
There is no significant difference for all practical purposes. Science does not gradually fade out bad concepts its just stops using them, unless you are not keeping up with current developments?
But rather than discussing Physics, you just like to engage in useless rhetoric for the fun of it.
Michael Moroney
2022-01-10 13:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
<rants & cries snipped>(deleted by itsalllies)
End of useful information from Rotchm.
obsolescent- obsolete. whatever...
There is no significant difference for all practical purposes. Science does not gradually fade out bad concepts its just stops using them, unless you are not keeping up with current developments?
Modern physics books don't teach relativistic mass.
In code development we use the term 'deprecated' to describe code or an
interface superseded by newer code/interface, but left in to support
older usage. Same principle here.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-10 13:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
<rants & cries snipped>(deleted by itsalllies)
End of useful information from Rotchm.
obsolescent- obsolete. whatever...
There is no significant difference for all practical purposes. Science does not gradually fade out bad concepts its just stops using them, unless you are not keeping up with current developments?
Modern physics books don't teach relativistic mass.
Was the concept falsified somehow, stupid Mike? By which
experiment?
See, poor halfbrain: what happened to relativistic mass
increase can also happen to relativistic time dilation.
The next generation of gurus simply won't like it anymore
and announce it deprecated too.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-10 14:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
But don’t confuse invariant mass with
relativistic mass. Those are different terms that mean different things,
and if you confuse them you’re going to make a mistake. Relativistic mass
is just energy scaled by a factor (c^2).
BS.
There is no such thing as two different types of Mass, there is ONLY MASS.
This is admitted by Physics. And old ideas such as Relativistic or Rest
Mass has been done away with, because it was stupid.
No, it’s not stupid. It just wasn’t as useful as invariant mass.
What a pity that your dilating time is no way as useful as [invariant]
GPS time or TAI time... isn't it, poor halfbrain?
rotchm
2022-01-07 00:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Here is the real twin paradox,
Wrong. Its "a" twin paradox (and your below scenario doesn't match the essence of the twin paradox).
Post by everything isalllies
1. Two twins in a universe devoid of everything except the twins, observe each other
and note that the distance between them is growing at a constant rate.
OK. Do you realize in your above statement, that each of server has set up a coordinate system!?
You have specified implicitly that they each have done that, that package have their frame.
Alice sees, measures, that Bob is changing position within her frame.
Ditto for Bob.

Now this contradicts the first part of your sentence: "a universe devoid of everything except the twins".
You say it's devoid of everything except the twins. Yet you implicitly say there are also other things, namely the two frames.

So which is it? Is the universe devoid of everything or is it not?
Because in your sentence you contradicted yourself.
You need to fix that before we move on.
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
No, SR makes no such claim.
SR claims that in the scenarios where there is one inertial observer, and one not, that its the "one not" that ages slower.
Post by everything isalllies
The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin"
That's not a paradox. We know who is moving or not moving, because it is explicitly (or implicitly) stated in the scenario.

Fix your above contradictions and ambiguities and we can continue step by step.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 01:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Now this contradicts the first part of your sentence: "a universe devoid of everything except the twins".
You say it's devoid of everything except the twins. Yet you implicitly say there are also other things, namely the two frames.
So which is it? Is the universe devoid of everything or is it not?
Because in your sentence you contradicted yourself.
You need to fix that before we move on.
Are you that stupid Rotchm?
A mental construct whose purpose is to aid in the measurements of anything is not a OBJECT.
It does not exist, its not to be included in a Universe where there are only two objects.
Or if I set up the same situation where each of the two objects set up an infinite number of frames, then we have two distinct sets of infinite frames in the one universe... what if they crash into one or more of those countless frames, surely they will die....
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
No, SR makes no such claim.
SR claims that in the scenarios where there is one inertial observer, and one not, that its the "one not" that ages slower.
You are anal. There is no difference between "moving will age" and "one not inertial" (will age)....
moving can be moving inertially or moving with acceleration.
In fact STR never includes any allowances for any non inertial observer or any object observed in any frame, that is not exclusively moving inertially. If you believe it does, then quote from Einsteins 1905 paper please, showing where he allows acceleration in his hypothesis or in his calculations.
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
The Paradox is that neither twin can claim to be the "non moving twin"
That's not a paradox. We know who is moving or not moving, because it is explicitly (or implicitly) stated in the scenario.
Well the paradox is not a statement of Law delivered by GOD from the mount.
Its a made up story where the author tries to describe a situation that highlights an apparently contradictory case related to some claim of fact.
So as its just a story to illustrate some possible problem, we can do with it want we want.
We do NOT necessarily know who is stationary and who is travelling in order to see the issues that the author was concerned with.
Now because of people like you, I have chosen as is my right, to remove some aspects of the original story because they cloud the real issue, and I believe that the shorter story provides a more stable Paradox whilst still conforming to the Theory that is being challenged.

