Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: Alen <alen1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:04:53 -0700
On Aug 7, 5:41 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alen" <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1186461484.047250.40000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Instead of giving my usual argument, I will point to a problem
with their explanation that they never deal with. They say
that the wall rotates in spacetime,
That's mathematical language. I suspect that a majority of physicists
doesn't believe in a geometrical kind of ether in which space is literally
mingled with time.
Then what do they believe? Do you agree with me
that Minkowski spacetime is not an actual, physical reality?
so that it is almost at
'right angles' to the moving twin, so that the gap looks to
be almost completely closed, and thus the moving twin has
no chance to fire through such a narrow gap. But a question
is, what is the fulcrum of such a rotation, and how is it
specified or identified? If anyone says it is specified by the
twin who accelerates,
No, it's specified by the set of inertial frames.
Harald
If spacetime rotations are not supposed to be
physically real, then arbitrary fulcra of rotations
can be used as desired. If, however, they are supposed
to be real, how does an inertial frame establish the
location of the fulcrum of its spacetime rotation relative
to another inertial frame, if it is not specified by an
object that accelerates into it?
Alen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: harry
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- References:
- Evil Twin Paradox
- From: David
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: Alen
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: harry
- Evil Twin Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Eric Gisse doesn't know the basics of Relativity
- Next by Date: Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
- Previous by thread: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|