Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1194773119.736138.138470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Nov 10, 11:28 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:4736628A.8060604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:


I'm not going to bother to refute your nonsense point by point. At
every step you either take things out of context, or refer to issues
irrelevant to the core of the argument. This is a dialectic response,
not a scientific response. You're not willing to discuss the actual
logic of an argument, but instead try to simply dismiss the argument
because of issues that have nothing to do with the inherent logic.
E.g., according to you, we can't discuss how the characteristics of a
medium will and will not change experimental results "because
experimental results always change," but in REALITY the large scale
changes referred to in the argument could not possibly occur as a
result of any minor run-to-run variations, and you damn well know it.
That's like saying that since we can't make perfect circles, geometry
cannot study them. I'm also not real impressed with your constant use
of the old debating tactic of giving general criticisms without
relevant examples, and of course, that even older, even more boring
tactic of cutting your opponent to shreds in order to "prove" that
his arguments are wrong.

When it suits you, you want to use logic rather than experimental data,
saying that we must bow to logic even when there is no way to measure
what you say exists.

When it suits you, you insist that we must be 'scientific' and pretend
that your thought experiments can be done AND that the results of those
thought experiments will prove you right.

When I repeatedly point out that in order to be scientific, we must
define our terms carefully and ask our questions carefully, you accuse
me of being dishonest.

When you are confronted with the lack of scientific and logical value
to your philosophical approach, you resort to insults and imprecations.

Come back when you can stick to discussing science in a civil manner.

I don't think either of you are dishonest,

I never accused him of dishonesty, only of lack of understanding how
science works.

but you are talking past each other on an
important point.

Granted. Probably on several points.


Try to clarify what is meant by "inertial observer".

I don't think either of us used that term.

I can make the case that an inertial observer can't be
only an observer of light.

What more must an observer be?

Light does not
move inertially.

Agreed, though light appears to carry 'momentum' or 'inertia' or energy
from emitter to receiver.

It has no mass.

No 'rest mass'.

You'll find most
expressions of the principle of relativity easier
to comprehend with such a restriction.

Exactly how would you state the restriction?


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

A broader interpretation of *inertial observer*
that could include massless light only makes
sense in the context of GR where mass/energy
equivalence with a volume of space-time has
been mathematically (not semantically)
established.

I agree that properly establishing definitions, through math is vital.
I do not quite follow your statement that massless light only makes sense
in the context of GR.
Would you care to explain further?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

The formalism GR doesn't yield a compact modular
expression that you can port directly directly to
the SR problem. The imaginaries that accumulated
in the tranformations have to be formally removed.

Seems like you and I have been around that bush before.
Which of those imaginaries are something other than a matter of convenience
in math?


<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034



--
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: Coextensive properties?
    ... Quine's "Der" operator to reduce a two place predicate such as ". ... context C such that the object ... ... But we must now explicitly relativize this before we can apply the "Der" ... P by an ideal observer who would conform to all clauses of D1." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: ATWT --- CASTING TIDBITS
    ... "Someone who is an ineffective physician, it is reasoned, may ... an evidence-based assertion made by the observer based on a realistic ... and then judge their performance in context. ... educational training to older adults, and see if they cannot be made to ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Observer pattern limitations
    ... objects to need to cache the results of calculations. ... problems that exist whether Observer is used or not. ... I am drawing a distinction between the design problems you cited and the design problem that Observer resolves. ... IOW, the problem context, such as updating a cache, in which Observer is used it not relevant to its use. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Observer pattern limitations
    ... objects to need to cache the results of calculations. ... problems that exist whether Observer is used or not. ... a different problem solution in the context where Observer is used. ... Observer may be useful to provide the notification. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: What is the expert opinion on deriving SR with a Shubertian clock?
    ... > I used the word inertial in the context of frictionless sliding ... of or relating to inertia ... >> Because the rulers need to be contained in something and by definition ... version where you claim to derive it from the Galilean Transformations - the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast