Re: Triplet Paradox


Russell wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Russell wrote:
> > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > Russell wrote:
> > > > > Wugi wrote:
> > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. I said that coordinates are our own invention, which is true,
> > > > > but there *are* constraints imposed by spacetime geometry on
> > > > > what we can do. Spacetime geometry dicates that when we
> > > > > shift from one set of *inertial* coordinates to another, the planes
> > > > > of simultaneity must also be adjusted in a specific way. In other
> > > > > words, twin paradox effects are *real*.
> > > >
> > > > If all the siblings have a continuous view of Jupiter's
> > > > moons, will they agree on the total number of orbits
> > > > at reunion?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> ===
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If not, what mechanism can you propose to create
> > > > the disparity?
> > >
> > > You tell me. *You're* the one hawking that tripe. As I recall,
> > > your last attempt at communication on this point was most
> > > unimpressive.
> >
> >
> > You can't show one sibling would see more orbits of moons.
>
> You're right, I can't.
>
> Gee, you are being incredibly obtuse here. Or incredibly
> obnoxious, take your pick.
>
> *You* brought up the moons of Jupiter. Speaking for
> myself, I would not bring them up (for purposes of
> attacking SR) unless I'd done a calculation that shows
> SR handles them inconsistently.
You may use any commonly viewed periodic event
The moons of Jupiter have historical significance
so I prefer them to the shutter of the camera that
shot "Animal House" :o)
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_03/jupiter.html
> Apparently your
> standards of integrity are more lax than mine. But
> you can prove me wrong: show us your calculation.
> You ran away when I called your bluff last time.
No calculation is required against the claim that
images can magically appear of disapear like
freight falling off a lorry.
>
> > You can't show one sibling would see more cable television shows.
> > In short, you have no way to use real world electromagnetic
> > effects and demonstrate by real world events that any
> > sibling can claim a different age. You can't even make the
> > claim they would disagree on the number of ticks their
> > watches make because continuous views will cause
> > them to agree which watch is slower.
>
> Continuous views will cause them to agree which watch
> ticks fewer times, yes. As I said, the effect is *real*.
>
> As the optical path
> > is the only mechanism the theory offers for slowing, there
> > is no basis for that to occur. The snake oil
> > belongs to you if you buy it.
>
> You are talking nonsense, the FAQ does not say anything
> about optical path as a "mechanism". The whole question
> is misguided anyway -- I could with as much justification
> you what is the "mechanism" for your assumption of Euclidean
> geometry and absolute time.

Einstein did not write the FAQ. I have never read the FAQ.

"The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

>
> What is is. Sometimes that's all we can say. Of course
> there is no limit to what we can learn about *how* things
> are.
<< At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the
arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions
of time and space, it became evident that in reality there
is not the least incompatibility between the principle of
relativity
[ http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 ]
and the law of propagation of light,
[http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node26.html ]
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically

rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called
the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended
theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages
we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory
of relativity.>>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

No twins required.

Sue...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... >> with real field equations which will include moving media. ... > informing him that his paper contradicts special relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... >> Russell wrote: ... > *My* maths? ... > thoughtful reading of the FAQ would suffice. ... You are quite a piece of work, Sue. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... > *My* maths? ... The authors of the FAQ have more commentary than they can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... > *My* maths? ... > thoughtful reading of the FAQ would suffice. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electro-London Inertia
    ... > sue jahn wrote: ... In general relativity theory ... > proportion to the applied force of acceleration?] ... > upon a rest-based theory called relativity that cannot synchronize ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast