Sue... wrote:
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?

Charged spheres and rooms, look, it's right there above.
I didn't snip it at all. But sorry my enumeration was
incomplete.

I still don't know what the heck you are talking about.
No doubt you are referring to some earlier exchange, but
the reference is obscure to people entering the thread
now. If Paul knows, perhaps I have helped get the
discussion back on track. Or perhaps not.

No... don't answer that. I can recognise a tactical snip.

You too? But it wasn't that at all. Honest.


PLONK

Dear me. In an odd way you proved Mr. Shuba wrong --
trolls don't plonk. I never thought you were a troll,
annoying as you might often be.

Sue... wrote:
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?

Dreams of being a princess?

Paul

Androcles wrote:
"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

Sigh...
If ya don't, you waste half your time argueing
about how many cords are in a snake's larnyx.

I am happy to productivly debate a valid issue
but if we have to modify the issue so the
parrot always wins... there's recipes for that:

Recipes

Below are some recipes that have been donated by
fellow members. Feel free to try these or to
experiment with your own creation. There is no
reason why any recipe for dove, quail or grouse
to be found in a wild game cookbook would not
work just as well. Then you can decide whether
to tell your guests what went into the recipe
before or after they have finished.
Summer Crow Kabobs
submitted by Gordon Krause (The CrowMaster)

Ingredients
16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows)
16 pieces of green pepper ... ...
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm


Bon Appetite!!
Sue...

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

Androcles wrote:
"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

Sigh...
If ya don't, you waste half your time argueing
about how many cords are in a snake's larnyx.

I am happy to productivly debate a valid issue
but if we have to modify the issue so the
parrot always wins... there's recipes for that:

Recipes

Below are some recipes that have been donated by
fellow members. Feel free to try these or to
experiment with your own creation. There is no
reason why any recipe for dove, quail or grouse
to be found in a wild game cookbook would not
work just as well. Then you can decide whether
to tell your guests what went into the recipe
before or after they have finished.
Summer Crow Kabobs
submitted by Gordon Krause (The CrowMaster)

Ingredients
16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows)
16 pieces of green pepper ... ...
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm


Bon Appetite!!
Sue...

Four and Twenty Blackbirds for me. I hate eating crow.

When the pie was opened, the birds began to sing,
now wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?

Androcles.

Harry wrote:
"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?


If you have to ask its a waste of time to try to show you what is
paradoxical about the TP.


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!)


AE's solution was that the twins had aged differently after the
experiment. What do you think is the solution he gave?

Therefore I praised Harrison for correctly presenting the paradox.


Yes, you did, and wrongly so.


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!


No, that's patently false. You're making that up.


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...


No, not according to me, but only according to your misunderstanding of
what I said above judging by your inappropriate reply to it.

Hi TomGee and Harry,

I don't know how Einstein explained the so_called Twin_Paradox,
but what follows is how I explain it.

First off, only photons can travel at C.

Supernovae have enough power to propel nuclei close to C, cosmic rays,
but there isn't enough energy anywhere to accelerate
the Proverbial_Traveling_Twin up to a relativistic speed,
....much less instantly reverse his course.

Secondly, special_relativity is limited to two frames of reference,
for example L and D, Local and Distant, described below.

A third frame of reference, is not allowed
and the D one can't change course as the proverbial_traveling_twin does.

L. The local one, let's make it some human in outer_space.

D. The distant one, make it follow
the first leg of the photon cum Proverbial_Traveling_Twin,
but, and this is key, leaving it when, ha ha, it reverses course.

I say, ha ha, because photons can't change course like that,
so the proverbial_traveling_twin would have to be two separate photons,
...or cosmic rays, something ultra_tiny like that.

"Jeff_Relf" wrote in message
...
|
| Hi TomGee and Harry,
|
| I don't know how Einstein explained the so_called Twin_Paradox,
| but what follows is how I explain it.
|
| First off, only photons can travel at C.

Nonsense.
c is the muzzle velocity of a phton fired from an atom.


|
| Supernovae have enough power to propel nuclei close to C, cosmic rays,
| but there isn't enough energy anywhere to accelerate
| the Proverbial_Traveling_Twin up to a relativistic speed,
| ...much less instantly reverse his course.

Nonsense, muons are born in the upper atmosphere and travel
to the ground in 2.2 microseconds, that's x/t =150 c.
Block them with a scintillator and that slows them to c, but
is cheating.


| Secondly, special_relativity is limited to two frames of reference,
| for example L and D, Local and Distant, described below.

