Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424160 > unrolled thread

Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-06 23:26 -0700
    Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 06:01 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Ocho Hoshouwa <yeoh@eohotwa.ey> - 2017-07-08 11:16 +0000
    Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 06:29 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 06:47 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 08:04 -0700
        Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 08:15 -0700
          Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 07:17 -0700
            Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 17:11 +0000
              Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Jeèným Hová <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 15:51 +0000
            Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
              Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 12:43 -0700
                Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 14:20 +0000
                Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:38 -0500
      Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 01:10 -0700
        Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 06:23 -0700
          Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Ocho Hoshouwa <yeoh@eohotwa.ey> - 2017-07-08 13:35 +0000
    Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:31 -0700
      Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Exandre Bertrand <aeid@xani.pr> - 2017-07-29 09:26 +0000
        Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 13:44 -0700
          Re: Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-29 21:03 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#424160 — Einsteinians Fool the Gullible World

Don Koks, Steve Carlip, Philip Gibbs: "In 1879 it was thought that light must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound propagates through the air and other substances.  The two scientists Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether, by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its direction of travel relative to the sun during the year.  To their surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Brothers Einsteinians Don Koks, Steve Carlip and Philip Gibbs are lying blatantly. Initially, the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light; later Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced ad hoc idiocies - length contraction etc. - confused everything and paved the way for Einstein's science killing "theory":

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."  http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."  Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92  https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424174

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:26:18 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Don Koks, Steve Carlip, Philip Gibbs: "In 1879 it was thought that light
> must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound
> propagates through the air and other substances.  The two scientists
> Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether,
> by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its
> direction of travel relative to the sun during the year.  To their
> surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light."
>  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
> 
> Brothers Einsteinians Don Koks, Steve Carlip and Philip Gibbs are lying blatantly.

Preparicating pentcho poops again.

> Initially, the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the
> variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light;

Poop-head Pentcho rechews his moldy cud.

> later Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced ad hoc idiocies - length contraction
> etc. - confused everything and paved the way for Einstein's science
> killing "theory":

Dishonest bull plop is Pentcho's hallmark.

> "Emission theory,

Has been refuted over and over again.

> "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory
> of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Of course ... because the MMX was designed merely to detect a luminiferous ether.

> [Regurgitated quotes deleted]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424261

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> later Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced ad hoc idiocies - length
>> contraction etc. - confused everything and paved the way for Einstein's
>> science killing "theory":
> 
> Dishonest bull plop is Pentcho's hallmark.

Not dishonest at all, but established as fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424176

The following text, per se, exposes Einstein's relativity as an absurdity:

"Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."  David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

That is, all along, A observes B's clock running slow and B observes A's clock running slow so when A and B meet again either twin finds the other younger than himself. Idiotic isn't it?

How can Einstein's relativity be saved? Some additional idiocy will have to be introduced, able to neutralize the original idiocy. In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, during the turning-around acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field appears:

Albert Einstein: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears..."  http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

David Morin (quoted above) finds Einstein's homogeneous gravitational field too idiotic - he has replaced it with "enough strangeness" which sounds less idiotic to him:

"Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424178

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:29:47 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The following text, per se, exposes Einstein's relativity as an absurdity:
> 
> "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star
> and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does
> observe A's clock running slow..."  David Morin, Introduction to Classical
> Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14
>  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
> 
> That is, all along, A observes B's clock running slow and B observes A's
> clock running slow

Abysmally wrong, Prevaricating Poop-head.

> so when A and B meet again either twin finds the other younger than himself.
> Idiotic isn't it?

It would be ... if that were what relativity predicted.  It isn't.
Prevaricating poop-head lies again.

> How can Einstein's relativity be saved?

It doesn't need saving.  Pointless Pentcho should worry about himself.

> Some additional idiocy will have to be introduced, able to neutralize the
> original idiocy.

Yes, Prevaricating poop-head Pentcho should take Kaopectate to neutralize
his egregious tendency to poop pointlessly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424186

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:29:47 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The following text, per se, exposes Einstein's relativity as an absurdity:
> 
> "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."  David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
> 
> That is, all along, A observes B's clock running slow and B observes A's clock running slow so when A and B meet again either twin finds the other younger than himself. Idiotic isn't it?
> 
> How can Einstein's relativity be saved? Some additional idiocy will have to be introduced, able to neutralize the original idiocy. In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, during the turning-around acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field appears:
> 
> Albert Einstein: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears..."  http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm
> 
> David Morin (quoted above) finds Einstein's homogeneous gravitational field too idiotic - he has replaced it with "enough strangeness" which sounds less idiotic to him:
> 
> "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A’s clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning->around period to make A end up older.”

 The correct explanation:
During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time). This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second.This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424187

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
>  The correct explanation:

Incorrect!

> During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower
> rate of 1/gamma than A.

Wrong!

> At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate
> than B’s clock.

Abysmally wrong!!

> Why?

Because Seto is arrogantly ignorant.

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
 – Charles Darwin

> Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time).

There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.

> [Regurgitated garbage deleted because of its asininity]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426446

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >  The correct explanation:
> 
> Incorrect!
> 
> > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower
> > rate of 1/gamma than A.
> 
> Wrong!
> 
> > At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate
> > than B’s clock.
> 
> Abysmally wrong!!
> 
> > Why?
> 
> Because Seto is arrogantly ignorant.
> 
> “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
>  – Charles Darwin
> 
> > Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time).
> 
> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.
> 

Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an interval of absolute time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426454

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
>> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.

>Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an interval
>of absolute time.

No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. As Gary said, you have learned absolutely nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426545

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an
>>interval of absolute time.
> 
> No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. As Gary said, you have learned absolutely
> nothing.

In the sense that if you can't change the local time rate, that's absolute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426689

On 7/28/17 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>>   The correct explanation:
>>
>> Incorrect!
>>
>>> During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower
>>> rate of 1/gamma than A.
>>
>> Wrong!
>>
>>> At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate
>>> than B’s clock.
>>
>> Abysmally wrong!!
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because Seto is arrogantly ignorant.
>>
>> “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
>>   – Charles Darwin
>>
>>> Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time).
>>
>> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
>> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.
>>
> 
> Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an interval of absolute time.
> 

It doesn't.
You layer on additional assumptions (unjustified) which then distort the 
current physics treatment to something unrecognizable.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426721

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:01:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/17 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   The correct explanation:
> >>
> >> Incorrect!
> >>
> >>> During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower
> >>> rate of 1/gamma than A.
> >>
> >> Wrong!
> >>
> >>> At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate
> >>> than B’s clock.
> >>
> >> Abysmally wrong!!
> >>
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> Because Seto is arrogantly ignorant.
> >>
> >> “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
> >>   – Charles Darwin
> >>
> >>> Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time).
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
> >> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.
> >>
> > 
> > Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an interval of absolute time.
> > 
> 
> It doesn't.
> You layer on additional assumptions (unjustified) which then distort the 
> current physics treatment to something unrecognizable.

Yes it does......once you say that the traveling twin is younger you automatically assumed that the traveling twin’s clock second contain the same amount of absolute time as a stay at home clock second......therefore less accumulated clock seconds by the traveling clock mean the traveling clock is younger.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426814

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:01:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> >> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
>> >> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.

>> > Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an 
>> > interval of absolute time.

>> It doesn't.
>> You layer on additional assumptions (unjustified) which then distort the
>> current physics treatment to something unrecognizable.

>Yes it does......once you say that the traveling twin is younger you 
>automatically assumed that the traveling twin's clock second contain the 
>same amount of absolute time as a stay at home clock second......

No, Stupid Ken.  YOU assumed that the traveling twin's clock second 
contained something you made up that you call absolute time.

Odd made no assumptions.

Quit blaming Odd for your own failure to understand SR.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426912

On 7/31/17 2:43 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 10:01:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/28/17 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>    The correct explanation:
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect!
>>>>
>>>>> During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower
>>>>> rate of 1/gamma than A.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong!
>>>>
>>>>> At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate
>>>>> than B’s clock.
>>>>
>>>> Abysmally wrong!!
>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because Seto is arrogantly ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
>>>>    – Charles Darwin
>>>>
>>>>> Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time).
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as "absolute time."  I learned a lot since I came
>>>> to this site, but Seto has learned absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then please explain why current physics treats a clock second as an interval of absolute time.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't.
>> You layer on additional assumptions (unjustified) which then distort the
>> current physics treatment to something unrecognizable.
> 
> Yes it does......once you say that the traveling twin is younger 

Yes.

