Re: Let us be sure that we know what the problem is!

"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1179462515.976044.323220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Subject: Re: Let us be sure that we know what the
problem is!

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Re: Let us be sure that we know what the
problem is!
. . .
. . . There is a time in the
paradox of the twins when they are both traveling
with respect to each other with no acceleration
between them. And it is exactly at this time that
the same object is both going at a slower and a
faster rate than the other. So this is a problem
within this paradox. And anyone is sick if they
allow themselves to think such stupid and
physically impossible ways really exist!

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SR say that IF there are two isolated bodies alone
in the universe, moving wrt each other, neither one
can tell which one is moving.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, bz, you just do not talk like you know
anything about SR. In SR, they each can tell that
the other one is moving.

On the contrary, it is you that missread SR. In SR, neither observer can be
sure who is moving. They are allowed to ASSUME that the observer is
stationary and the other is moving but they are smart enough to know that
it is just an assumption. And they can only do this in isolation from the
rest of the universe.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It does NOT say that neither can tell which one is
accelerating!

O'Barr comments:
In SR, anyone can tell if any object is
accelerating or not.

That is correct. So why do you repeatedly claim that neither twin can tell
which one is moving. One accelerates. The other doesn't. Both know that
only one is moving.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Acceleration takes work. Work must be performed on
the reaction mass. [show me how it can be done
without work if you quibble with the use of the
word 'work'!]

O'Barr comments:
Well, we all have to agree that acceleration often
takes a force applied over a distance, and this can
be said to be energy, and this can be called work. I
did not quibble over your use of the word work,

Thank you.
but I
do get more than upset when you want to say that it
was the work itself that caused the differences in
their ages.

I never said that. I was quite careful of my use of words.

It might be true that work had to be
done to bring about a change in velocity, but that is
like saying that someone had to do work to make the
clocks in the first place, so that work was also
required in order to even have time? Are you going
to also say this?

You might say that. Do not quote me as saying that.

What if you had two clocks that weighed a
different amount, and thus it took a different amount
of work to change their velocities.

If they have idential mass but different weights, this would be true.

Will this make
the change in time more?

The one undergoing more acceleration will run slower. That acceleration
takes more work.

Or what if it were a
theoretical clock, with no mass at all? Then there
would be no change in time?

No, but then photons have no rest mass and a photon drive will work just
fine.

Maybe you do not realize
exactly what you are saying. Give it a little deeper
thought.

Perhaps you did not read deep enough.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It does NOT say that when one is millions of time
more massive than the other and the other
accelerated that neither can tell which one is
moving.

Anyone who thinks SR claims what YOU attribute to SR
has not understood the constraints of 'an inertial
FoR'.

O'Barr comments:
Well, in SR, only free space conditions are
allowed, so you do not deal with such massive objects
as you just mentioned. But in all of SR, all
inertial motions are relative motions, and one is not
in an SR mode if you want to know such things as to
which one is really moving.

SR is only useful in non inertial conditions so far as those conditions can
be expressed as approximately inertial. This may or may not be possible.

There is no rule in SR that prohibits the observation of the rest of the
universe. There is no rule to prevent the use of common sense.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You admit that the math comes out correct but you
then attack SR saying it predicts the wrong
things. If the math is correct, the predictions
are correct. If the predictions were wrong the
math would be wrong. The only thing wrong is how
you are applying the math.

O'Barr comments:
What if you were grading a student's paper, and in
the middle of his problem he makes a mistake.
Then before he is through, he makes a second
mistake that negated the first mistake, so, by
accident, he ends up with the correct answer. Do
you give him a perfect grade?

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is exactly what you have been doing. You have
misunderstood the fact that SR only applies to
theoretically perfect 'inertial FoR's.

O'Barr comments:
We were talking about the paradox of the twins.
Are you now saying that this paradox is not using
theoretically perfect 'inertial FoR's?

Yep. Einstein later developed GR.

And by the
way, SR is often able to handle accelerations, etc.
Where did you learn your SR?

SR, doesn't PROHIBIT one from applying a force to an object and observing
the results. It DOES prohibit considering an accelerating Frame of
Reference to be an inertial Frame of Reference.

GR was developed to handle accelerating Frames of Reference.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It CAN be used under non ideal conditions to get
approximately correct answers, but one must use
'common sense'.

O'Barr comments:
Well, there is no common sense with SR.

Some who support and some who critique SR fail to show common sense. SR has
no need of common sense because it does not prohibit the use of same.

If you
think that two objects can both be rotating at a rate
faster and slower than the other object, all at the
same time, then you have no common sense.

Rotation is absolute.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One can not try to 'accelerate the universe' away
from and toward one of the twins while that twin is
throwing out reaction mass like mad. Meanwhile
back on the ranch, the other twin is being jerked
back and forth, along with the rest of the universe
while just sitting in his easy chair reading.