There, all "imagined" contradictions are fixed now, so up to you to worm you way around them.
rotchm
2022-01-07 03:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Now this contradicts the first part of your sentence: "a universe devoid of everything except the twins".
You say it's devoid of everything except the twins. Yet you implicitly say there are also other things, namely the two frames.
So which is it? Is the universe devoid of everything or is it not?
Because in your sentence you contradicted yourself.
You need to fix that before we move on.
A mental construct whose purpose is to aid in the measurements of anything is not a OBJECT.
Irrelevant...
Post by everything isalllies
It does not exist, its not to be included in a Universe where there are only two objects.
But YOU implicitly said that there are also reference frames. And I quote:

"...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."

If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
thereof. This is what your words meant.
Post by everything isalllies
infinite frames in the one universe... what if they crash into one or more of those countless frames,
Frames need not be "hard"; in a loose sense, they need not be physical. But if you want to do physics, to do actual measurements, we do need to use physical stuff, "objects". For instance if I want to measure the speed of an incoming car, I don't have to crash physically into it. I can send a specially crafted EM to it and measure the return signal. Nothing material has interacted with us except for photons.
But we did use physical devices like the source, and the reflector (incoming car).
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
2. STR claims that "the moving twin" will age slower because his time is dilated.
No, SR makes no such claim.
No review do? So you agree!
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
SR claims that in the scenarios where there is one inertial observer, and one not, that its the "one not" that ages slower.
There is no difference between "moving will age" and "one not inertial" (will age)....
Your comment has nothing to do with my above comment. It does not follow.
Try stating it differently...
Post by everything isalllies
moving can be moving inertially or moving with acceleration.
Correct. Moving inertially typically means without proper acceleration.
Moving with acceleration typically means moving with proper acceleration different from zero.

There's a big difference with coordinate acceleration. You have not specified with acceleration you are referring to in your scenarios.
As I said, you need to be clear.
Post by everything isalllies
In fact STR never includes any allowances for any non inertial observer or any object observed in any frame,
SR allows for non inertial motion (when described from an inertial frame).
Another way to say this, is that SR allows for an object to have non-inertial motion; SR can compute the time displayed on that object
during its non-inertial motion. SR can also describe the motion of this non-inertial object via any inertial frame.
Post by everything isalllies
that is not exclusively moving inertially. If you believe it does, then quote from Einsteins 1905 paper please,
showing where he allows acceleration in his hypothesis or in his calculations.
Let S be an inertial frame.
Consider the set of events (x(t),t).
SR applies to all sets of events thus also applies to the set (x(t),t), right?
x(t) is arbitrary here [well, best to require that it is continuous], thus
including accelerated motion. You can set x(t) = a*t² /2 if you whish.
An object can follow this path. (x(t),t) still Remains a set of events as described by S, right?
Post by everything isalllies
Well the paradox is not a statement of Law delivered by GOD from the mount.
The twin paradox is a scenario, whereby the result is unintuitive.
Post by everything isalllies
Its a made up story where the author tries to describe a situation that highlights an apparently contradictory
case related to some claim of fact.
Correct, an "apparently contradictory". But when one specifies clearly the scenario, and actually applies special relativity calculations too, there are no contradictions.
Post by everything isalllies
So as its just a story to illustrate some possible problem, we can do with it want we want.
We do NOT necessarily know who is stationary and who is travelling in order to see the issues that the author was concerned with.
There are many scenarios of the twin paradox. Each scenario is different and must be analyzed giving the initial data, the initial scenario.
In some scenarios the twins reunite where one is younger. In some scenarios the twins reunite with the same age. It all depends on the scenario. One needs to stay the scenario clearly at the beginning to do the right analysis.
rotchm
2022-01-08 00:12:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
It does not exist, its not to be included in a Universe where there are only two objects.
"...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."
No rebuttal?
So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?
Is this how you discuss it intelligently by running away when you're cornered?
Post by rotchm
If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
thereof. This is what your words meant.
No rebuttal?
Is that a sign that you are angry or that you have been cornered and are too afraid to admit it?

