Re: Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be dubbed bull***


"Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:BFSOl.63669$tb.18902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hey dork!
Ref:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif


What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' -
Galileo
Galilei



Now i think Einstein did his guess to the best that was available. Einstein
also had his Tachion Theory.
We know now that tachions exist. Superluminal and instant photonic tunneling
effects.

We know now that Einstein causality is wrong. With it GR is wrong is my
conclusion. The replacement of GR must run
with special relativity. Also a new cosmology is necessary outside of GR.

In point of view of the vality of special relativity one has to accept, that
most laws and effects are well described
by SRT. So until now i only have problems with the length contractiuon. If
one is at to revise a theory,
a volumetric contracted SRT without Einstein Causality seems to me to be a
good choice.

But i agrree Androcles that not everything is easy then. I think the speed
of light is c local (not +- v).
As SRT does assume that. I do not think that this can be discussed.

I think that the judgement on occurances in the far (point observer) must be
something, that contains SRT
( with Hubble expansion effects ) and a dual view on the radial volume
contracted Lorentz transforms.
This leads not to things like c + v or c - v. But relative velocities are
less than 2c absolute everywhere.
And mass velocities are less than c based on the local frame called local
isotropic background.

Everything else in fact is a matter of believe in an easy decription of the
complete cosmology with a
small set of assumptions that seem rational. That is modeling something as a
blind. I am shure that there are many
approaches possible towards a cosmology based on revised SRT.
And i just try one approach because i think it is worth to be discussed. A
model not more.

So let us see a very distant region of galaxies. Volume contracted means:
Location and size do not fit with todays
approches. Volume contract means too isomorphism with the euklidian R3 or a
infinite universe.

There is a second argument why i think volume contracted SRT is necessary
locally, because this modified
volume contracted Lorentz transforms leave vectorial relationships intact.

Flux = Density * Velocity

is before and after the transform. Only length contracion destroys this most
important vectorial relation in physics.

Now Androcles i know that you have problems with length contracion in the
near. I say it might be right
that there is no local contraction at all. Then Lorentz Transforms would be
just replaced by the time relations of moved
clocks respectively to universal cosmic time. That might be a second choice
and say that i do not know
if this approach is better or not than the approach with a volume
contraction. In the far i think volume contraction
is absolutely necessary for a consistent description of the universe. That
is why i think nothing else should be local.
But ok i do not know that.

Greetings

Josef





"Josef Matz" <josefmatz@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a0bed90$0$31337$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JPpOl.10977$b04.6992@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

However, one a way or an other, any theory which does flies up, should
be
a
based on good bull*** as to be full of a bull***, as for instance,
the
light speed has had a just been based on an average older measures as
would
be as what would follows :

c = 3 x 10 coef.8 metres per second, and this is what is all about, a
definitely as a matter a fact...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


In fact, light speed c must be viewed as a local law. The interpretation
of
a cosmology on the base of SRT
is a mixture of Newtonian and special relativitic views. This is at
least
my
opinion. But maybe i am wrong with
my views too. The problem is: Everybody can only tell as far as his
understanding reaches.

Best rgards too.

Josef Matz



"Josef Matz" <josefmatz@xxxxxxxx> kirjoitti
viestissä:4a0a1d5d$0$31344$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Albertito" <albertito1992@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag


news:26cb3f7c-2b49-4fa0-969b-4e9c728654a7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In SR, the twin paradox is not referred to the travelling
twin that aged slower than the stay-at-home twin, but to
the stay-at-home twin that, in the rest frame of the travelling
twin, aged slower. So, under SR, it is impossible to state
which twin was the travelling twin and which one was the
stay-at-home twin.

"if the stay-at-home twin showed more wrinkles on
his face than the travelling twin, it is imposible
that the stay-at-home twin showed less wrinkles on
his face than the travelling twin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle_(skin)

"Who meet who, after a travel?
If I meet you, then did I age slower than you?
If you meet me, then did I age faster than you?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel

"Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be
dubbed bull***"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull***

Bullshitters referred to Einstein's relativity defenders means:

"It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks
he knows the truth. Producing bull*** requires no such
conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it.
When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes
to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.
For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off:
he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of
the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes
of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as
they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with
what he says. He does not care whether the things he says
describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes
them up, to suit his purpose."

-- Was Einstein a bullshitter?
-- Does a twin paradox describe reality correctly?
-- Is there any bullshitter in this forum that dare
to argue a twin paradox is not a paradox whatsoever,
and that it can describe reality correctly?



Of corse the twin paradox is a mistake in relativity. Its now known
almost
since
about 10 years, that there exist superluminal and even instant
effects
called
tunneling effects. Not only photonhopping at the frustrated
total reflection of light but also recent high precision measurements
from
ETH Zürich
indivate similar effects for electrons (formerly first reported by a
russian).

So if instant effects exists (and they do its almost 100% proove) the
main
mistake of relativity is
the treatment of time. Shure is, that Einstein causality (light cone
causality), on which
general relativity is based - is wrong.

We must replace light cone causality by normal causality. This means,
trhat
thgere is the same
cosmic time everywhere in the universe. Clocks run slow than the
universal
cosmic time
if they are moved wrt. the isotropic cosmic background. This was
alredy
measured by an austrian
in the late 90´s. His findings were discussed away by the relativitic
theorists as there still is the ignorance
to accept that superluminal effects exist in optics.

I think its just a matter of time now, until these things are
accepted
also
by theoretical physics.
The experiments speak a clear word. GR is wrong, and also SRT has
some
mistakes. This are

1. There is not only a lenght contraction for moved objects, its a
volumetric contraction.
2. The SRT treatment of two body problem gives the cottect mercury
perihelion, when the
velocity dependent masses are used in newtons famous gravity law.
3. Photons have a dynamic mass according to

m c**2 = hbar w

Light bending is caused by this dynamic mass for photons. In a
Newtonian
central potential this
mass acts and bends the light path towars the central object.











.

Quantcast