Re: beginner thought experiments
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jul 2006 01:04:35 -0700
Koobee Wublee wrote:
"snapdragon31" <snapdragon31@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151822077.107041.125130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Koobee, why my answer does not agree with SR or Lorentz Transformation?
Can you explain?
Between A and B, that is a well known case of twin paradox. Assume B
aged 35 years and A aged 15 years. Similarly when B aged 35 years, C
also would aged 15 years thus A and C would age the same amount. I am
not good at Math or Physics but I am good at applying simple logic.
No, I cannot explain the BS nature in the Lorentz Transform. I have
been searching for years to find the resolution to the Twin's Paradox
and have not found one. However, I have found piles after piles of BS
though.
Don't feel bad. Your conclusion even agrees with the ones who swear
their right hands on the bible on the validity of Lorentz Transfrom.
Conveniently, these supposedly well educated indivisuals do not even
refer back to the very basis of SR (the Lorentz Transform) to make
these absurd conclusions. Lacking engineering disciplines, they
applied a completely different methodology from what they have
identified the governing physical laws on. They call that as a
successful resolution to the Twin's Paradox. I call what they have
done just simply BSing.
The Lorentz tranform works just fine if you apply it where the
Lorentz force is effective... that is the nearfield of the EM
coupling structure.
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
It is incorrect to apply the tranform for the entire path
because magnetic force diminishes by the cube of the
distance.
<< It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. >> ... << The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe. >>
--C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
"Visualizations"
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
Despite my criticism of Lorentz Transfrom, the Twin's Paradox although
is not a paradox under a sound hypothesis cannot as simple as you have
pictured above. For example, we do witness a shorter half life of some
certain cosmic particles traveling at high speed.
.
- References:
- Re: beginner thought experiments
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: beginner thought experiments
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: beginner thought experiments
- Prev by Date: Re: beginner thought experiments
- Next by Date: Re: beginner thought experiments
- Previous by thread: Re: beginner thought experiments
- Next by thread: Re: beginner thought experiments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