Seriously, you are acting more and more like a crank.
As in one of my original post to you, you failed a simple math problem. The shows that you will fail at mostly everything else. And this is what is happening post after post after post that you post...!

If you keep on insulting and being a coward, I will have to start to remove your posts.
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 01:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
"...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."
No rebuttal?
So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?
Post by rotchm
If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
<<>
You are creating a strawman here.
Claiming things I never said or meant.
You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects in the universe, and they observer a growing distance between them.

Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER things in space or in my thought experiment.
You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference because that's the only way the two observers can observe any change in distance.

But this is only because you don't understand Physics.
A frame of reference is not an object of Physics. Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.
Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can only happen to these two objects.

The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation. They cant affect the experiment in any way.
rotchm
2022-01-08 02:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
You are creating a strawman here.
Claiming things I never said or meant.
EXACTLY !!
The point is, the words you use MEANS what I have told you. If you want to discuss physics, you must use its language.
The words and sentences you've been using, are to be taken as per the physics meaning. And the meaning is what I told you above.

Perhaps that is not what you meant but that is what your words meant here in physics.
If you want to be understood, use the appropriate language.
Post by everything isalllies
You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects in the universe,
and they observer a growing distance between them.
Yes, that is what you said.
Post by everything isalllies
Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER things in space
Yes. How else will they know that the distance between them is changing?
Do tell me this... it is a very important point... You posited that **The Observers notice** a change of position.
How can they noticed this?
Post by everything isalllies
You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference because that's the only
way the two observers can observe any change in distance.
Correct. That is the **meaning** of Observers.
'Observers' is synonym to 'coordinate system', synonym to 'reference frame', synonym to 'SpaceTime coordinates', synonym to (x,t).

I agree in the Common Street language these are not synonyms.
But in physics, in particular in special relativity, they are (well there are slight different
connotations but they basically mean the same thing and Beyond the scope of our discussion here).

So again, learn the appropriate language else you will not be understood.
Again, I suggest you read the section of servers in the book I referenced you above.
Then there is a similar section in 'spacetime physics' by Taylor/Wheeler. And read up some more to get a proper understanding of the concept of Observers (and inertial frames, etc).
Post by everything isalllies
A frame of reference is not an object of Physics.
It's not an object of physics. It's an object used by physics if we want to do experiments, If we want to log the *results* of experiments.
Post by everything isalllies
Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.
Yes in that sense. The laws of physics are independent of reference frames.
However, to observe, to log events, we have reference frames.
Post by everything isalllies
Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can only happen to these two objects.
So, light signals between them cannot happen?
And how can they know that the other person is changing positions?
Post by everything isalllies
The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation.
Let's forget about the word abstract or real, for it does not change what your are peddling...
Post by everything isalllies
They cant affect the experiment in any way.
True. We are concerned with what will the measuring device display.
So you are saying in reference frame one, Obs2 is changing positions.
In reference Frame 2, Obs1 is changing positions.

Here, 'ObsX' refers to *persons*m or *objects*, or more accurately, a set of spacetime coordinates.
For instance, in frame 1 (F1), we may have the set of coordinates (x=1,t=1), (2,2), (3,3) etc. These coordinates are "changing".
They may represent the coordinates of Obs2, say.

Is this is what you have been meaning all along?
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 07:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space. They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
You are creating a strawman here.
Claiming things I never said or meant.
EXACTLY !!
The point is, the words you use MEANS what I have told you. If you want to discuss physics, you must use its language.
The words and sentences you've been using, are to be taken as per the physics meaning. And the meaning is what I told you above.
Perhaps that is not what you meant but that is what your words meant here in physics.
In the marxism-leninism "the best political system" means communism.
Who cares?
Post by rotchm
'Observers' is synonym to 'coordinate system', synonym to 'reference frame', synonym to 'SpaceTime coordinates', synonym to (x,t).
I agree in the Common Street language these are not synonyms.
And that makes "confirmed by observations" a synonym of -
"derived from some moronic postulates of an insane guru"
But in common language they are not synonyms.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 18:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
Post by rotchm
Post by rotchm
"...the twins, observe each other and note that the distance between them is growing..."
No rebuttal?
So you agree, and you agree that you contradicted yourself in your sentence!?
Post by rotchm
If they can note distances, then they have coordinated their space.
They have given a coordinate system or a reference frame.
That is what it means to "note the distance". In other words, they have
a certain scheme, a procedure, to detect distances or changes
<<>
You are creating a strawman here.
Claiming things I never said or meant.
You whole argument here is that I said two observers are the only objects
in the universe, and they observer a growing distance between them.
Now you seem to think that this necessitated the existence of OTHER
things in space or in my thought experiment.
You think that there additionally MUST exist two frames of reference
because that's the only way the two observers can observe any change in distance.
But this is only because you don't understand Physics.
A frame of reference is not an object of Physics. Its not PART of any Physics hypothesis.
No, sorry, you’re wrong, as I’ve indicated elsewhere. Conservation of
energy is an example of a physics hypothesis — a law in fact. Kinetic
energy is a key part of that law. Kinetic energy cannot be defined without
a reference frame. Try it.
Post by everything isalllies
Only the two observers are in this experiment. All Physics processes can
only happen to these two objects.
The frames are ABSTRACT devices used to allow consistent observation.
They cant affect the experiment in any way.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 00:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:07:30 AM UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:

"No, sorry, you’re wrong, as I’ve indicated elsewhere. Conservation of
energy is an example of a physics hypothesis — a law in fact. Kinetic
energy is a key part of that law. Kinetic energy cannot be defined without
a reference frame. Try it."

Of course. Kinetic Energy is a MEASURE not a THING, not an OBJECT.
And ALL measurements are related to other objects.
But taking a measure does not imply that your choice of where to measure FROM and in what direction, is in itself PART of PHYSICS processes.
You are reifying a CONCEPT.
FoR's are not PART of any observation, they only allow the measurement to have a verifiable origin.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-10 14:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by everything isalllies
"No, sorry, you’re wrong, as I’ve indicated elsewhere. Conservation of
energy is an example of a physics hypothesis — a law in fact. Kinetic
energy is a key part of that law. Kinetic energy cannot be defined without
a reference frame. Try it."
Of course. Kinetic Energy is a MEASURE not a THING, not an OBJECT.
A measure of WHAT? Remember there is a law of conservation of energy. What
do you think this means, in term of your measure.
Post by everything isalllies
And ALL measurements are related to other objects.
No, that’s simply not correct.
Kinetic energy classically is (1/2)mv^2, where m is the mass of a single
object, and v is the speed of that same single object — not relative to
some other object, but to some coordinate system.

If you have a 3-object system, say three pool balls, you can certainly
evaluate the kinetic energy of each ball, like the kinetic energy of A
without saying that v is relative to balls B or to ball C or even to the
table.
Post by everything isalllies
But taking a measure does not imply that your choice of where to measure
FROM and in what direction, is in itself PART of PHYSICS processes.
You are reifying a CONCEPT.
Conservation of energy is a real regularity of physics. If you think it
refers to nothing real, then you don’t understand physics, period.

If it helps, physics is NOT the study of material bodies and how they
behave. If you thought it was, then you have a grade-school understanding
of physics, and what you need to correct that is not a logical argument but
a better education in the subject.
Post by everything isalllies
FoR's are not PART of any observation, they only allow the measurement to
have a verifiable origin.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-06 19:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[TP] it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
There are many variants of the twin paradox.
They have a Galilean phases, some have acceleration phases and some have frame jumping.
There are "time dilation" in each of these "phases".
There are many, indeed; but in the meantime in the real
world - forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep
measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2022-01-07 00:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Gary Harnagel
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent
acceleration is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon.
For once you are correct. I do not know what Langevin’s argument was, but
this sentence is the wrong explanation, and it should be removed from that
article. Acceleration has nothing to do with it; the change of frame of
reference is the reason instead.