Special relativity is limited to the tiny minds that can't figure
out v =x/t, or even v = xi/tau in the "other" FoR.



| A third frame of reference, is not allowed
| and the D one can't change course as the proverbial_traveling_twin
does.
|
| L. The local one, let's make it some human in outer_space.
|
| D. The distant one, make it follow
| the first leg of the photon cum Proverbial_Traveling_Twin,
| but, and this is key, leaving it when, ha ha, it reverses course.
|
| I say, ha ha, because photons can't change course like that,

Sure they can, that's what mirrors do. Ha ha.
How do you work out the velocity of a photon that goes
from 0 to 0 via a mirror?
c = 0/t = 0.
c = 0 in Einstein's equations, so
1/sqrt(1-v^2/0^2) is undefined and silly.

| so the proverbial_traveling_twin would have to be two separate
photons,
| ...or cosmic rays, something ultra_tiny like that.

Nope. It goes no distance in a finite time.

"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0 along
the X-axis to x', and at the time tau1 be reflected thence to the origin
of the co-ordinates, arriving there at the time tau2" -- Dingbat
Einstein.



½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))


Why ½? Any sensible person would ask how
x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v) was 2 * x'/(c-v)

Here's why:
[quote]
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.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The ½ is there because Einstein stomps his foot and pouts
to have his own way, and if you don't agree with him you must be
stupid and can't understand SR. Well, guess what?
I don't agree with him, he's stupid.

Androcles

"TomGee" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry wrote:
"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?


If you have to ask its a waste of time to try to show you what is
paradoxical about the TP.

But I didn't ask, I told you: tThe link of this thread (Harrison, UToronto)
correctly sketches what is paradoxical about the TP, you just deny it.

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!)

And, as I expalined above, you refuse to understand that your "paradox"
never was seen as a problem by specialists at all.

AE's solution was that the twins had aged differently after the
experiment. What do you think is the solution he gave?

That was his example, consisting of a prediction (but it was about clocks at
that time, not about twins). His prediction was never presented as an
unsolved problem, let alone a paradox

Therefore I praised Harrison for correctly presenting the paradox.

Yes, you did, and wrongly so.


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!

No, that's patently false. You're making that up.

Certainly not - I studied his paper - obviously you didn't...
After you read his paper on the Twin Paradox, I'm willing to discuss it with
you.
Until then, good luck!

Harald

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...

No, not according to me, but only according to your misunderstanding of
what I said above judging by your inappropriate reply to it.

Excellent demos! Still looking for such on gravity.

"Harry" ëúá ...

"Jeff_Relf" wrote in message
...

Hi Perspicacious,

You imagined that one must know math to understand the Twins_Paradox.
I beg to differ, check out this mathless explanation:



http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...TwinParadox.sw
f

Then check out all the other .SWF files there... cool stuff maynard !

http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...SpecRel/Flash/


- An essential shortcoming: Although it first mentions the heart of the
paradox (bravo!), which is the problem to give a consistent alternative
description based the pov that Sue is stationary, next no solution to the
paradox is given; instead there is just a full illustration of the
solution
based on the (continuously inertial) frame of Lou. That only illustrates
that Einstein's calculation of 1905 (and which subsequently resulted in
the
paradox) is self consistent about what everyone observes *as based on
Lou's
pov*...
- Very nice one nevertheless :-)

Harald

The demo raises some questions. How does the narration calculate that Sue's
yearly flashes take up more space along her worldline? Or, why is Sue's
first flash not on the same horizontal line that intersects Lou's first
flash?


"Harry" ëúá ...

"Jeff_Relf" wrote in message
...

Hi Perspicacious,

You imagined that one must know math to understand the Twins_Paradox.
I beg to differ, check out this mathless explanation:



http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...TwinParadox.sw
f

Then check out all the other .SWF files there... cool stuff maynard !

http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...SpecRel/Flash/


- An essential shortcoming: Although it first mentions the heart of the
paradox (bravo!), which is the problem to give a consistent alternative
description based the pov that Sue is stationary, next no solution to the
paradox is given; instead there is just a full illustration of the
solution
based on the (continuously inertial) frame of Lou. That only illustrates
that Einstein's calculation of 1905 (and which subsequently resulted in
the
paradox) is self consistent about what everyone observes *as based on
Lou's
pov*...
- Very nice one nevertheless :-)

Harald