THAT would be the ONLY way that what you keep saying
would be correct, and it is clearly WRONG.

O'Barr comments:
Well, I am sorry. I never said anything about the
universe. What we have with the twin paradox is a
theoretical problem where the practicalities are
ignored.

If you choose to ignore the practicalities, then you should not complain
when the answer is not practical.

This does not mean that the twin paradox is
not important.

Of course not. It stimulated Einstein to develope GR.

The concepts that are developed with
the twin paradox are important, and it, just like
most involved SR problems are, where any thought is
required, shows just how silly and impossible an SR
type of thinking really is. SR is a sick kind of a
science, and it is going to end.

SR 'ended' a long time ago. Just as Newtonian physics 'ended' a longer time
ago. Stop living in the past and complaining because you don't like it.

O'Barr wrote:
The math in SR is the correct math of our reality.

Actually, you were wrong when you said this. Our reality requires GR.

It has to be the correct math, because it is the
same math used in LET. But the interpretations
used by SR experts are totally in error. Not all
things are relative.

SR does NOT say 'all things' are relative.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No one that halfway understands SR ever said that
they were.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, but this use of everything being
relative is used even in the deriving of SR. And no
limitations, to my knowledge, have ever been offered
or given.

Reread Einsteins 1905 paper. He does NOT say what you attribute to SR.

Reread his and others later works, including his GR paper, Minkowski's
work, Einsteins 'Book'. They do NOT say what you attribute to SR.

O'Barr comments:
There really are real changes that occur
to clocks and rulers.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now THAT is silly. Why should motion through the
LET compress a diamond by exactly the same amount as
a mashmallow, yet not produce any hysterisis
heating things? Say we spin a gyroscope at very
high speed, AND accelerate it to .9 c with its axis
of rotation perpendicular to its direction of
travel. How can the magic aether NOT slow the gyro
down while heating it up?

O'Barr comments:
Let me be just as direct as possible: If you set
up a correct SR measurement frame, you will measure
(did you hear that!) you will measure a change in the
rate of time for a moving clock, and you will measure
a change in the length of a moving ruler. You will
do this! And it is a direct assumption of SR that
what you measure is what occurs.

YEP. I agree with that. So?

Now you did ask some very important questions.
The ether affects the primary forces (the
electromagnetic forces, etc.)

How does it do this without ANY side effects?

It does not affect the
'object' except as these forces are being used by the
object. Therefore, if these forces are reduced by a
fixed amount, it will affect all objects, diamonds
just as much as marshmallows. These changes in shape
are not a change being forced on an object. If you
are forcing an object to compress, yes, there might
be some internal heating. But when the change is by
changes in the actual forces that are holding the
body in shape, there is

little or no efforts required

Little is MUCH different from NO. I could understand little. I can not
understand NO.

And 'little' should be detectable.

to take on these changes in shapes. And therefore,
no heating can be expected.
I believe you have not really considered these
things too much.

I consider it improbable that the ACTUAL size changes.

But it really doesn't matter. If it is impossible to distinguish
experimentally between LET and SR, then any problems you have accepting SR
are YOUR problem and not SR's problem.


O'Barr wrote:
And thus, you SR experts are stupid
to explain things the way you do, and you end
up having things to be physically impossible. The
fact that you end up with the correct solution is
nice, but you sure should not get a very good
grade in your efforts.


bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In our universe, one twin has to do work to
accelerate and then has to do work to decelerate,
reverse direction, accelerate, and finally
decelerate again. Both twins know that the one
that
does the work gets the benefit of time passing
slower while that twin is moving away from the
earth and again when that twin is moving back
toward the earth.

O'Barr comments:
Oh, I see! It is work that causes all this to
happen. Show me the equation that includes work!

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Accelerating the reaction mass takes work. W=Fxd.
Try accelerating without doing any work.

I did NOT say that ALL work produces acceleration or
slows time, just that in this case, the work is
rewarded.

O'Barr comments:
But it is not the work that develops the change in
the rate. It is the speed. And whether the work is
small or large, the change is a function of the speed
changes, not the work.

And I never claimed it was functionally related to the work, I just point
out that there is a correlation.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The twin that does the work KNOWS that the other
twin is NOT the one doing the work.

The twin that does the work knows who is actually
moving.

O'Barr comments:
Oh my goodness! One twin is actually moving?
And this means that the other twin really is not
moving? You mean to say that you actually agree
with me, that not all things are relative? I have
never had things as easy as this. Thanks!

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I only agree with part of what you said. Rotation is
absolute, inertial motion is relative, one must
choose carefully the 'best' iFoR to use.

For many calculations, the choice is entirely
arbitrary and one can choose the FoR that gives the
easiest equations to solve.

O'Barr comments:
I guess you are not getting the problem.

