Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?


PD wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > > TomGee wrote:
> > > > > > > > You don't know how I do that simply because I don't do that. You're
> > > > > > > > the one making all those false inferences about what each law talks
> > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The first law talks about a _sole_ object moving at constant velocity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Law two relates to a net force on an object changing its velocity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Law three talks about _two or more_ objects interacting with each
> > > > > > > > other.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So 1 and 2 refer to sole objects, but only about forces affecting
> > > > > > > > objects which are at either constant or changing velocities. Thus laws
> > > > > > > > 1 and 2 are distinctly different and thus specific statements about
> > > > > > > > motion. Law 3 talks about the forces which are in play when two or
> > > > > > > > more objects interact, while laws 1 and 2 refer to only one object and
> > > > > > > > thus law 3 is also different and distinct from the first 2 laws.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Law 2 describes the magnitude of the effect of a force on an object. in
> > > > > > > *every* cases where there is a force acting on an object, it is the
> > > > > > > interaction between two bodies -- without exception -- and that is the
> > > > > > > statement made in law 3. When the force happens to be zero in
> > > > > > > magnitude, we get law 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PD
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's correct, except in law 1 where a sole object has a net
> > > > > > force which is it's own inherent force which Newton ids in the
> > > > > > GreenLion website translation. Your zero net force is zero external
> > > > > > net force
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the first part of this sentence is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Are you saying that the GreenLion translation is false? And what about
> > > > my second sentence? Do you agree or not?
> > >
> > > We've already discussed the dangers of translations,
>
> The translation is fine. However, using a translation usually requires
> some care, which you have not taken.
>
>
All I did was read the translation. The only way to take more care is
to not read it.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, but you made no valid argument against the GreenLion translation.
> > Your argument is simply that you don't like it. Too bad, but that's
> > not my fault. We can't always get what we like.
> > >
> > >
> > > of incomplete
> > > readings,
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, you seem to have gotten a little better at that, but I hesitate to
> > mention it because it seems when I do you fall right back down again.
> > >
> > >
> > > of equating physics terminology of 1687 and 2005, and more.
> > >
> > >
> > As I recall, you mumbled something modern physics being different than
> > old physics?
> > But you were grasping at straws then so I did not push it.
>
> No, you simply denied that the meaning of the terms has changed.
>
>
Because you simply claimed without support that they had changed. So
what? Opinion against opinion. So what?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > but objects cannot travel without some force moving them
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why you think this is necessarily so.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, you do, cause I've told you over and over, unless you don't
> > > > understand my explanation. You have no argument against it except to
> > > > say you don't know why I think that. I know why you think I'm wrong:
> > > > Pure brainwashing! Everyone has told you such nonsense and ingrained
> > > > it in your very being that when I tell you it's nonsense you cannot
> > > > accept the truth due to your Pavlovian conditioning. But do I sense a
> > > > glimmer of change in your use of the terms, "necessarily so"? Does
> > > > that indicate a change from "never" to "sometimes"?
> > >
> > > You see, it is you who say it is necessarily so (see below), and I'm
> > > asking why you think that.
> > >
> > >
> > And I told you: pure intuition.
>
> Which, as has been pointed out to you (see Arnold Arons on this
> subject) is not always the best avenue for understanding reality. You
> didn't like being told that your preconceptions might be wrong. Said it
> made you feel stupid.
>
>
If you like to be told your ideas are wrong you are some weird specie
cause it is in the nature of every human being to dislike that.
>
>
> > Your brainwashing talks about magical
> > perpetual motion.
>
> And again, your definition of what constitutes perpetual motion is not
> what physicists say, as was pointed out to you.
>
>
"Pointed out" = Your unsupported opinion = Ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha...........
>
>
> > I'm trying hard to impart knowledge into your head
> > but there is barbed wire there too hard to cross.
>
> That's perhaps because your wire-cutters are a tad dull.
>
>
Well, at least you admit to the barbed wire - that's a start.
> > >
> > >
> > > We'll get to my arguments in a minute.
> > >
> > > > At times you show
> > > > such promise that I just hate to throw you away.
> > >
> > > Perish the thought.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As to why I think it is necessarily so, it's purely intuitive, as
> > > > opposed to your belief which is counter-intuitive. You've been sold a
> > > > bill o' goods which upon reconsideration must show why it is
> > > > counter-intuitive, but you have no such argument other than the faith
> > > > you have put in your teachers, or the intensive brainwashing they have
> > > > performed on you.
> > > >
> > > > What is intuitive is that there's no free lunch.
> > >
> > > This implies that motion requires a continuing cost, as though every
> > > second that something is in motion, something is spent. What is it that
> > > you think is spent every second that an object is in motion?
