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

Groups > sci.physics > #589334 > unrolled thread

Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-14 16:42 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 17:18 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 20:54 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:04 +0200
        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:25 -0700
          Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:36 +0200
            Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:42 -0700
              Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:48 +0200
              Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:52 +0200
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:58 -0700
                  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:01 +0200
                  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:07 +0200
                    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 22:56 -0700
              Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:22 -0500
          Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:19 -0500
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:40 +0200
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:00 +0200
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:14 -0500
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 05:05 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:13 -0500

#589334 — Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox

Special relativity predicts that either twin ages more slowly than the other, as judged from the other twin's system:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "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."

Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than the other (as judged from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity unless "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period, the traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the idea that "enough strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-around period and this "enough strangeness" miraculously affects the distant stationary twin is simply idiotic.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#589339

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:42:17 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Special relativity predicts that either twin ages more slowly than the other, as judged from the other twin's system:
> 
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
>  David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "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."
> 
> Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than the other (as judged from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity unless "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period, the traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the idea that "enough strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-around period and this "enough strangeness" miraculously affects the distant stationary twin is simply idiotic.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.

The whole thing is a theater of the absurd or rather, a steaming pile of crap.

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

#589356

Steaming

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

#589358

Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):

> 
> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
> 
It does not assume instantaneous communication.
You are misinformed.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589363

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:04:33 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
> > 
> It does not assume instantaneous communication.
> You are misinformed.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

You are the one who is misinformed. Get some knowledge so you can be humble, goddammit. LOL

Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.

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

#589365

Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:25 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:04:33 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
>>>
>> It does not assume instantaneous communication.
>> You are misinformed.
>>
>> -- 
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> 
> You are the one who is misinformed. Get some knowledge so you can be humble, goddammit. LOL

Well, such a comment
invalidates your seriousness for scientific purposes.
> 
> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.
> 
No, it does not mean that.
Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.

BTW, you say the classical physics is invalid as well,
as relative motion is here more for 4 centuries.

In fact, nobody measured other than relative speed.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589367

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:36:05 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:25 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:04:33 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >> Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
> >>>
> >> It does not assume instantaneous communication.
> >> You are misinformed.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> >> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> > 
> > You are the one who is misinformed. Get some knowledge so you can be humble, goddammit. LOL
> 
> Well, such a comment
> invalidates your seriousness for scientific purposes.

No. I just don't like elitists and pompous asses. That's all.
 
> > Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.
> > 
> No, it does not mean that.
> Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.

That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.

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

#589368

Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:42 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):

> 
> No. I just don't like elitists and pompous asses. That's all.

You do not like self studying at the first place.

>> No, it does not mean that.
>> Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.
> 
> That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.

That is exactly the evidence you do not know
what physics is about
and what relative in physics means.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589369

Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:42 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
>  
>>> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.
>>>
>> No, it does not mean that.
>> Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.
> 
> That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.
> 
Relative are all coordinates.
Would you try to invalidate all physics in last 4 centuries ?

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589371

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:42 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> >  
> >>> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.
> >>>
> >> No, it does not mean that.
> >> Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.
> > 
> > That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.
> > 
> Relative are all coordinates.
> Would you try to invalidate all physics in last 4 centuries ?
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Go pack it somewhere. You bore me. Adios.

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

#589373

Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:58 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:42 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
>>>  
>>>>> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it does not mean that.
>>>> Physics is not math and nobody says you know exact values.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.
>>>
>> Relative are all coordinates.
>> Would you try to invalidate all physics in last 4 centuries ?
>>
>> -- 
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> 
> Go pack it somewhere. You bore me. Adios.
> 
Rather you have nothing to defend your silly idea
but personal attacks. You bore me even more.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589374

Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:58 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>>>
>>> That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.
>>>
>> Relative are all coordinates.
>> Would you try to invalidate all physics in last 4 centuries ?
> 
> Go pack it somewhere. You bore me. Adios.
> 
Shoot and run approach. How predictable.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589376

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:07:37 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 15/07/2016 v 06:58 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-7, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's exactly what it means in relativity. Get a clue.
> >>>
> >> Relative are all coordinates.
> >> Would you try to invalidate all physics in last 4 centuries ?
> > 
> > Go pack it somewhere. You bore me. Adios.
> > 
> Shoot and run approach. How predictable.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Pack it.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

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

#589397

On 7/14/2016 11:42 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You are the one who is misinformed. Get some knowledge so you can be humble, goddammit. LOL
>> >
>> > Well, such a comment
>> > invalidates your seriousness for scientific purposes.
> No. I just don't like elitists and pompous asses. That's all.
>

I'd suggest you look in the mirror when you make such statements.

Your compensation methods for dealing with scars from past interactions 
are pretty obvious.

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

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

#589396

On 7/14/2016 11:25 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot
> be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.

Don't be silly.

If you make the measurement of relative velocity at time T1 and the 
signal transmission took a time t, then you have measured the relative 
velocity of the two objects at time T1-t. This does not invalidate the 
measurement, nor is a claim of knowledge of relative velocity at time T1.

If however, you LATER receive signals from the two objects that confirms 
that neither one experienced acceleration for a time greater than t, 
then you ALSO know the relative speed at time T1.

You have abandoned completely the idea of INFERENCE, without cause.


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

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

#589366

Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):

> 
> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
> 
To know you are 6789.123 km away from New York
does not require me to instantly fly to New York and back.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589372

Dne 15/07/2016 v 02:18 mapou001@gmail.com napsal(a):

> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.
> 
You say by other words that

"No measurement of position nor speed
is ever possible, as all such measurements in physics are relative
and forbidden due instantaneous communication requirements."

Correct ?


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#589394

On 7/14/2016 7:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> The very word "relativity" invalidates Einstein's physics because it assumes instantaneous
> communication at a distance, something that is forbidden by the theory.

What instantaneous communication is assumed?


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

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

#589391

Einstein's twin paradox is an absurdity unless an additional ad hoc assumption is correct: the acceleration ("gravitational field", in Einstein's words) experienced by the traveling twin in the turning-around period generates "enough strangeness", and this "enough strangeness" makes the distant stationary twin age very fast:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "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."

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."

The additional ad hoc assumption (the turning-around acceleration makes the distant stationary twin age very fast) is idiotic of course, and accordingly the twin story is an absurdity, not a paradox. All clever Einsteinians know that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial and in some twin-paradox scenarios even does not exist:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/ 
 Ronald Lasky: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental." [Note that in 1918 Einstein is one of those "partially informed people".] 

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

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

#589393

On 7/14/2016 6:42 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than the other (as judged
> from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity unless "enough strangeness occurs during
> the turning-around period to make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period,
> the traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the idea that "enough
> strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-around period and this "enough strangeness"
> miraculously affects the distant stationary twin is simply idiotic.

Being very far away prevents strangeness?

>
> Pentcho Valev



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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web