Re: Twin Paradox Question

Sue... wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > Let them both view the moons continuously. The earthbound observer
> > sees certain periods (p1, p2, ...,pn) always. The outbound traveller
> > sees (p1+delta, p2+delta,...pn+delta) and inbound
> > (p1-delta,...,pn-delta). When the twins reunite, they have counted the
> > same number of periods. OK, I haven't done Lorentz transformations in
> > many years, so I can't give the formulae (yet) for the deltas, but I
> > think that's the gist of it.
>
> Mathematics aside, neither you nor the theory offers a
> mechanism for the twins to disagree on the number of orbits.

This is of course a straw man introduced by Sue. She does
not understand the twin paradox at all, and she is presenting her
misunderstanding as if it were mainstream physics -- which not
surprisingly, then, she claims to disagree with.

Both observers obviously see the *same* number of orbits, and this
of course *is* the prediction of relativity. Physicists are *not*
dunces,
despite what Sue might want to think.

> So I see no logical argument that their birthday candles
> should differ when they reunite.

There is no "should" in physics. The question is not whether logic
*requires* the candles to differ, but rather, by what theory can the
*observed* difference in candles (i.e. atomic clocks, etc.) be made
consistent with logic. The best answer available at present is SRT
and of course its generalization for cases in which SRT does not
apply.

>
> The mathematics is used to show:
> <<that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
> principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that
> by
> systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory
>
> could be arrived at. >> --AE
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> Did I mention that does not apply in the Coulomb gauge?
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Obviously Sue has not understood this paper. And frankly, it
is an oddly misguided view of physics to think that the *physics*
depends on gauge at all.

>
> It is much easier to muze about twins than polish up on the
> electromagnetic theory necessary to understand relativity
> but you claim seriousness so here is some hard but
> serious material.

Which Sue does not understand.

>
>
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html

Actually, Sue needs to read node40.html, which applies directly
to her earlier mistake.

> http://webhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
> .mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
>
> BTW... Weber's field equations are relativistic without funny clocks.
> Their study can help you understand the tricks that are necessary
> for Maxwell's equations:
>
> http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm
>
> Good luck with your grad program.
>
> Sue...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... you relativity deniers have your own theories. ... basic undergrad physics questions flat-out wrong. ... Has Sue pegged me: do I ... to cite teach as physics what you tell us is myth. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... than the physics departments at excellent universities? ... Sue, ... The wire to the rifle is connected ... There is an observer at the rifle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real real twin paradox.
    ... with your interpretation of relativity. ... is not scicnce and neither is absurd mathematics. ... Sue, didn't you call it the "twins fallacy"? ... out MIT's Physics department is teaching the twins paradox ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Special Relativity as Special Case of perceptual Universes
    ... >>> velicity of the carrier wave and beyond there will be no information ... >>> Now the Lorenz Transfer equations of the Einsteinian Special Relativity ... >> If the 'observer' happens to be a cloud of particles hurtling down ... > To Sue: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Need Help With c-Invariance
    ... THIS IS AARON ARCSEC's REPLY TO ROBERT BRISTOW-JOHNSON ... to any other inertial observer. ... But what if a law of physics allows you to detect your movement ... In my reply to Sue, I presented a simple experiment that yields the ...
    (sci.physics.research)
Loading