> > >
> > >
> > What is it that you think is not being "spent"?
>
> I don't think *anything* is being "spent" in uniform motion.
>
>
But it is well-accepted that the KE of a body motion works to keep it
in orbit and that the body's KE is not changed by the right angle force
that keeps it in orbit. So what force keeps it "wanting" to moving out
of orbit into a state of CV as in Newton's law 1 if not its KE which is
the momentum of the body? It is the momentum force that keeps it
resisting the right angle force, and it is that very same force that
makes the body go into a state of CV when it is free of any net
external forces.
>
>
> > How can you have a
> > perpetual motion machine running free against Newton's inherent force?
>
> *Against* Newton's inherent force? Whatever do you mean? I thought you
> were maintaining that Newton's inherent force is what keeps it going!
>
>
I am. But You argue against that in saying a body moves without motive
power. That constitutes a perpetual machine process which is
impossible.
>
>
> > Every thing we see must have a motive power; we observe nothing lacking
> > a motive power
>
> Really? Where is the motive power that drives Voyager out beyond the
> solar system without any change in energy? What motive power keeps a
> nitrogen molecule going in a gas? And I'm not talking about your
> non-obvious, imagined *internal* motive power that has no evidence on
> the outside except the continued motion of a body -- what *evidence* do
> you have for motive power in those cases?
>
>
I have not read those reports so I have no way to compare them with my
model. Rest assured it is not magic; there is a reasonable cause for
it. I would ask you to state your case showing how you reached that
conclusion, but I cannot trust you to fairly report what you've read,
going by your past behavior.
>
>
> Do you see the circularity of your argument?
> "Everything is driven forward by some agent."
> - "What about those things that don't seem to be?"
> "Those are, too! But in those cases, they are driven by an unseen,
> internal force."
> - "How do you know that?"
> "Because they must be!"
> - "Why?"
> "Because everything is driven forward by some agent."
>
>
You should write chilren's books. They want you to pull the wool over
their eyes. You don't know what a circularity is or you would be able
to write one. There is no circularity in my argument, but there is
nonsense in yours which alleges magic.
>
>
> > except the wild claim of everyone that Newton said such
> > a thing! When I show you he did not, you refuse to accept the truth!
> > I give you a way out of the deep blind alleyways that science has put
> > us into and you choose to stay there like a lump of rotting meat! Get
> > up! Get out! Into the light!
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your assertion that
> > > > there is goes against that and so the onus is on you to show you're
> > > > right. Quoting wrong or corrupted translations don't cut it. Playing
> > > > with words the way you've tried to do don't cut it either. Put up or
> > > > shut up; or better yet, change up!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore I don't
> > > > > know how you distinguish between the inertial reference frame where the
> > > > > object is not moving (and hence doesn't need an internal force to do
> > > > > anything),
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Sighhhh. Then again, sometimes I want to throw you into the trash heap
> > > > with as much force as I can muster, exp. when you say things like that.
> > > > There are no such FoRs where an object is not moving! Everything in
> > > > the universe is moving! Do you forget that, or are you having synapse
> > > > connection problems?
> > >
> > > Ah, then you and I don't have common agreement on what a frame of
> > > reference is, and I've pointed out to you before that your
> > > understanding of a frame of reference is much different than what most
> > > physicists mean by the term. For example, I can see a frame of
> > > reference whose origin is about four inches below the seat of my chair,
> > > the x-axis points horizontally toward the northeast, the y-axis points
> > > horizontally toward the northwest, and the z-axis points vertically
> > > upward. In this frame of reference, my center-of-mass is not moving at
> > > all. Moreover, in this reference frame, my coffee cup is not moving at
> > > all. In this reference frame, my laptop is not moving at all. (For
> > > completeness's sake, this reference frame is not quite an inertial
> > > reference frame, but it's close.)
> > >
> > >
> > Frames of reference do not depend on how you or me define them. You
> > missed something in learning about relativity, but maybe this will
> > help: SR has to do with frames of reference in which there are systems
> > moving at constant velocity wrt each other. GR has to do with systems
> > that are accelerating wrt each other. In SR, the inertial systems are
> > moving at CV within their FoR. However, because everything in the
> > universe is in motion, the systems inside an SR frame only APPEAR to be
> > stationary wrt each other. In fact, they are are both moving at the
> > same speed and in the same direction.
>
> OK, now I *know* you haven't the foggiest idea what a frame of
> reference is. Perhaps you should report what it says in Encarta about
> that idea.
>
>
No. If you can't find something wrong with my statement due to your
limited knowledge, that's not my fault. Until you learn enough to be
able to carry on a debate about a particular subject, why not accept
those arguments with which you can't argue against?