> you automatically assumed that the traveling twin’s clock second contain the same amount of absolute time as a stay at home clock second.

No, That is WHOLLY your own assumption that YOU layered on that is not 
justified.

You have ALWAYS and MISTAKENLY assumed that the only way to make any 
comparison between two measured values is if the value is based on a 
common absolute scale. That is bullshit, you made it up, no one else 
buys into it.

Do not project YOUR assumptions onto me. I do not assume what you 
assume. Your assumptions are yours and yours alone and they contaminate 
your every thought.

> .....therefore less accumulated clock seconds by the traveling clock mean the traveling clock is younger.
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424251

Einsteinians have discovered that doublethink (believing and teaching both thesis and antithesis) not only destroys human rationality but makes the process irreversible - the affected person will never restore his/her sanity. 

Einstein was a powerful doublethinker. He was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction, without any hesitation. So in 1911 he explained to the gullible world that the "sudden change of direction" is immaterial with respect to the clock (twin) paradox: 

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368 
 Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." 

In 1918 the "sudden change of direction" involving acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial and produced a miraculous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field: 

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." 

Today's Einsteinians prefer Einstein 1911 argument and teach that the "sudden change of direction" involving acceleration is immaterial, but an important minority sticks to Einstein's 1918 idiocy and teaches that the "sudden change of direction" is crucial: 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
 Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
 Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
 Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." 

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847 
 Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion." 

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html 
 John Norton: "We read from these hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day; just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2 days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite. Careful attention to the differing judgments of simultaneity of the two twins shows that there is nothing paradoxical in the twin effect. The brief moment of acceleration of the traveling twin completely alters the traveler's judgments of simultaneity and this alteration is key to seeing how relativity provides a consistent account of the effect." 

http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox 
 "The Twin Paradox is a scenario that, at first glance, seems to make nonsense out of Einstein's theory of special relativity. The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] What happens is that the twin on Earth, viewing himself as stationary and his brother as moving at high speed, sees his brother experiencing time dilation and thus ageing more slowly. At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. Each sees the other as moving, and therefore as experiencing time dilation. But which brother is "correct" in the way he perceives the situation? Both are. Each sees the other as being younger than himself. How they were perceived by any onlooker would depend on which frame of reference the onlooker was in. It doesn't make sense to ask which brother is "really" older, because the answer depends on where you stand to ask the question! But what about when the brother in the spaceship returns to Earth? Surely the contradiction will be apparent then? Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." 

The sudden ageing syndrome described in the last two quotations (and in Einstein's 1918 paper) deserves special attention - this is perhaps the greatest idiocy in the history of science: 

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424275

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:10:52 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Neverending aAsinine jackass plop deleted]

> The sudden ageing syndrome described in the last two quotations (and in
> Einstein's 1918 paper) deserves special attention - this is perhaps the
> greatest idiocy in the history of science: 
> 
> "When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the
> shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age
> to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means
> that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the
> older of the two." 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

So Pony-plop Pentcho doesn't belive one's perception changes when his
condition changes?  What kind of a bizarre bonehead IS he?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424276

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> "When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home,
>> the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his
>> brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly
>> older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the
>> stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." Pentcho Valev
> 
> So Pony-plop Pentcho doesn't belive one's perception changes when his
> condition changes?  What kind of a bizarre bonehead IS he?

You contradict yourself. When at home they both have the same perspective. 
Hmm, you are actually supporting Dr. Pentcho in a bizarre way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426460

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:26:18 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Don Koks, Steve Carlip, Philip Gibbs: "In 1879 it was thought that light must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound propagates through the air and other substances.  The two scientists Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether, by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its direction of travel relative to the sun during the year.  To their surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
> 
> Brothers Einsteinians Don Koks, Steve Carlip and Philip Gibbs are lying blatantly. Initially, the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light; later Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced ad hoc idiocies - length contraction etc. - confused everything and paved the way for Einstein's science killing "theory":

"science-killing theory" - hahahahahahahaha!!!

