The pub owner told me I should talk to this guy, because of his
intelligence, and his knowledge of science.

So I finally meet him, he is a civil engineer, working for the
government. His passion is Mathematics, I tell him mine is Physics.
He wanted to study Math, I wanted to study Physics, it turns out we were
both forced by our fathers to take up Civil Engineering courses.

I tell him that I have this wonderfull idea that explains GR,
uncertainty and QM phenomenon by the use of inertia.

So one day, I start to explain to him, but he soes not understand a
thing of what I am saying. I manage to explain him the mass distrubution
of the universe, fairly mathematical, such a mass distribution.

Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

I am baffled.

Anyway, I go on and try to explain a clock running slow at the center of
te Earth, under zero gravity conditions.

He rejects that : there is gravity at the center of the Earth, he says,
it just reverses direction at the center of attraction.

Who said Mathematics makes you understand physics ?

Needless to say, we now only talk about the weather.


Uwe Hayek.

--
Such an assertion can only have be provided by individuals whose inborn
ability to think has been severely repressed by excessive education.
This repression of intelligent thought is characteristic of the process
by which PhD candidates acquire their degrees. They are well taught the
accepted truth at the expense of their ability to question that truth.
They become, in other words, priests of a religion rather than true
scientists.
-- H.E.Retic on the web

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
(usenet/news) groups.

"Hayek" wrote in message ...

The pub owner told me I should talk to this guy, because of his
intelligence, and his knowledge of science.

So I finally meet him, he is a civil engineer, working for the
government. His passion is Mathematics, I tell him mine is Physics.
He wanted to study Math, I wanted to study Physics, it turns out we were
both forced by our fathers to take up Civil Engineering courses.

I tell him that I have this wonderfull idea that explains GR,
uncertainty and QM phenomenon by the use of inertia.

So one day, I start to explain to him, but he soes not understand a
thing of what I am saying. I manage to explain him the mass distrubution
of the universe, fairly mathematical, such a mass distribution.

Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

I am baffled.

Anyway, I go on and try to explain a clock running slow at the center of
te Earth, under zero gravity conditions.

He rejects that : there is gravity at the center of the Earth, he says,
it just reverses direction at the center of attraction.

Who said Mathematics makes you understand physics ?

Needless to say, we now only talk about the weather.

Yes, that's exactly what engineers should do.
Don't let them talk about physics or mathematics.
They are not trained for that.

Dirk Vdm

On Jun 15, 3:55 am, Hayek wrote:
Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

"It has to be symmetric... so there cannot be a time dilation."

There are ample resources available on the web and in bookstores
to get you out of this first-semester sticking point. It's
a "paradox" only in the sense of being a sort of learning
exercise, to get you to think clearly about reference frames
and time dilation.


I am baffled.

You shouldn't be. The resolution is elementary.

Either: the situation is asymmetric because of acceleration
of one twin and not the other, or the twins are indeed the
same age when they reunite.

Anyway, I go on and try to explain a clock running slow at the center of
te Earth, under zero gravity conditions.

He rejects that : there is gravity at the center of the Earth, he says,
it just reverses direction at the center of attraction.

Another elementary explanation. If you are pulled equally
in all directions, what is the resultant force?

- Randy

Dear Hayek:

On Jun 15, 12:55 am, Hayek wrote:
....
His passion is Mathematics, I tell him mine is
Physics.
....
Who said Mathematics makes you understand physics ?

Who said self-claims of "passion" correlate to either competency,
talent, or understanding?

David A. Smith

On Jun 15, 9:55 am, Hayek wrote:
The pub owner told me I should talk to this guy, because of his
intelligence, and his knowledge of science.

So I finally meet him, he is a civil engineer, working for the
government. His passion is Mathematics, I tell him mine is Physics.
He wanted to study Math, I wanted to study Physics, it turns out we were
both forced by our fathers to take up Civil Engineering courses.

I tell him that I have this wonderfull idea that explains GR,
uncertainty and QM phenomenon by the use of inertia.

So one day, I start to explain to him, but he soes not understand a
thing of what I am saying. I manage to explain him the mass distrubution
of the universe, fairly mathematical, such a mass distribution.

Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

I am baffled.

Nothing new: try "Dingle" :-)

Anyway, I go on and try to explain a clock running slow at the center of
te Earth, under zero gravity conditions.

Good example!

He rejects that : there is gravity at the center of the Earth, he says,
it just reverses direction at the center of attraction.

Who said Mathematics makes you understand physics ?

It can surely help a lot - but it can't turn a mathematician into a
physicist.

Needless to say, we now only talk about the weather.

Uwe Hayek.