>
> >
> > So, your *** and your chair are both stationary wrt each other but
> > they are also both moving within their SR FoR!
>
> Incorrect. To isolate your error, perhaps you should tell me what you
> think their SR FoR is.
>
>
Again, don't ask me to tell you what is wrong with my statement! Get
your momma to tell you what their FoR is. Or Google it with your
WikiWiki.
>
>
> > To believe that your
> > *** and your chair are both truly stationary
>
> You first of all confuse "truly stationary" and "stationary with
> respect to a reference frame". I said the latter, not the former.
> Secondly, "truly stationary" is a concept without physical meaning,
> while "stationary with respect to a reference frame" has physical
> meaning.
>
>
No you did not say the latter.
>
>
> > in this universe is to
> > accept SR as a real universe where things can be stationary within it.
> > But in our universe everything is in motion and all "stationary" things
> > are only _relatively_ stationary!
>
> You are right, there. All "stationary" things are only relatively
> stationary, where the "relative to" can be to another object or to a
> fixed point in a reference frame. In fact, "stationary with respect to
> the universe" is an empty concept.
>
>
So you have learned that nothing is stationary in our universe. Good.

> > >
> > >
> > > What physicists say (in agreement with Newton and Einstein) is that the
> > > laws of physics are unchanged in going from one inertial reference
> > > frame to another inertial reference frame.
> > >
> > >
> > Correct. Very good.
> > >
> > >
> > > And thus there is no
> > > physical difference between a reference frame in which my coffee cup is
> > > stationary and one in which it is uniformly moving.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes there is. In fact, the difference is physical indeed. There can
> > be no FoR in which your cup is stationary.
>
> And there you are wrong. See my above suggestion about learning what a
> frame of reference is.
>
>
I was wrong thinking that you had learned that nothing is stationary is
our universe. For your homework tonight, read the paragraph just below
again:
>
>
> > It can be so only wrt
> > another object, and so if it is alone in your FoR, it is impossible.
> > If it is stationary wrt another object, that is a valid observation
> > only wrt the objects in your frame, but since all the objects in your
> > frame are in motion within the universe, they are not really stationary
> > at all, only wrt each other.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is precisely
> > > the point that Galileo made, which Newton acknowledged and
> > > incorporated, and which Einstein extended to light.
> > >
> > >
> > Nonsense. If they had they would have been laughed off the planet.
> > >
> > >
> > > You, on the other hand, seem to be saying something much different. You
> > > seem to be saying that one must keep in mind that a reference frame in
> > > which an object is stationary is a lie -- that the object is *really*
> > > moving instead, no matter what the reference frame says.
> > >
> > >
> > Did you never learn that everything is moving in our universe?
>
> No, I did not learn that. What I learned is that the stars and galaxies
> are generally in *relative* motion away from each other. This in no way
> implies that everything has an absolute motion, and in fact I was
> taught this is explicitly *not* the case.
>
>
Ah, run out of ammo and all you have left are straw soldiers, eh? Your
fool teachers taught a fool who believes that everything is "generally"
in relative motion! How stupid is that? Your absolute motion
strawsoldier dies from lack of relevance!
>
>
> > If
> > everything is in motion, how can you believe you found objects which
> > are stationary?
>
> Read what I said. Never absolutely stationary. If stationary, always
> with respect to a reference frame.
>
>
Well, that's what I told you, and before I would have believed it took,
but tomorrow you may reverse that like you've done with other things.
>
>
> > Not only that, but since we are all moving within the
> > universe, if there was something stationary within it, how would we
> > know it was stationary? You can say it's a lie that an object can be
> > at rest within a FoR,
>
> I would not say that is a lie. An object can indeed be at rest within a
> FoR. I gave you an example of that.
>
>
There, see! Ya done it again, Pilgrim, and I told you not to!
>
>
> > but it's not a lie that it can be at rest wrt
> > another object in that same FoR. We are all enjoying the ride on
> > planet Earth as it moves throughout our universe. Nothing can be at
> > rest except wrt something else.
>
> That last sentence is correct. It is also true that nothing can be in
> motion except wrt something else. And since that "something else" can
> be freely chosen so that, depending on the choice, the object is either
> moving or stationary with respect to the something else, and since the
> physics doesn't give a whit either way, then there is no physical
> difference between something being in motion (with respect to something
> else) and something being not in motion (with respect to something
> else). We can't tell the physical difference between something being in
> motion and something not being in motion (with respect to something
> else).
