Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

On Jul 23, 1:09 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1185204246.896389.96870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jul 23, 10:45 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

So, once again you remind us that the Nobel prize committee did not
take a stand on whether or not 'photons' existed as particles.
By doing so, you once again fail to substantiate your position.

The similarity between a muon and a hair follicle would
seem the position that could use some support. It was not
my choice to use either mechanism to mark time.

What are you trying to use to show the biological age of the twins.
What are you trying to use to show the half life of muons?

It was not my choice to use either mechanism to mark time.
Their utility is for you to prove, not me.

I am perfectly happy with this imaginary time:
<< when we calculate the contribution of charges
and currents at position r' to these integrals we do not
use the values at time t, instead we use the values
at some earlier time . >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
....which makes Maxwell's equations work with motion.




If you are in agreement that:
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

I agree that the two postulates are compatable with each other, which is
all that phrase says.

...then the point is moot.
Because the twins will see their
clocks doppelered red, departing and dopplered
blue returning. Retarded in time emitting; Advanced
in time absorbing.

Path effects make no case for anomalous hair
growth or wrinkles.

In physics, many things are path dependent. Others are path independent.

It is important to know which and why.



Telekinesis is not an option.
(excluding the nearfied where observers are charges
weilding the mighty Coulomb force)




The agreement on the number
of orbits made by Jupiter's moons makes the
notion so implausible it is absurd.

If that sounds like relativistic heresy, It might pay
you to study a bit more how *imaginary* time
helps to equate inertia with energy, just as
imaginary time resolves the apparent power
of an induction motor.

Knowing how the inertial link to time is *supposed*
to be used in relativistic particle dynamics can be
helpful in seeing why the application to Newton's
light is not valid and the paradoxes are truly indicative
of math errors.

"Relativistic particle dynamics"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html

Fraid knot, as someone likes to say.

That page shows why acceleration diminishes over time given a constant
force, but it says nothing to support the idea that the integral of time
along different paths through 4-space (space-time) will be constant.

You are claiming that integral(p(x,y,z,t),t, p1, p2) = constant
regardless of the form p takes.

The page is not to prove anything. I am suggesting you
study it to learn how to work with space-time on some
level beyond using it as another name for inertial ether.


In other words, for you to be correct, that integral must be path
independent.

I have never seen anything to support such a theory.

Can you show why it must be true?

I can't show you anything 'till you swear off Newton's
light and inertial ether.

Sue...




.