On the contrary, you see problems where none exist(no one claims SR can be
applied in all cases) and fail to see the mote in your own eye(LET requires
physically impossible things to happen).

Yes,
speaking mathematically, you are correct that many
choices in frames are arbitrary, and many choices
might give you the correct answers.

EVERY choice of a VALID frame will give the correct answers.

And I do not
question the ability of SR to provide to us the
correct answers in terms of the measurements. But in
terms of the interpretations of the physics that is
going on in order for us to get the correct answers,
this is the problem. And you seem to ignore this.

You ignore the flaws in LET.

Is this on purpose?

Is this on purpose?

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In other cases, one must look at what happened
before time t=0 to determine if any accelerations
were made by any of the bodies involved. Jumping
into the middle without looking at prior history
will give you crazy sounding answers, as you
demonstrate.

O'Barr comments:
Too bad you do not give any examples of these fun
and games. I really do not believe that you have any
knowledge at all about SR.

You admited the math was correct. At that point, there is no need for me to
go into the math at all.

You fail to realize that flawed as SR is, it is BETTER than anything that
existed prior to SR.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The twin that does the work knows that the other
will be older at the end of the journey. The twin
doing the work understands that the ship is
accelerating, not the universe, just as I know
that when I stand in the middle of a field and
spin around, I am NOT making the whole universe
rotate, just myself.

O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, BZ. But you are not being exactly
correct in your support of SR.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As YOU understand SR.

O'Barr comments:
I have been around enough to have seen others try
to explain the twin paradox in terms of
accelerations, and everything else you can think of.
But those who really know what is going on, know what
parameters are proportional to the effect, and what
is prime and what is only an association of the
effect.

SR lead to GR. Einstein later uses GR to explain the twin paradox. SR just
pointed the way.

O'Barr wrote:
If there is work involved
in turning around, then one could double the
work by having the 'moving' twin go out only half
as far, and go through a couple set of
accelerations, and yet the time difference will not
change. These time differences are not a function
of work.

bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I didn't say they were a function of work, just that
it took work to produce them, just as it takes work
to understand SR.

O'Barr comments:
Well, thanks for the clarification. So now the
work was just present, and not really a function of
the change in time as you said it was.

I NEVER said it was a FUNCTION of the change in time, nor that the change
in time was a function of the work.

I do not care
whether you are really willing to admit that you were
wrong or not, but you better understand me when I am
right.

I understand better that you will never understand that SR was a quantum
leap forward in knowledge but was not the end. Einstein made mistakes but
he got the right answers. Others, working without the need of his
postulates, developed the same math. ALL without need for any assumptions
of an aether of any kind DESPITE THE FACT that Einstein was personally
biased in favor of an Aether, he was willing to admit that it was not
required.

And you better understand that SR requires
physical things that are really physically
impossible.

SR has been formulated may times in many ways. SR as it is now understood
does NOT require any physically impossible things except for truely
inertial Frames of Reference.

If you don't see that LET also requires physically impossible things, then
there is no hope for you to ever become a scientist.


And this means that no matter how
perfect the math might be, it is not the correct
approach to our physical reality.
To repeat, two clocks (or two rotating objects)
cannot both really be going slower than the other at
the same time. Such a funny thing is physically
impossible. Yet in the twin paradox, this fact is
stated within the paradox. This is a stupid thing.
It is an impossible thing. And in LET, no such funny
thing is ever in need of being said.

LET requires different stupid funny things. Like that rotating gyro being
required to flex the rotor.

Therefore, it is stupid, it is silly, it is
unscientific, to remain with a theory that requires
physically impossible things,

Yep so why do you hang onto LET?

when there is a theory
that does everything that SR does that is good, but
has none of the impossible and silly baggage that
goes with SR.

GR was developed to fill holes in SR.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: twin patadox question
    ... it doesn't matter if it is true or not to be called a paradox. ... >> only one conclusion and that is that one twin aged more than the other. ... namely the one that simply states "moving clocks run slow". ... with Bill driving the car and Betty leaning against the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox wikipedia version
    ... I just watched the twin paradox demonstration at ... imply that the space-ship is moving in its own frame. ... To the twin, who travels away and back at equal times, ... If one actually applies the Lorentz Transformations graphically to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Let us be sure that we know what the problem is!
    ... paradox of the twins when they are both traveling ... can tell which one is moving. ... accelerating or not. ... from and toward one of the twins while that twin is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: twin patadox question
    ... it doesn't matter if it is true or not to be called a paradox. ... > only one conclusion and that is that one twin aged more than the other. ... namely the one that simply states "moving clocks run slow". ... Consider a car that is rolling through an intersection with a stop ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Help a layman with a paradox
    ... >Motion in space is relative, so if I move away from you, it is not ... >possible to tell if I am accelerating away or decelerating. ... it is the same as if you were 'moving' towards me. ... help me with the twin paradox of one twin on a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading