Re: The real twin paradox.

On Dec 14, 9:35 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node97.html
You apparently did not find it in Fitpatrick's
lectures. That is what I usually refer to.
I suspect the reason I did not find it in the reference
you posted is that it is not there. It was just another
of your irrelevant links.
The twins paradox not there because it is irrelevant
if there is no conflict in SR's postulates.
Which side are you arguing? SR's postulates do not conflict
with each other, nor -- so far -- with experimental evidence.
SR does imply the twins phenomenon. Again, there is no
internal conflict, and relativity is again consist with
experimental evidence.

Do you understand the difference in a departing
train that gets smaller and a departing train
that *appears* to get smaller?

I routinely expect departing vehicles to subtend progressively
smaller angles in my field of vision. On the other hand, in a
case where nothing in the universe distinguishes whether a
change is appearance or actual, I do not appreciate the
difference.

You poor thing!
Doppler radar pictures must give you
migrane headaches.


You might choose to view one frame's time as the absolute
standard, and all outside observations as consistent but
illusory. That's something going on in your own head. The
theory of relativity is about how the universe behaves, not
about how you might choose to imagine it.

Light is what MAKES the universe behave, or misbehave
depending on your POV.


Einstein's basis for a slowing clock is the
finite speed of light and it appearance
as it receeds. He "judges" the clock
from a relativive moving FoR.

Daryl and Jeckyl's basis is an interaction
with the clock mechanism and a Newtonian ether.

Your misconceptions are all your own; please do not ascribe
them to Daryl and Jeckyl. They have worked quite hard, perhaps
harder than rationally justifiable, to put forth the clues
you need.

No... Jeckly has made his position clear numerous times
even to the point of excluding light paths from the problem
so there is no way to interpret his positon as consistant
with SR.

Daryl OTOH just can't part with his Newtonian ether and
is at least is up-front about it.



That is specifically what the principle of
relativity says can't happen.

So I am not on Daryl or Jeckly's side of the
issue.

Their side is, for now, beyond you. Your side is in world
within your own head.


I do not know Daryl nor Jeckyl, but I gather they are smart
enough to realize that the chance of you understanding modern
physics was not good. You are not teacher nor student, just
cautionary tale.

Particle light and time-travel ARE attractive notions.

<< Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis--usually
one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly
implausible--and then looks only for items which appear
to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored.
Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to
rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to
investigate or to test alternative possibilities.
Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to
"congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes,
appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread
misunderstandings. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html



BTW I did not misquote Jeckyl.
First he said the twins do NOT < (His caps)
agree on the orbits of Jupiter's moons.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c380cb1749bcfc82?dmode=source

Then he tried to Doppler his way out the gaff:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/facf0075e5622422?dmode=source

Aparently forgetting that he used clocks that really slow
rather than clocks that appear to slow.

If worship is what you are into I can't think of two
finer candidates for the job. :o)

Sue...


--
--Bryan-
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: That Minkowski time intervals cannot be current in both frames.
    ... in the stationary frame. ... Clock A and clock B are co-located at this event, ... responsible for the effects that make it APPEAR that relativity is ... conflict, could at least be plausibly suggested could in principle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > and find lists of experiments purporting to support relativity. ... > would disagree with the GPS clock? ... to this day GPS satellites ... <Snip my ignored reasoning.> ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > and find lists of experiments purporting to support relativity. ... > would disagree with the GPS clock? ... to this day GPS satellites ... <Snip my ignored reasoning.> ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... > and find lists of experiments purporting to support relativity. ... > would disagree with the GPS clock? ... to this day GPS satellites ... <Snip my ignored reasoning.> ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray
    ... relativity theory, free of paradox, that an ideal clock (at sea level on ... As far as I can see the explanation which Murray shows to be flawed ... in The Principle of Relativity. ... prediction and I understand that it is the way SR is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)