See also the video “Twin paradox: the correct explanation (no math)” that
I referred to yesterday.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)
Richard Hachel
2022-01-07 01:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
For once you are correct. I do not know what Langevin’s argument was, but
this sentence is the wrong explanation, and it should be removed from that
article. Acceleration has nothing to do with it; the change of frame of
reference is the reason instead.
See also the video “Twin paradox: the correct explanation (no math)” that
I referred to yesterday.
Yes, I am obviously right.
When you don't understand something, you have to start over on a simple
basis. What must be understood is that the first physicists of the time of
Poincaré or Einstein were not morons or terrorists of thought. They saw
very well that this story was wrong somewhere and many were those who
precisely posed what is still called Langevin's paradox today.
There is bound to be an absurdity in saying that two watches move on each
other. It's so obvious that you don't even have to discuss it to be
convinced.
It is absurd in fact.
Yet increasingly precise experiments have shown that the theory is valid.
The question today is therefore: how can an absurd fact come out of a
theory that is nevertheless valid. I worked on it for a long time
(decades) and I found where the theoretical problem came from.
I'll tell you one thing: often, when you don't understand a problem, it's
because the question is poorly asked. In this story, I see with perfect
evidence that it is the confusion that men make between the proper time of
the two twins and the chronotropy of the two frames of reference. It's not
the same thing. The proper time of the star twin will ultimately be
smaller than the proper time of the twin on earth. That is to say what is
written on the watches.
But what is written on the watches, even if it is PARTLY dependent on
chronotropy, symmetrical constant effect of type sqrt (1-v² / c²),
is not all of the time matches or mismatches. Anisotropy also plays a
role.

I put back to understand, the following small diagram.
Note for example that t = To = t'= To' = 0 when all the watches are
triggered.
We see that the watch O notes t = 0 for the event E, and that the watch To
(which represents the local time marks -15 for E). In the other frame of
reference R 'things are roughly the same type. The watch O 'marks t' = 0
for E, and the local time watch marks To '= - 41 for E.
But that's not all. Imagine that a second event takes place at the same
place in R six nanoseconds, or six seconds, or six light years later
(depending on what time we took initially). We will then note for E in R:
(x, t, z, To, t) or
for this second event (12.9.0, -9.6) instead of (12.9.0, -15.0). And in R
'we will denote (32,9,0, -31, 2.24154) instead of (40,9,0, -41,0).
This means that if in R To and t remain identical (the time t of the watch
placed in O and To the local time), it is no longer the same thing in R
'because, there, the event E2 n' will no longer take place at the same
time for t '(in O') and O ".
We will have t'2 = 2.24154 and To'2 = 10.
However, the two watches are in the same inertial frame of reference R
'and it is clear that they therefore have the same chronotropy.
What causes the two watches to not note the same time? Because in R', E
and E2 do not take place at the same place. The anisotropy plays fully on
the proper times of the watches, even if the chronotropy of these same
watches is identical.
It's clear?

R.H.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 20:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
For once you are correct. I do not know what Langevin’s argument was, but
this sentence is the wrong explanation, and it should be removed from that
article. Acceleration has nothing to do with it; the change of frame of
reference is the reason instead.
See also the video “Twin paradox: the correct explanation (no math)” that
I referred to yesterday.
Yes, I am obviously right.
When you don't understand something, you have to start over on a simple
basis.
No, Richard, that’s YOUR approach.

YOUR approach when you don’t understand something being explained by
someone else, is that you retreat from what others say and invent your own
idea about what’s going on.

That’s not a good idea.

