Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:44:31 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:caf344e3-e0e0-40dc-a6e3-06c0382cdac9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Nov 30, 10:36 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one
coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other
coordinate systems. An example of the is clock synchronisation for
GPS sattelites.
But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent'
under certain sets of circumstances.
I assume that you mean from within a single inertial frame of
reference.
Or follow the proper rules when changing frames.
An observer can move between inertial frames, and the logic and math
must apply equally in one frame as is does in another.
Follow the proper rules when changing from one to another.
Daryl showed you the figures.
Daryl's rules are derived from the assumption of Newton's
ether. If we follow them there should be a violation of
PoR.
Oh yeah... There was! One of his twins had longer hair
than the other.
Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the
logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'.
Reality does not require that observations only be made from a
particular set of circumstances.
But it does require that you wear the same watch OR you change watches OR
you change the watches settings when you change time zones.
Changing direction of travel in your example is much like changing time
zones.
Yes...
It is like changing zones IF you assume Newton's absolute space.
I didn't realise that Einstein supported that notion.
You want to keep your watch set the same even though you changed time
zones,
AND THEN you complain when you end up missing your appointments and blame
the watch.
It isn't the watches fault.
Reality does NOT require that observations only be made from a particular
frame of reference, but logic and math requires that you take the fact you
have change iFoRs into account.
Science requires we use the same kind of light when comparing
frames. This becomes very difficult when Einstein uses a type
of light which exists only between his ears.
<<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
You refuse to take the change into account and then complain about the
results you get.
The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither
remarkable nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity.
It is a problem for relativity because relativity is supposed to
describe what happens in reality.
It does, when you follow the rules.
When you break the rules don't expect the results to describe what happens
in reality.
It is only indicative of a lack of understanding.
I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole.
The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than
the pole.
Paradox?
Apparently.
No. Not a paradox. A failure to understand perspective.
It IS a *paradox* (MATH ERROR) just as surely as the missing
dollar paradox. You can't formally account for time
using simple algebra, when wave and point-particle models are
mixed .
We are still waiting to hear if ball players from Brussells
are as good as ball players from Russia. ;-)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 Pierseaux
http://www.ulb.ac.be/homepage_uk.html (For Bz)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 Jackson
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 Okun
This is no slight issue. Jackson and Okun have
written numerous papers in the past 20 years
where there is widespread misunderstanding in
the physics community. But they seem to fall
on blind eyes where the H.G Wells sect is
concerned.
But if I travel to the mountain (by changing my frame of
reference) I notice that the poles appear to get smaller compared to
the mountain
It gets bigger! It gets SMALLER when you travel away from the mountain.
and I become aware of perspective effects.
You have to PASS the pole before it gets smaller, in your rear view mirror.
But the mountain looking closer does NOT mean that you have traveled toward
it.
You might be looking through a telescope.
You see the mountain as bigger [the pole is bigger too, but you ignore that
fact] and then complain about the paradox that the mountain is closer but
you haven't moved an inch.
That is exactly the same kind of 'mixing and matching' of facts that you
keep doing in order to sustain the illusion that there is a paradox.
Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light
traveling in 'straight lines'.
Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes?
If only delta t = gamma delta t0 is applied to the paradox in the OP
then the paradox is real because gamma is always greater than one.
If you try to drive by looking in the rear view mirror, you will have
paradoxes too. You are trying to restrict the tools that can be used.
Why complain when that hammer doesn't do a good job of putting those wood
screws into place when there is a perfectly good screw driver sitting right
next to the hammer? You can use the hammer to START the screw and then use
the screwdriver, or you can predrill the screw hole with a countersink bit.
The wood you are using is really TOO hard for driving in screws with a
hammer, yet you persist in banging away and complaining that the hammer is
poorly made and the screws are bending and breaking.
You skipped the sudden jump in counts when you jumped from one iFoR to the
other. Daryl has pointed it out to you and you ignore it.
Only to those ignorant of
the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through
time-space.
So what is it that you think that I am ignorant of?
I begin to think you are feigning.
Colp obviously realises that a 3 legged stool is always
level and a 4 legged stool in never level.
I am told that I can't 'mix and match' observations which are made
from different inertial frames of reference. Yet reality does not
limit observers from changing frames and making conclusions based on
their observations.
They are free to change frames, as long as they take into account the fact
that they have 'changed time zones' when they do change frames.
You continue to refuse to do that.
What joy do you get out of the game you are playing?
Are LiGO and GP-B and Tevatron games? You should be writing
your government; not posting to usenet. :o)
Kind regards,
Sue...
--
bz
.
- References:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the LT for time correct?
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
