sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions


I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Did you challenge the POR?

Paul

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions


I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Did you challenge the POR?

If you have to ask, then you might do better
letting someone else defend.

Sue...


Paul

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions


I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Did you challenge the POR?

It appears (to me) that her supposed challenge is something
involving combs and pithballs. What exactly it is, we are
supposed to guess.

I think you're all mistaken about what the paradox is. It is that the
twins who were the same age before the trip are different ages at the
end of it.

The ability to spot a paradox is evidently not inherent in everyone, or
else it is destroyed by the environment in which one grows up.

If one is unable to spot the proper paradox, one is likely to build a
great explanation of something entirely irrelevant to the problem, such
as the one above which is based, as you say, on the pov that Sue is
stationary. Many other paradoxes have been chosen to be the paradox of
the TP experiment, but there is only one and that is the one I noted
above. Any others are, unfortunately for those who spent a great deal
of time and effort on them, incorrect.

Russell wrote:

It appears (to me) that her supposed challenge is something
involving combs and pithballs. What exactly it is, we are
supposed to guess.

Same as usual. The amount of time and energy you will waste on
the troll.


---Tim Shuba---

shuba wrote:
Russell wrote:

It appears (to me) that her supposed challenge is something
involving combs and pithballs. What exactly it is, we are
supposed to guess.

Same as usual. The amount of time and energy you will waste on
the troll.

Well, at least I didn't waste much on that response.
I was more interested in letting Paul do that, and
it appeared to me that he was going off on the
wrong track. Call me an enabler, perhaps.



---Tim Shuba---

Thanks for the friendly advice, btw. You're a good
guy.

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions


I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Did you challenge the POR?

It appears (to me) that her supposed challenge is something
involving combs and pithballs. What exactly it is, we are
supposed to guess.
Combs pithballs and what else?
No... don't answer that. I can recognise a tactical snip.

PLONK

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think you're all mistaken about what the paradox is. It is that the
twins who were the same age before the trip are different ages at the
end of it.

No, that's not paradoxical at all (what do you find paradoxical about
different aging? For that we don't need twins and the solution was given by
Einstein in 1905 on the same page that he raised the problem!)
Therefore I praised Harrison for correctly presenting the paradox.

The ability to spot a paradox is evidently not inherent in everyone, or
else it is destroyed by the environment in which one grows up.

If one is unable to spot the proper paradox, one is likely to build a
great explanation of something entirely irrelevant to the problem, such
as the one above which is based, as you say, on the pov that Sue is
stationary.

Well, historically that's what Einstein and others called the Twin paradox
when it appeared - if you like it or not!

Many other paradoxes have been chosen to be the paradox of
the TP experiment, but there is only one and that is the one I noted
above. Any others are, unfortunately for those who spent a great deal
of time and effort on them, incorrect.

Interesting: according to you, Einstein wasted his time in 1918 on an
"incorrect" problem...

Harald

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
|I think you're all mistaken about what the paradox is. It is that the
| twins who were the same age before the trip are different ages at the
| end of it.

The relativist has a mathematical "proof" that it happens, or thinks
he does. You are appealing to common sense.

Consider laying two rulers side by side, one reversed to the other.
Place the '12' (inches) or '30' centimetres of one beside the 0 of
the other, and *rigorously* apply the mathematics of special
relativity.

Now the relativist ALWAYS want the trip to start at 0.
Start at 30 instead and arrive at 0, turn around and return to 30.

Rigor...
The relativist's way, starting at 0:
tau = (t - vx/c^2) /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), tau t.
xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), xi x.

With the reversed ruler, starting at 30,
tau = (t + vx/c^2) /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), tau t.
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), xi x.
Now that is a paradox.

Note that there is no -x on either ruler, but we do have -v.
What the relativist does is choose the ruler he wants without
even realizing it, and he switches rulers on the way back,
starting from 0 again.

The fun part is finding out what went wrong with the cuckoo
transformations themselves, not just saying "it's a paradox".
WHY is it a paradox?

|
| The ability to spot a paradox is evidently not inherent in everyone,
or
| else it is destroyed by the environment in which one grows up.

But you didn't spot it. You only appealed to common sense.
Mathematics doesn't have to be common sense, it can produce
nonsense as well.
|
| If one is unable to spot the proper paradox, one is likely to build a
| great explanation of something entirely irrelevant to the problem,
such
| as the one above which is based, as you say, on the pov that Sue is
| stationary. Many other paradoxes have been chosen to be the paradox
of
| the TP experiment, but there is only one and that is the one I noted
| above. Any others are, unfortunately for those who spent a great deal
| of time and effort on them, incorrect.

No they are not, and it is worth spending the time and effort to see
where you were duped so that it never happens again.
I can show you, but only if you are interested enough to spend the
time and effort. Then you'll understand and be able to explain it to
others instead of saying "obviously" the twins are the same age on
return. It isn't "obvious" if the math shows it happens.
They are the same age, yes, but why can we compute they are not?
Androcles

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
sue jahn wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message ...
sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions


I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle
of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we
define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to
the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of
co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in
physics.

Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Did you challenge the POR?

It appears (to me) that her supposed challenge is something
involving combs and pithballs. What exactly it is, we are
supposed to guess.
Combs pithballs and what else?
No... don't answer that. I can recognise a tactical snip.

PLONK

Trimming out dead wood, I see. Good idea.
Androcles