Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version

Sue... wrote:

Well, this time I am mostly impressed! You still referred to "other references," instead of reasoning it out for yourself, but I was fairly harsh, and you responded with pure class ... the Sue I am used to seeing!

Thanks,
Phil

P.S. The universe does allow an experiment to "reveal" to us that information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce on our own, PRIOR to running the experiment. If we KNOW, prior to running an experiment, that the experiment's velocity will include a change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, as seen by inertial observer C, then it would actually be amazing if the results of that experiment were NOT consistent with a change of 0.6c, such as an elapsed time of 0.8 relative to any inertial observer.

Similarly, simple geometry PROVES that if observer A goes on a round trip with a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C (the clock paradox), then A's AVERAGE absolute velocity is also at least 0.6c, meaning that A's clocks should show an elapsed time of 0.8 relative to C. However, we cannot deduce, prior to the experiment, anything about C's absolute velocity of 0.6c, so unless the principle of relativity is false, then as seen by C, A must ALWAYS end up with an elapsed time of exactly 0.8, regardless of C's absolute velocity, and that is in fact the case. Remember, relativity does not disprove absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist. Alen's exercise is an indication that this largely PHILOSOPHICAL conclusion may not be completely justified, even though the exercise in no way contradicts the LAWS of SR.

My (unpublished) paper is "The Need for Absolute References in a Relativistic Universe," and its point is largely summed up in this exercise; if it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from OBSERVATIONS that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then the fact that experimental results are independent of initial absolute velocity does not mean that we should declare that there are no "absolutes," no absolute laws, in our universe. It's basically similar to dinosaurs; can we find any? No, but their existence necessarily follows from things that CAN be directly observed, and in true science, that should be enough. Similarly, even if we can't measure our absolute velocity (without performing my "around the universe experiment"), if it necessarily follows from observations that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then by the rules of true science, that should be enough. Okay, way too long for a P.S.!



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...


Phil






OR

Learn some physics:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html

Sue...




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural Philosophy - Its challenge to SR
    ... ABSOLUTE, or UNIVERSAL, reference. ... It is built on top of the principle of Relativity ... by subsequent changes in absolute velocity (unlike Newtonian ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Natural Philosophy - Its challenge to SR
    ... those laws to create an "overly relativistic" physics. ... By "an overly relativistic physics," I don't mean the LAWS of relativity, but rather Einstein's attempt to always use relative references, rather than absolute references, in his models of reality. ... Einstein believed them, and in his SR paper, he took his realization that Poincare's "principle of relativity" was actually a LAW OF LAWS, a description of how the laws of nature were "designed," and phrased both it and a couple of "normal laws" from a viewpoint that was VERY biased, and excessively relativistic, thereby causing the usual damage that occurs whenever we try to fit a square peg into a round hole. ... Not sure what you mean here, but the 1st postulate CAN be restated as "the results of experiments are unaffected by their initial absolute velocity." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: About absolute reference frame......
    ... The first error in your reasoning is that the absence of an experiment that can measure absolute velocity (and there are some experiments that I would *not* consider to be a violation of the principle of relativity even if they could measure AV) "proves" that absolute laws are either non-existent or meaningless. ... Actually, this isn't so bad, as it mostly means that we do not, after all, live in a "neutered" universe, one which has no laws which vary as a function of absolute velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)