Re: Controversy over Twin Paradox
From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/26/04
- Next message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Gravity?"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dark matter, dark energy, and will the acceleration reverse?"
- In reply to: Amol: "Controversy over Twin Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Jul 2004 20:20:28 -0700
In <c22a881.0407230153.15303e83@posting.google.com>
amol12882@yahoo.co.in (Amol) wrote:
> According to that Twin Paradox, is one brother
>stayed at earth and other went to space with speed
>of light and he came back after some time then it
>seems that one who travels with spped of light ages
>less than who stayed at earth. In this case we are
>only considering the frame of refrence of earth i.e.
>w.r.to earth you are calculating the age of that
>person.
> Now suppose that you are in a space ship, then
>according to you, you are at rest and earth is
>moving with the spped of light. Here also the same
>logic can be applied and you will say that the
>person sitting on the earth will younger than you.
>Therfore the explanation can be given from both
>point of view, hence the age of both the persons
>should be same, because time is relative.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
You have gotten a few good answers to your
problem.
When the twins return, one and only one will be
younger, and it does not matter which person does the
measuring. But you ought to be sure to include what
I say, along with what you have so far gotten.
The paradox of the twins has been presented many
times. The best presentation was of course by yours
truly, which I called the perfect paradox of the
twins, where observers were stationed everywhere, to
observe everything that occurs. And years later,
when all the facts and figures are collected from all
these observers, the exact and complete truth will
show that the ether approach has the correct
solution. (Do a google search under 'globarr perfect
paradox.') I have presented such perfect paradoxes
in Jan 01 and Nov 03. I use trees, and their growth,
to make everything perfectly understood.
So I do not wish to say anything about the correct
solution. But I would like to point out to you some
important things in your question above. First of
all, you have chosen to use the speed of light as
your velocity of the moving twin. This is of course
a 'no no' for several reasons. But let us close our
eyes and assume that it is possible, or nearly
possible. The speed of light is not a relative
function. I do not care how much anyone believes in
SR, the speed of light is not relative in any
possible way. There is a speed, a fixed speed, that
is the speed of light, and no other real or physical
object can be made to appear to be at this speed
unless it is at this speed!
Take a free space inertial line upon which photons
are moving. All these photons will hold a fixed
distance from each other as they move, and no other
massive object in the universe will be moving as fast
as they are moving, in the same direction they are
moving, on this line. Their motion is unique and
absolute.
This is one fact that makes LET superior to SR,
in that c is an absolute condition, and not relative!
If you infer that a fast moving rocket ship will
see the earth moving at the speed of light, all you
need to do is to have this fast moving rocket ship
put the earth on one of its own inertial lines, and
see if the earth is moving as fast as a photon that is
moving upon this same line and direction. Obviously,
it will not be observed to be so moving, if the rocket
ship clock shows any change at all.
So let me repeat myself again! The speed of
light is not relative at all. It is a fixed velocity
and no other object's motion can be confused with it.
Those people who believe in relativity can only
believe in relativity because they lie to themselves:
They say that what is measured (what they measure
with their tools) is reality. But we know that tools
do not maintain fixed lengths or rates, and so what
tools measure is a mix of reality and changes which
are partly unknown. And thus, we know that SR is not
reality, and true reality will never be known until
we know our absolute velocity through space.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>
- Next message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Gravity?"
- Previous message: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Dark matter, dark energy, and will the acceleration reverse?"
- In reply to: Amol: "Controversy over Twin Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