>
> > >
> > >
> > > That, or you
> > > are saying that there is only one true reference frame, the one where
> > > everything is moving
> > >
> > >
> > Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying, the one true reference frame is
> > where everything is moving.
>
> I see. And where is the origin of this one true reference frame?
>
>
The universe of course of course.
> > >
> > >
> > > and where only the origin of the reference frame
> > > is truly stationary.
> > >
> > >
> > Now here I cannot make out what you mean by that. If you mean I think
> > that only a FoR is truly stationary, no. A FoR is an imaginary area
> > invented by our minds. It is a way for us to isolate objects and
> > systems so that we may study and discuss their relationships wrt each
> > other and to the universe. A FoR can be the universe or two quarks
> > within a nucleus. A lone quark can only be in the FoR of the universe,
> > and that is true of any lone visible object.
>
> First of all, you seem to be confusing the physics notions of "system"
> and "frame of reference". You may want to look up the two.
>
>
No, you tell us where you're being confused.
>
>
> Secondly, where is the (stationary) origin of the FoR of the universe,
> since there is only one true FoR?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > And if either case is true, then you are denying
> > > what Galileo and Newton and Einstein said, that the same laws of
> > > physics apply in all inertial reference frames.
> > >
> > >
> > No, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are. Physics (following Galileo, Newton and Einstein) say
> there are an infinite number of inertial reference frames, and they are
> all equivalent in the sense that the same physics applies in all. You
> say there is only one true reference frame and the others are not true
> reference frames.
>
>
No, I'm not, you're just saying that. Physical law works the same in
any FoR.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and another inertial frame where the same object is moving
> > > > > (and, according to you, therefore needs an internal force to move it).
> > > > > Are you saying that the presence of the internal force is dictated by
> > > > > the choice of inertial reference frame?
> > >
> > >
> > No. I think that the internal force is a property of any object having
> > momentum, and is exhibited as the momentum force.
>
> But in the reference frame I pointed out with the origin under my
> chair, my coffee cup and my laptop have *no* momentum.
>
>
Well, that's wrong. All objects are in motion, thus all objects have
momentum.
>
>
> If you think that a given object has only one true momentum, then tell
> me: What's your one true momentum, right now as you're sitting there,
> and would you determine that?
>
>
What is an "one true momentum"? Stop making things up! I hope I'm not
driving you to drugs.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No, according to Newton, it is an inherent force in every body. I
> > > > contend it is the momentum force which is defined as a property of mass
> > > > and which has been recently wrongfully redefined IMO also as a property
> > > > of massless particles.
> > >
> > > Yes you do,
> > >
> > >
> > No I don't (whatever it is you refer to).
>
> Yes, you do contend that. I was agreeing that this is what you contend.
> Sheesh. Nice knee-jerk, Tom.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > and you also seem to claim that there is an invisible
> > > process by which energy is transferred from an object to dark matter by
> > > virtue of its motion,
> > >
> > >
> > You almost got it. I claim that there is an interaction between light
> > waves and dark matter where the em waves transfer positive energy to DM
> > such that the DM particles are made visible temporarily as photons, or
> > light, as each light wave passes through them. Such a process of
> > energy transfer is quite common, starting with the electron being
> > provided energy to jump up to higher levels.
>
> Whoa! Who said anything about light? You say this is true for material
> objects.
>
>
No I did not ever say that. Your miscomprehension problem again.
> > >
> > >
> > > and this energy is transferred back from the dark
> > > matter to the object by the action of this internal force, all in an
> > > internal, perfectly efficient, experimentally unconfirmable loop.
> > >
> > >
> > No, not exactly (although that may be a good idea). As the light wave
> > (LW) first impacts the DM particle, the particle begins to absorb some
> > energy from it and at the point where the negative energy of the DM
> > particle increases to a positive energy amount, I liken that to the
> > crest of a water wave. As the LW passes through the DM particle the
> > particle begins to lose the energy and as it does it "falls" back into
> > the "extraordinary state" of DM like Dirac's electrons. As it does so,
> > it dims and "shuts off" to our vision.
>
> Forget light for a moment. Voyager moves without slowing on the fringes
> of our solar system. Account for that.
>
>
don't know anything about that, but rest assured it ain't magic.
>
> >
> > My model has DM as the ether mostly being stationary in space. Thus,
> > the particles are innumerable and as the LWs move through them, light
> > is created. We cannot see light; we can only see "through" it (not
> > really, but that's another subject).
> >
> > One other thing about our subject of inertial forces. We know that
> > inertia resists acceleration of objects, but acceleration wrt what? In
> > that statement, we do not include any other objects because it simply
> > refers to the state of motion of an object. Thus, it can only be with
> > respect to the universe.

.

Quantcast