Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:49:25 -0700
On Oct 18, 8:55 pm, Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:37 pm, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
observer.
You have no evidence that would be the
result of such an acceleration.
Try"
"Creative Writing/Fiction technique"
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Creative_Writing/Fiction_technique
Sue, I am very dissapointed in you. I thought you would be honest with
yourself, even if that meant having to accept something that at least
appears to contradict "The Great Beliefs." Resorting to debate
techniques such as, cutting your opponent down to "prove" him wrong is
intellectually dishonest, and childish, and I hope I never see you do
this again. If someone presents something that cannot immediately be
explained, be a TRUE scientist, like Newton or Einstein, take it,
examine it, and see if maybe you can USE it to see a little farther into
nature, into the truth.
He has no evidence? Please. Simply take a third, inertial observer C,
and use the verified laws of SR to determine what the results will be as
seen by C. Those will, in fact, be the "true" answers. And as a side
note, you get essentially the same situation if you simply knock A and B
out with a sleeping pill during the period of acceleration, so we really
don't even need the special acceleration device. If A is accelerated,
his clocks will be behind B's clocks when they meet, vice-versa if B is
accelerated, and they will have the same time if both are accelerated.
Ahh... no. That doesn't agree with my references.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
The response a TRUE scientist has is simply this: deal with it. No, that
doesn't mean to toss out SR, but it does mean think, reason, try to
understand how this could occur, and what it means. Your response, to
insult him by telling him to look up "Creative Writing/Fiction
technique" is pathetic, and the exact opposite of what a great scientist
does. However, it is also normal, the kind of non-scientific response
kids are taught at school, so you are simply obeying your training.
Still, that particular bit of training is something you need to lose,
permanently.
As for what it means, I will mostly let you think about that, and
mention only that our ability to view things as being relative, free of
any "absolute reference," has always technically applied only to
inertial observers,
No... not true. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
so you really shouldn't be that terrified or
whatever when someone whose "absolute velocity" CHANGES has results that
cannot be explained when taking ONLY relative velocities into account.
Now, does it suggest that claims such as, "absolutes" do not exist at
all, or "absolutes" have no place at all in physics, MIGHT BE a bit of
an exaggeration? Like I said, act like a TRUE scientist, and THINK about
it; conversely, do NOT use debating techniques to act like a politician,
and simply justify the act of not thinking about it. Of course, you can
always "cut me to shreds," thereby "proving" that everything I've said
here is pure crap ... ;-)
It is simply a matter of time management. The OP will learn more
reading the pages I offered than I will learn considering a
situation nearly as unreal as a world where like charges which
attract.
Sue...
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Phil
OR
Learn some physics:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Alen
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Sue...
- Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- From: Phil
- The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Prev by Date: Re: Sagnac Fully Supports the BaTh.
- Next by Date: Re: An Alternative Interpretation of the Light Postulate
- Previous by thread: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Next by thread: Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