What NORMAL people do, Richard, when they don’t understand something that
someone else is saying, is to get better materials to study.
Post by Richard Hachel
What must be understood is that the first physicists of the time of
Poincaré or Einstein were not morons or terrorists of thought. They saw
very well that this story was wrong somewhere and many were those who
precisely posed what is still called Langevin's paradox today.
There is bound to be an absurdity in saying that two watches move on each
other. It's so obvious that you don't even have to discuss it to be
convinced.
It is absurd in fact.
Yet increasingly precise experiments have shown that the theory is valid.
The question today is therefore: how can an absurd fact come out of a
theory that is nevertheless valid. I worked on it for a long time
(decades) and I found where the theoretical problem came from.
I'll tell you one thing: often, when you don't understand a problem, it's
because the question is poorly asked. In this story, I see with perfect
evidence that it is the confusion that men make between the proper time of
the two twins and the chronotropy of the two frames of reference. It's not
the same thing. The proper time of the star twin will ultimately be
smaller than the proper time of the twin on earth. That is to say what is
written on the watches.
But what is written on the watches, even if it is PARTLY dependent on
chronotropy, symmetrical constant effect of type sqrt (1-v² / c²),
is not all of the time matches or mismatches. Anisotropy also plays a
role.
I put back to understand, the following small diagram.
Note for example that t = To = t'= To' = 0 when all the watches are
triggered.
We see that the watch O notes t = 0 for the event E, and that the watch To
(which represents the local time marks -15 for E). In the other frame of
reference R 'things are roughly the same type. The watch O 'marks t' = 0
for E, and the local time watch marks To '= - 41 for E.
But that's not all. Imagine that a second event takes place at the same
place in R six nanoseconds, or six seconds, or six light years later
(x, t, z, To, t) or
for this second event (12.9.0, -9.6) instead of (12.9.0, -15.0). And in R
'we will denote (32,9,0, -31, 2.24154) instead of (40,9,0, -41,0).
This means that if in R To and t remain identical (the time t of the watch
placed in O and To the local time), it is no longer the same thing in R
'because, there, the event E2 n' will no longer take place at the same
time for t '(in O') and O ".
We will have t'2 = 2.24154 and To'2 = 10.
However, the two watches are in the same inertial frame of reference R
'and it is clear that they therefore have the same chronotropy.
What causes the two watches to not note the same time? Because in R', E
and E2 do not take place at the same place. The anisotropy plays fully on
the proper times of the watches, even if the chronotropy of these same
watches is identical.
It's clear?
R.H.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Blade Teals
2022-01-07 21:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Yes, I am obviously right.
When you don't understand something, you have to start over on a simple
basis.
No, Richard, that’s YOUR approach.
YOUR approach when you don’t understand something being explained by
someone else, is that you retreat from what others say and invent your
own idea about what’s going on. That’s not a good idea.
What NORMAL people do, Richard, when they don’t understand something
that someone else is saying, is to get better materials to study.
not true. He is consistent. All big problems are about a single small
problem. Understand the small problem and you undrestand the big problem.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 17:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Thank you for your reply.
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
sentence as if a genius had spoken.
It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
The accelerations? LOL.
And why not the papal balls?
R.H.
Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.
1. Why is it not a paradox?
But it is a paradox.
No, it’s not.
2. What is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.
His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
and coming back toward the traveling twin.
Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.
If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
“one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
understand the answer to question 1.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2022-01-08 18:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Thank you for your reply.
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
sentence as if a genius had spoken.
It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
The accelerations? LOL.
And why not the papal balls?
R.H.
Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.
1. Why is it not a paradox?
But it is a paradox.
No, it’s not.
Yes it is.
Post by Odd Bodkin
2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.
There is no paradox....your assertion that there is paradox based on the false assumption that a clock second is an absolute interval of TIME....it is not. A clock second contains a different amount of TIME in different frames.
Post by Odd Bodkin
His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
and coming back toward the traveling twin.
Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.
If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
“one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
understand the answer to question 1.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 18:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Richard Hachel
Thank you for your reply.
Wongo, Richard. Langevin himself "solved" it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
"The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration
is used to explain why there is any difference at all,"
This sentence does not mean anything. It absolutely does not explain the
phenomenon. When I read this, I find it sad to cry, not that a scientist
could have written such bullshit, but that other men reprized this silly
sentence as if a genius had spoken.
It is as if he was saying: "a dog is a dog because a dog is a dog".
I have said over and over again (but nobody seems to care) that it was not
the accelerations that explained the phenomenon, and that almost all of
the differences were made during the purely Galilean phases. We also said
bullshit of the type "the twin jumps of reference" or "the needles panic
during the U-turn". This is all sad.
We drown the fish with words. Nothing really obvious or understandable is
explained. In short, as I have always said: "The theory of relativity is
right, beautiful, and experimentally obvious. But when a man is asked to
explain it, he does not know how to do it. Everything turns to dust. under
the rug because we don't know how to say things ".
The accelerations? LOL.
And why not the papal balls?
R.H.
Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.
1. Why is it not a paradox?
But it is a paradox.
No, it’s not.
Yes it is.
Post by Odd Bodkin
2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.
There is no paradox....
That’s funny, just above you said it was a paradox.