First of all, you are bringing up Michelson-Morley incorrectly. The
motivation for Einstein's theory was the fact that Maxwell's equations
did not work if one transformed from the "lab" coordinate system to 
a system that moved with constant velocity wrt. the "lab". That inconsistency
is present already e.g. in the very foundation of magnetism: the law
of Biot-Savart and the Lorentz force formula yield contradictory
predictions when so transformed.

This was not a fatal contradiction per se, just a strange situation which 
implied the "lab" system was physically different from all the others. But 
Newtonian mechanics is NOT similarly affected despite the macroscopic forces 
_it_ describes being derivable from electromagnetic phenomena. So somewhere
along the way to mechanics, electromagnetic forces "forget" that the "lab"
coordinates are privileged. There was nothing at all indicating what would
be the cause of such "forgetting".

So this was the strange situation compounded by the weird mathematical
discovery that a coordinate system change _did_ exist which _did_ preserve 
Maxwell's equations. But this coordinate change included a change of
_time_ as well (not to mention certain spatial extents).

Everyone assumed this "time" was just an abstract parameter but Einstein
decided to investigate if there was a way to assign an actual physical
meaning to the "transformed time" based on some sort of reasonable
and minimal set of assumptions or principles.

He succeeded in finding such a principle, it's essentially the following:
the _round trip_ of a light signal (source-mirror-source) yields the
speed c in all uniformly moving systems when tested at some _single_
point fixed in each such system.

Notice clock sync doesn't enter into it.

But when one does set up actual coordinate systems designed to mimic
Newtonian setup, then Einstein shows one can _derive_ the above
transformations preserving Maxwell's equations from the above principle
(and some other widely accepted assumptions). As a corollary, that
odd "abstract time parameter" gains the status of the actual physical
time that the transformed observer experiences. The presence of the
coordinate systems also allows one certain useful quantifications
called "time dilation", "the relativity simultaneity", etc.

Almost certainly Einstein was at the time unaware of Michelson-Morley.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426520

JanPB wrote:

> This was not a fatal contradiction per se, just a strange situation
> which implied the "lab" system was physically different from all the
> others. But Newtonian mechanics is NOT similarly affected despite the
> macroscopic forces _it_ describes being derivable from electromagnetic
> phenomena. So somewhere along the way to mechanics, electromagnetic
> forces "forget" that the "lab" coordinates are privileged. There was
> nothing at all indicating what would be the cause of such "forgetting".

You contradict yourself. Relativity has nothing to do with 
electromagnetism. He fell into Relativity by mistake, FORGETTING that 
light is in fact ELECTROMAGNETISM. He was writing about EM. Relativity 
came later on, by itself. I guess, at the time the others realized what he 
did. Good post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426561

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 2:26:13 AM UTC-7, Exandre Bertrand wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > This was not a fatal contradiction per se, just a strange situation
> > which implied the "lab" system was physically different from all the
> > others. But Newtonian mechanics is NOT similarly affected despite the
> > macroscopic forces _it_ describes being derivable from electromagnetic
> > phenomena. So somewhere along the way to mechanics, electromagnetic
> > forces "forget" that the "lab" coordinates are privileged. There was
> > nothing at all indicating what would be the cause of such "forgetting".
> 
> You contradict yourself. Relativity has nothing to do with 
> electromagnetism.

It does, it was the root cause for Einstein's becoming interested in the problem.

> He fell into Relativity by mistake, FORGETTING that 
> light is in fact ELECTROMAGNETISM.

His 1905 paper contradicts this. That paper is about endowing the (by then known
already) Lorentz transformation with a physical meaning which it lacked at the time.
Today we find it hard to read that paper without knowing what happened later but
at the time it was written, it was the "Electrodynamical part" which was the real reason
for the paper. The "Kinematical part" was conceived "merely" as a reasonable
physical justification for _deriving_ the Lorentz transform and treating its "time
parameter" seriously. This was what made the transformed expressions for E and B
"physically legal".

Before Einstein's paper these manipulations were known, of course, but were considered 
mostly mathematical oddities of Maxwell's equations. The hope was aether would
eventually be detected and its properties established by some experiments which would
finally account for all the oddities. This part never worked which was both frustrating and
surprising (e.g. Michelson-Morley of which Einstein was unaware AFAICT). 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web