Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel

From: GR_GR (nyb_at_colorado.edu)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:26:30 -0700

César Sirvent wrote:
>>>Thanks, but we were moving at a higher level than just a simple Internet
>>>FAQ.
>>
>>If you are having trouble understanding the twin paradox, then "we" is a
>>set that does not include yourself.
>
>
> Sorry, but I don't like the condescending tone of your assertion. I kindly
> ask you not to go personal.

Nothing personal about it.
However, saying things like "but we were moving at a higher level than
just a simple Internet FAQ." is rather condescending.

> I am not having trouble understanding the twin paradox, as Tolman did not
> have.
> Do you know about his resolution of the twin paradox? Obviously you seem to
> imply that he was wrong.

I have not read his solution.
We were not talking about his knowledge of SR, but yours.
You seem to think (from what I have read of your posts) that GR is
needed to solve the twin paradox. SR explains it fine.
If I am mistaken about you thinking that GR is needed to solve the twin
paradox, then you have my apologies.

> Sad that his ellaboration was aknowledged by Einstein as one of the most
> accurate.
> Of course, Pauli must have also been wrong about it.

Having not read their solutions, I cannot comment. However, even the
most brilliant of physicists have been wrong.

> I recall you that the twin paradox being solvable in GR or SR was a matter
> of academic discussion around the time that Dingle entered into scene.

Who?
I have been posting to the groups for about 2 weeks, and have no clue
who dingle is.

> Sad enought that this intromission lead to a "pact of silence" about the
> issue itself.

"pact of silence" huh? Sounds like a conspiracy......
Hummmm.....

In any event, the twin paradox is explained by SR without recourse to GR.
Acceleration is handled in SR just fine.
These are basic concepts that, unless one is just starting out in the
study of SR and GR, should not invoke the discussions it seems to.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins stationary clock
    ... [Androcles wrote:] ... Now explain the twin paradox, retaining your assertion above, without ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel
    ... > César Sirvent wrote: ... >> The problem is that you don't even understand the correct formulation of the ... > The twin paradox is well know and is solved by undergraduates at various ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel
    ... César Sirvent wrote: ... >>Since Dirk was of great help with questions relating to GR, ... >>has no difficulty in solving the twin paradox. ... Dirk and those FAQ's you mention. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins stationary clock
    ... Funny, but don't know anything of the kind. ... Now explain the twin paradox, retaining your assertion above, without ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)