It’s getting bad, Ken.
Post by Ken Seto
your assertion that there is paradox based on the false assumption that
a clock second is an absolute interval of TIME....it is not. A clock
second contains a different amount of TIME in different frames.
Post by Odd Bodkin
His clock second contain a larger amount of TIME than the stay at home
clock second.....that means that clocks in different frames accumulate
clock seconds at different rates and thus when they meet again they show
different number of clock seconds. This does not mean that the traveling
clock is younger. It means that the traveling clock accumulated Tt
seconds contains the same amount of TIME as the stay at home clock
accumulated Ts seconds. IOW, a clock second on any clock does not
represent the same amount of TIME in different frame and that’s why when
the twin meet again they show different accumulated clock seconds but
these different accumulated clock seconds contain the same amount of TIME.
The answer to the first question is defusing the mistake that generates the
apparent paradox. The mistake is specifically this: “But snce motion is
relative, it is a completely symmetric scenario. The traveling twin can
think of himself as moving and the earth twin as moving away and then
moving back.” The mistake is — specifically — thinking that it is a
symmetric situation when it is not. Remove the symmetry and the apparent
paradox dissolves, because if it is NOT symmetric, then you cannot make the
claim that you can just reflect the situation as the earth twin moving away
and coming back toward the traveling twin.
Resolving the paradox does not answer question 2, but it does answer
question 1.
If you need further response about why it is not symmetric, that can be
described in multiple ways. The symmetry of the situation would require
both observers to be in inertial motion, when ONE is clearly not. Describe
that as “one twin feels acceleration and the other not” or equivalently
“one is at rest in a single inertial reference frame, while the other is
not” or “the worldline of one twin is straight while the other is bent”.
These all MEAN the same thing, using different words. If you don’t
understand how they can mean the same thing, that’s because you do not
understand connections like experienced acceleration and bends in a
worldline. And that you could only fix by READING.
This still doesn’t answer question 2 for you, which comes from
straightforward calculation with Lorentz transforms. But first you have to
understand the answer to question 1.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2022-01-08 20:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.
1. Why is it not a paradox?
But it is a paradox.
No, it’s not.
Yes it is.
Post by Odd Bodkin
2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.
There is no paradox....
Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?

Time to hang up that keyboard, Ken. You've lost it.
Michael Moroney
2022-01-09 22:16:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Richard, break the problem down. There are TWO questions involved in this
puzzle.
1. Why is it not a paradox?
But it is a paradox.
No, it’s not.
Yes it is.
Post by Odd Bodkin
2. W.hat is the explanation for why one twin comes back younger
The traveling twin doesn’t come back younger.
Well, if that were true, then you wouldn’t have a paradox to complain
about.
There is no paradox....
Stupid Ken, you are really losing it now. You just said, twice, in two
different posts that it is a paradox. Now you say it's not a paradox?
Moron I said that there is clock time paradox because a clock second is not and absolute interval of time.. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
So now you said three times there is no paradox and one time when you
said there was. Is there a paradox or not? If not, explain why you
answered yes. If yes, why did you answer no, three times?
Time to hang up that keyboard, Ken. You've lost it.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 18:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
So you believe watches are mechanically distorted because of velocity?
No, the watches are in their normal state in all the repositories. They
simply beat each other less quickly (ie the one I'm looking at beats less
quickly than mine) by relative effect.
If I move at v = 0.8c, and I look at a watch at rest, or vice versa, a
strange but real phenomenon appears due to the nature of time. It will
appear to me to beat six seconds while mine beat ten seconds.
For her, the effect is the opposite. She looks at my watch in astonishment
and notices that on the contrary, it is mine which beats by six seconds
while hers beats by ten seconds. It is a phenomenon that should be taken
for granted and scientifically established. The fact remains that this
poses, in the end, a huge paradox that most scientists have exposed to
criticize this theory. The problem is that today, in 2022, we still do not
know how to respond correctly to this paradox (except me for decades).
We do not understand that there is a need for the local time differential
To and the proper time of the watch t.
Yes, chronotropy is reciprocally weaker "elsewhere". No, this does not
affect the final consistency of the theory if we do not forget that there
is also another effect: universal anisochrony and that the equation To '=
To / sqrt (1-v² / c²) is only part of the correction to be made to the
two (or more) travelers.

