Re: Comics: the twins paradox in "prof" Subask kak's view

On Mar 8, 1:32 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173288379.441738.50120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Mar 7, 9:19 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173276884.347816.21270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 7, 1:59 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173202008.766347.89000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 6, 9:11 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173194666.018461.222980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 6, 7:19 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173191515.324741.270740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 6, 5:36 am, "harry"
<harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Hence , he's
"discovered" another paradox. Someone needs to tell him
about
how
to
calculate:

Integral(sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) *dt
Not on my computer screen where I see twin paradox type
exercises,
apparently for students. Perhaps you gave the wrong link?
Here is what he writes:

"According to the earthbound twin, it is the twin in the
spaceship
whose clock would register less time (what English!) since it
was
the
one that went thru acceleration/deceleration" (what physics!)

Let's hope that he knows how to calculate that. He'll
probably
say
that
you're a good student. ;-)

He doesn't, otherwise he would not be writing the idiocies you
see
on
his webpage.

*"According to the earthbound twin"* - Kak is not that twin. In
contrast,
according to Kak:

"A "resolution" may ignore the fact that the Earth itself is not
moving
in
uniform motion, and that not only is it moving around the Sun,
which,
in
turn, is moving in the galaxy, and so on"

What are you trying to say? Kak is obviously wrong (and confused,
on
top of that), don't you agree?

Wrong about what? As he points out in his introduction, paradoxes
are
usually made by implanting wrong suggestions in the reader's mind.
He
presented several such variants of the twin paradox, without
telling
the
students in detail where the errors are (that's for them to figure
out!).
Perhaps you read something else of him?

His whole paragraph is wrong,

That's the very *purpose* of such paradoxes - trigger the student's
minds
to
find the errors.

he obviously has no clue how to
calculate the elapsed time for each twin in order to do a proper
comparison.

Again, probably you are thinking of another article by him and you
project
that information on this article - for there he does not provide his
opinion
about the solutions.

Of course he does, he's getting all confused in the different frames
of reference (Earth vs. Sun) while computing the proper integrals as I
explained to you would have given an unambigous answer right off the
bat. How many times do I need to explain that to you?

I explained too many times to you that in the intro he clearly describes
his
intention to confuse the readers - that's essentially what a paradox
is...

He's babbling about acceleration, about which twin is
faster, etc when calculating two definite integrals solves the
problem.

He would likely congratulate you for finding the error that the one
twin
made while critizing your reading ability.

Doubtful, given your inability to read some simple explanations.

Now I'm sure!

I don't think he's teaching relativity (he teaches something else),
he
is preocupied (and confused) about the twins' "paradox", he even
announced that he has "solved" it (!!!). Did you miss that?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! That reference does not announce that
he
has "solved" it. So my suspicion that you are projecting another
article
onto this one is apparently correct.

The article is correct in your mind, that much is clear. For the rest
of us, it is clearly incorrect. Let me spell it out for you one last
time: Kak is attempting to compare proper times calculated in TWO
DIFFERENT frames of reference:

Not he, but the *twin*, as I already pointed out to you. In his
presentation
there is no indication that he does not know that - quite to the
contrary.

-the rocket twin as viewed from the Erath
-the Earth twin as viewed from the Sun

Now, do you understand why Kak's "paper" is wrong? Hopefully neither hm
nor you teach relativity at any university.

It isn't a paper but an exercise without the answers - which prevents
students from learning the answers instead of using their brains.

Of course there are many solutions to
the twin paradox, addressing different issues.

Yes, there are many solutions, we agree on this one. Once you get the
problem statement correct (which kak didn't), it is easy to solve the
problem.

It's obviously for the *students* to figure that out - I surely hope that
you don't teach! Universities are there to train students for the real
world, in which problems don't come pre-cooked.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you daft? Kak is clearly trying to compare two proper times as
seen from TWO DIFFERENT frames of reference.As such, his "problem" is
incorrectly stated right off the bat. Are you reading impaired?

Sure his "problem" is incorrectly stated right off the bat, as it is MEANT
to be! Didn't you learn English?
->www.dictionary.com- paradox

This is your "understanding" of his error? Hey harry, why do you
always defend these people that attack relativity in subtle ways? Is
it because you are a closet antirelativist?


.

Quantcast