Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox? To be more
precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
relativity". These two pages can be found he

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...A2IzU#PPA67,M1

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos

"José Carlos Santos" wrote in message
...
| Hi all,
|
| Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox? To be more
| precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
| the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
| relativity". These two pages can be found he
|
|
http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...A2IzU#PPA67,M1
|
| What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
| further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
| C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".
|
| Best regards,
|
| Jose Carlos Santos

Here is the answer to ALL paradoxes in SR.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

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

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:53:33 +0000, José Carlos Santos
wrote:

Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox? To be more
precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
relativity". These two pages can be found he

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...A2IzU#PPA67,M1

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos


Imagine yardsticks between B and C.
They contract, due to velocity, and therefore "more" yardsticks
fit in there.

(Not everybody agrees with that when talking about "real world").

The terms "distance", "lenght" must be defined first in a space
topology which is not trivial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology
Topology is a branch of mathematics sitting on top of geometry,
so to say, and is the framework for todays relativity stuff.

w.

On Feb 12, 12:53*pm, José Carlos Santos wrote:
Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox? To be more
precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
relativity". These two pages can be found he

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...frontcover&dq=...


Well, analyzing it from the A frame, the cord must break. SR says
that the rope, now having speed v (wrt A) is contracted. The rope can
not have a shorter length than D and maintain its length D. Since we
*claim* that the ships maintain a distance D, then the rope must
break.


What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

Thats a different analysis. That is what is concluded when one
analyzes the situation from B instead of A. It is posit that both
ships have same motion WRT A, not WRT B (or C). Eg: At every instant,
both ships B and C have same speed wrt A; At some point in time,
those ships have the same speed say, 1 km/s, simutaneously (wrt A).
But remember that simultaneous events in one frame (A) are not simul
in another frame (B). So IOW, there are two simul events wrt A: B has
speed 1 and C has speed 1. Those two events are not simul wrt B: B has
speed 1 but C does not (in fact his speed is less than 1). Therefore
wrt B, C is slower and hence the gap between B and C increases as far
as B is concerned. But since it is implicitely posit that the rope
attached to B is "rigid" it must not change its length wrt B hence it
must break...

On Feb 12, 12:53*pm, José Carlos Santos wrote:
Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox?

There are at least three ways it can be ~constructed~.


--C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

Most variations exploit some ambiguity in the mathematical
definition of the term "proper time" :

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node14.html

...or a variation may mis-state the temporal component
of a space-time interval:

if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the
space part enters as if it were imaginary

R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2

where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of
the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space
enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time.

http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/...edoflight.html


Sue...

To be more
precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
relativity". These two pages can be found he

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...frontcover&dq=...

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos

Dear José Carlos Santos:

On Feb 12, 10:53*am, José Carlos Santos wrote:
Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox?
To be more precise I would like to know why it is not a
paradox.

It is not a paradox, because it does not require B or C to assume the
other ship has "identical acceleration programmes", or "simultaneous
ignition time of the other ship". The paradox comes in when "common
sense" supplies facts not in evidence.

It is described on the first two pages of J. S. Bell's
article "How to teach special relativity". These two
pages can be found he

... snip now broken link, upon reply

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...]
sees C drifting further and further behind". How can
that be possible?

Because B sees C start later. By the light propagation delay of C to
B.

* *See:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox

* * * * par·a·dox * 1. a statement or proposition that SEEMS self-contradictory
* * * * or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

* *The Twin Paradox
* * *http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...radox/twin...-

The word "paradox" has many different definitions. The two main
definitions are incompatible (different meanings). One is an
*apparent* contradiction in a system, the other *is* a contradiction
in the system.

google: define paradox

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, José Carlos Santos wrote:

Hi all,

Could someone please explain me a relativistic paradox? To be more
precise I would like to know why it is not a paradox. It is described on
the first two pages of J. S. Bell's article "How to teach special
relativity". These two pages can be found he

http://books.google.com/books?id=FGn...A2IzU#PPA67,M1

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

In the initial rest frame, B and C start accelerating at the same time.
So, in this reference frame, the distance between B and C is constant
(hence, the string breaks, which, as Bell says, can be considered a
consequence of its Lorentz contraction).

When the ships are moving, you can use the instantaneous rest frame of one
of the ships to see what is happening. In the instantaneous rest frame of
either ship, the ship in front started accelerating first, so it's moving
faster, and the distance between the ships is increasing. In this frame,
the string (or at least one end of it) is stationary, and is being
stretched.

Why isn't it a paradox? Because we have three explanations of what happens
(the initial rest frame, B's instantaneous rest frame, and C's
instantaneous rest frame), and all three explanations agree on the
consequences.

It's a nice example of the relativity of simultaneity, and possible
consequences thereof.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

"Sam Wormley" :

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox

par·a·dox 1. a statement or proposition that SEEMS
self-contradictory
or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

The Twin Paradox

http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...ox/twin_parado
x.html

More graphic material about SRT and TP on my
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm

regards,
guido

"Sam Wormley" :

What I fail to understand is why is it that "B [...] sees C drifting
further and further behind". How can that be possible? After all, "B and
C [...] have identical acceleration programmes".

The Twin Paradox

http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...ox/twin_parado
x.html

Besides,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox
shows it rather well, doesn't it?
The importance of relativistic simultaneity...

guido