R.H.
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 18:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit
Post by Gary Harnagel
Chronotropy: "The rate of muscular contraction, especially of the heart."
Yes.

Chronotropy (in relativistic physics) : frequency of a given rhythm,
speed at which the watch hands turn.

Il faut bien donner un mot aux choses. On aime ou on n'aime pas.

Généralement quand le terme est nouveau, on aime pas.

Cent ans plus tard, on en raffole.

Allez savoir pourquoi...

R.H.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2022-01-07 01:04:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Le 06/01/2022 à 15:05, Gary Harnagel a écrit
Post by Gary Harnagel
Chronotropy: "The rate of muscular contraction, especially of the heart."
Yes.
Chronotropy (in relativistic physics) : frequency of a given rhythm,
speed at which the watch hands turn.
You are confusing relativistic physics with your private armchair
philosophy.

It is a term that you invented because simply doing the actual physics that
works would not make you special and worthy of attention (in your mind).

You are very likely mentally ill, Richard.


PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven
Richard Hachel
2022-01-06 18:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), t' = (t - vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The twin's movement according to the stay-at-home twin is x = vt, so
t' = (1 - v²/c²)t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = sqrt(1-v²/c²)t, not the inverse that you assert.
It's useless to ascribe a mechanical explanation to the so-called "paradox.".
I don't understand the way you put it.
In Langevin's reasoning about the traveler, we have to cut things into
four parts.
The first part is the one where the terrestrial twin sees his brother go
to a star placed at 12 al. It could be Tau Ceti.
The journey takes place at a constant Galilean speed of v = 0.8c thanks to
new technology.
The second part is where the earthly brother sees his twin coming back to
him (this is called the return phase).
The third is the vision of the outward journey by the traveler himself,
and the fourth is the vision he has of his return journey.
In these four descriptions, only one and the same equation should be used:
t'= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
where t is the natural time of one of the twins, and t 'the time measured
by the other observer.
Always, always, always, you will come across this simple and devilishly
precise equation.
I don't mind people despising it, rejecting it, not believing it.
LOL.
You will not change the reality of the eternal equations.

R.H.
Gary Harnagel
2022-01-06 21:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Gary Harnagel
x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²), t' = (t - vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
The twin's movement according to the stay-at-home twin is x = vt, so
t' = (1 - v²/c²)t/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = sqrt(1-v²/c²)t, not the inverse that you
assert.
It's useless to ascribe a mechanical explanation to the so-called "paradox."
I don't understand the way you put it.
In Langevin's reasoning about the traveler, we have to cut things into
four parts.
The first part is the one where the terrestrial twin sees his brother go
to a star placed at 12 al. It could be Tau Ceti.
The journey takes place at a constant Galilean speed of v = 0.8c thanks to
new technology.
The second part is where the earthly brother sees his twin coming back to
him (this is called the return phase).
The third is the vision of the outward journey by the traveler himself,
and the fourth is the vision he has of his return journey.
Nope. Something else happens between the outward journey and the return
journey: the traveler JUMPS FRAMES. This can be accomplished by the
traveler decelerating and then accelerating in the opposite direction, or by
passing his clock information to a third person already traveling in the frame
he jumped to.
Post by Richard Hachel
t'= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
where t is the natural time of one of the twins, and t 'the time measured
by the other observer.
Always, always, always, you will come across this simple and devilishly
precise equation.
I don't mind people despising it, rejecting it, not believing it.
LOL.
You will not change the reality of the eternal equations.
R.H.
Neither will you change the universe. Either your theory agrees with it or it doesn't.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

And all the extra claptrap you've tossed in does't change the fact that the simple
Lorentz transform is sufficient to solve the so-called "paradox." Occam's razor
says that the simplest solution that solves the problem is the right one. The Bible
says, don't go whoring after other gods.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-07 06:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Harnagel
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman
What a pity then that forbidden by your moronic religion TAI
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Loading...