--
Such an assertion can only have be provided by individuals whose inborn
ability to think has been severely repressed by excessive education.
This repression of intelligent thought is characteristic of the process
by which PhD candidates acquire their degrees. They are well taught the
accepted truth at the expense of their ability to question that truth.
They become, in other words, priests of a religion rather than true
scientists.
-- H.E.Retic on the web

Where is that supposed to happen? In the USA?

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

Nice

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

Sad but true

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
(usenet/news) groups.

Do you think that it can infect others?

Harald

Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:55 am, Hayek wrote:
Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

"It has to be symmetric... so there cannot be a time dilation."

There are ample resources available on the web and in bookstores
to get you out of this first-semester sticking point. It's
a "paradox" only in the sense of being a sort of learning
exercise, to get you to think clearly about reference frames
and time dilation.

Are you able to understand the basics settings of a story ?


I am baffled.

You shouldn't be. The resolution is elementary.

I was baffled about his ignorance.
You are not able to understand basic English, and your insight in
physics is even worse.

Either: the situation is asymmetric because of acceleration
of one twin and not the other, or the twins are indeed the
same age when they reunite.

Anyway, I go on and try to explain a clock running slow at the center of
te Earth, under zero gravity conditions.

He rejects that : there is gravity at the center of the Earth, he says,
it just reverses direction at the center of attraction.

Another elementary explanation. If you are pulled equally
in all directions, what is the resultant force?

You get pulled apart ?
Or is that my wishful thinking ?

Uwe Hayek.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what engineers should do.
Don't let them talk about physics or mathematics.
They are not trained for that.

And now you can use the rest of your life to try to understand the
difference between a technician and a civil engineer.

Uwe Hayek.


Dirk Vdm

On Jun 15, 4:07 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jun 15, 3:55 am, Hayek wrote:

Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

"It has to be symmetric... so there cannot be a time dilation."

There are ample resources available on the web and in bookstores
to get you out of this first-semester sticking point.

They are all trash; they are all wrong. shrug

It's
a "paradox" only in the sense of being a sort of learning
exercise, to get you to think clearly about reference frames
and time dilation.

The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

I am baffled.

You shouldn't be. The resolution is elementary.

The resolution is elementary only to the religious ones married to a
faith. shrug

Either: the situation is asymmetric because of acceleration
of one twin and not the other, or the twins are indeed the
same age when they reunite.

Acceleration cannot be a resolution to the twin's paradox as proposed
by Einstein. Why? You can always design a scenario where both twins
undergo the same amount of acceleration for the same amount of time.
Or very simply just show me the math for each twin's point of view.
On top of that, gravitational time dilation occurs not because of
acceleration since experiments on centrifuge do not exhibit any time
dilation due to acceleration.

On Jun 15, 3:02 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jun 15, 4:07 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jun 15, 3:55 am, Hayek wrote:
Soon, we are at the twin paradox. His solution is simple : it has to be
symmetric, motion is relative, so there cannot be a time dilation. The
twins remain at the same age.

"It has to be symmetric... so there cannot be a time dilation."

There are ample resources available on the web and in bookstores
to get you out of this first-semester sticking point.

They are all trash; they are all wrong. shrug

It's
a "paradox" only in the sense of being a sort of learning
exercise, to get you to think clearly about reference frames
and time dilation.

The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

d) None of the above.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c?dmode=source


Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

The Lorentz transform IS special relativity, you ignoramus.


I am baffled.

You shouldn't be. The resolution is elementary.

The resolution is elementary only to the religious ones married to a
faith. shrug

Either: the situation is asymmetric because of acceleration
of one twin and not the other, or the twins are indeed the
same age when they reunite.

Acceleration cannot be a resolution to the twin's paradox as proposed
by Einstein. Why? You can always design a scenario where both twins
undergo the same amount of acceleration for the same amount of time.
Or very simply just show me the math for each twin's point of view.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c?dmode=source

On top of that, gravitational time dilation occurs not because of
acceleration since experiments on centrifuge do not exhibit any time
dilation due to acceleration.

Koobee Wublee wrote:


The twin's paradox is the manifestation of the combination of time
dilation and the principle of Relativity (or the symmetry as
identified by Mr. Hayek). To resolve this paradox any one of the
following must occur.

** Proving time dilation invalid
** Proving the principle of Relativity wrong
** Proving both wrong

Unfortunately doing so by accepting one of the above resolutions, the
Lornetz transformation must be abandoned. Since SR is merely an
interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, SR must
also be rejected. shrug

Let us start with the Michelson and Morley experiment.

It does tell us that inertial motion cannot be locally detected by this
kind of experiment.

To explain this fact LT are sufficient, but then we need to find an
absolute background. SR goes further and removes the need for an
absolute background, but gives rise to the twin paradox.

IMNSHO, SR is a step too far, the absolute background is the inertial
field created by the surrounding masses being the masses of the
universe. The twin paradox instantly disappears, and SR stays even valid
for round trip experiments.

Uwe Hayek.