Re: The real real twin paradox.

colp wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:02 pm, Cosmik de Bris
<cosmik.deb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp wrote:
On Nov 28, 10:19 am, Cosmik de Bris
<cosmik.deb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:17 pm, Cosmik de Bris
<cosmik.deb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
shuba wrote:
colp wrote:
Appeal to authority. You lose.
Wah! Wah! Relativity is WRONG!!!11! Wro00ong! Blah blah blah...
You win. Congratulations!
---Tim Shuba---
He doesn't think it is wrong exactly just inconsistent in one particular
case.
Umm no.
The problem is with predictions of time dilation that are made from
relativistic frames of reference with respect to the Earth. (e.g. from
orbit). Maybe it's an ether drag thing.
That is the case where the twins separate symmetrically, and only
from one frame of reference. Why on earth nature would single that case
out I'm not sure. :)
I focused on that case because it's easier to argue that a
contradiction exists.
Oh no you didn't, you argued relativity was fine in the asymmetric case
just not in the symmetric one.
No, what I said was that I didn't dispute the experimental data (which
is typically obtained from asymmetric experiments).
So SR is fine in the asymmetric case, that's what I said you said.

Do you have reading comprehension difficulties? I did not say that SR
is fine in the asymmetric case.

Your
arguments are about the symmetrical case.

Because they illustrate the paradox that you deny exists. I apply the
Lorentz factor to the problem in they same way as the apologists do
when they try to show that the classic twin paradox does not pose
problems for SR. I'm not misapplying it like Daryl implies.


And the asymmetrical case doesn't illustrate the paradox?

You are now changing your story, a sure
sign your arguments are failing.
No I'm not. Why are you unable to quote what I actually said to
support you allegations?
Because I spend enough time on you already and I'm can't be bothered
trolling through all the posts.

Why should anyone believe you when you can't even accurately
paraphrase what I have written in a recent post?

Ho, ho, I just read further down the thread, comic book science, crackpot, arrogant. And my opinion is worthless?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real real twin paradox.
    ... relativistic frames of reference with respect to the Earth. ... Why on earth nature would single that case ... when they try to show that the classic twin paradox does not pose ... trolling through all the posts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real real twin paradox.
    ... relativistic frames of reference with respect to the Earth. ... Why on earth nature would single that case ... what I said was that I didn't dispute the experimental data (which ... when they try to show that the classic twin paradox does not pose ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real real twin paradox.
    ... relativistic frames of reference with respect to the Earth. ... Why on earth nature would single that case ... what I said was that I didn't dispute the experimental data (which ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Joker & The Thief
    ... My granma liked puzzles, including jigsaws (hear in the USofA during ... didn't take it out), is the reference to: ... Are you sure it's not "two writers were approaching?" ... Your posts are just great. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Unbiased Spectroscopic Data Prove QED is Inaccurate
    ... reference as perfectly acceptable experimental data. ... not found valid experimental data, please tell me where I can find it, and I ... chance in hell of convincing anyone else. ... as to why hydrogen does not outwardly manifest any relativistic effects is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)