Room-temperature superconductivity?

[GIThruster]

Teemu, you didn't understand correctly.

The Twins Paradox is an exclusively Special Relativity issue.
If you don't have a deep and abiding understanding of SR, you don't understand the Paradox.

You can however, get a surface understanding if you spend 3 minutes grazing SR on Wiki.

[tomclarke]

This works only one way round. If I have what seems to me a very good argument that says Einstein + 1000s of physicists afterwards have all got it wrong, I can be pretty sure that I am making a mistake. But if i am pig-headed I may not admit it.

No offense Tom, but you've been arguing a host of issues that are off issue, like the acceleration/dilation/scaling issue.

When it comes down to real beans, acceleration and scaling is not an issue for the Twins Paradox. People like Sachs may think so, but truly, that's not right for the reasons I've copied here before and can copy again.

Almost ALL of the banter here these last 5 pages, is uninformed nonsense. Nothing new!!! Plenty of people have grasped at a seeming answer for the Twins Paradox, and none of them have had an historically and logically sufficient explanation.

It's TRUE, that the Twins Paradox has never been answered to the intellectual satisfaction of the masses of relativists. No different than Zeno's Paradox Against Motion amongst philosophers.

If people want to supply an historic answer to these difficulties, they need to understand in great detail ALL about the issue. Spend a few hundred or thousand hours to understand it and write a paper for peer review.

Johan doesn't understand the Twins Paradox issue past what any high school kid does. He just bloviates that he does.

So just saying, there's no reason to doubt the clocks' evidence. If Einstein weren't correct, none of our GPS stuff would work at all. Einstein was correct. Pretending he wasn't, is the stuff of delusional psychotics.

Johan, go sell shoes.

When you say I don't understand it - of course you may be right.

But I am not sure that you understand enough to know whether or not I understand it.

You see the issue about acceleration is not because acceleration (as in GR) does something different. That is outside SR. It is because the SR coordinate transformation becomes invalid when inertial frame is changed. In this situtaion you cannot use notions of simultaneity between the two frames to "tie" the two time coordinates together - because there is no frame-independent simultaneity across spacelike separations. Equally you can't use notions of spatial distance to tie things together frame-independent, because there is no frame-independent notion of distance.

Now, what I have just said does not require great insight to understand, is clearly true, and shows why Johan's argument is incorrect.

Whether there remain subtleties I have not plumbed I can't know. (There probably are). But I am pretty comfortable that because I have a precise mathematical decsription of what goes on in an SR (flat spacetime) universe, and I understand the maths, I can resolve any apparent paradox which has physical consequences.

You can always pose paradoxes with words when you are not tying the contradiction to physical measurement, of course...

Best wishes, Tom

PS - Zeno's paradox is a good example. It has a clear resolution in the maths that describes the continuum, and convergent series. That a sequence of increasing numbers can converge is a deep mathematical property which is counter-intuitive but provably correct for real numbers. And real numbers map well to space when considering Zeno's paradox (let's ignore quantum stuff here).

That is quite subtle maths. And you can be sure the philosophers who still debate Zeno either have never understood the axiomatic math (most likely) or have some dislike of math solutions to philosophical problems. But for a pragmatist like me, if it helps me to understand how the parados resolves, it's good enough.

You can sort of tell that I'm not a natural philosopher. and would not want to be one.

Philosophy is only relevant in areas where science has not got a good solution.

[tomclarke]

If I understood correctly, it's not that the acceleration would be causing some huge physical effects, but rather that when you apply mathematical tools that have limitations in a wrong way to situation were they are not supposed to be applied, the results can be total crap.

If you apply Pythagorean theorem to other than right triangle, the results will be more or less crap. So that the acceleration is not "the solution" but it explains why that kind of mathematical attempt to turn the twin paradox in a "real" paradox is wrong, kinda like pointing that the triangle is not a right triangle.

We are agreed on this. I think Paul is thinking that we suppose acceleration to make some crucial difference - he has his own ideas about that.

But it is just that SR => no acceleration. So the arguments you apply (like relating coordinate systems with LT) break down when an observer accelerates.

[Giorgio]

But Johan, you're presuming I'm a physicist and field theorist. I'm not. I'm a humble philosopher.

Still, I'm capable to say where you've gone wrong. If you want someone to tell you how to go right, find a physicist.

All I'm doing is reporting to you and those around, the status of physics to date.

I am sick and tired of philosophers pretending to teach engineers and scientist about their work.
If you feel that a philosophy degree has given you such a good insight about real science and real engineering, why don't you just take a REAL technical degree and discuss about our so called "errors" with a minimum of knowledge?
Too much easy to pretend to tell the others that they are wrong and refuse to show how, why and where they are wrong.

You know, there is a reason why are engineers and not philosophers the one who actually build stuff.

[Betruger]

Betruger, you're sounding like an idiot.

Stop pretending you, or anyone else, can do extremely advanced physics just because you can do algebra.

You sound like a peevish and petulant child.

Johan is proposing to CORRECT EINSTEIN. You want to stand together with the delusional and demented, and pretend you have a clue?

I want to pretend that GIThruster is capable of backing up his assertions.

I'm capable to say where you've gone wrong.

How it's someone else (me in this case) that's an idiotic peevish pretentious petulant child for pointing out that you shouldn't pretend what you can't back up.. Is not clear to me.

"Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat"

[johanfprins]

I would prefer it more if you would rather point out where I have made a mistake in my algebra and show me the advanced mathematics that I must use.

But Johan, you're presuming I'm a physicist and field theorist

I have never presumed this because it is obvioius that you know next to nothing about physics.

I'm a humble

A humble person is not as insulting as you have been on this thread.

philosopher.

You cannot be serious? A joker, yes!

Still, I'm capable to say where you've gone wrong.

You do not know physics but are of the opinion that you are capable of telling me where I have gone wrong!? You make it very difficult for me not to insult you: However, I will refrain since there are enough followers of this thread who have the intelligence to see for themselves what you really are.

All I'm doing is reporting to you and those around, the status of physics to date.

How can you do this if you yourself admit that you do not understand physics?

[johanfprins]

Don't say you're capable of it, do it. Where did he go wrong in the above math?

Answering that takes the conversation forward, continuing the purse swinging keeps it going in circles.

Thanks Betruger.

[johanfprins]

x(0)=v*t..........(1)


xp(0)=-v*tp......(2)

Where is the acceleration taken into account?

In the same manner as it was done for the flying clocks: By integrating over the whole path that the one clock takes relative to other clock and vice versa. Obviously, for a clock to move away and return, it will first have to accelerate then decelerate, then accelerate and then decelerate to come to a stop. From the viewpoint of the latter clock it is the first clock that accelerates away, then decelerate, then accelerates back and then decelerate to come to a stop. You might want to argue at this point that the accelerating clock will experience a force and threfore it is not a symmetric situation. But as Einstein pointed out, a body in free fall does not know whether it is accelerating or whether it is the other body that is accelerating. Exactly for this reason Einstein had an "Eureka" experience and concluded that free-falling reference frames are ALSO inertial reference frames. Thus, if Einstein is correct on this issue, and I believe that he is, the situation IS symmetric!

This means that v becomes a function of t in equation (1) and a function of tp in equation (2). Also note that both equations do NOT contain the Lorentz factor. Thus, they are in essence Newtonian. Since after the two integrations over the paths d[x(0)] and d[xp(0)] each integration gives the same integrated distance, namely ZERO, and since the speed v(t)=v(tp) at any instance, or else you will have that the one clock is further from the other clock than the other clock is from the first clock (an obvious absurdity), it demands that the time on the two clocks MUST be exactly the same when they come together again. QED.

There is no experimental proof that two clocks, accelerating relative to one another, keep different times. Therefore, I have proposed the experiment where one clock is accelerated to and fro within a long tunnel for many many cycles and then compared with a clock that was kept stationary within the tunnel. There are then no gravitational effects that have to be subtracted. If in this case the two clocks show different times, your arguments on this thread might hold merit. I, however, predict that there will be no difference. whatsoever.

[johanfprins]

Stop there!

The previous LT applies only when the frrames stay inertial.

See my last post above.

[johanfprins]

Stop there!

The previous LT applies only when the frrames stay inertial.

See my last post above.

[johanfprins]

Johan, I have shown you the mistake, above.

You have not. If it is a mistake then the same mistake was made when they integrated over the flight paths of the flying clocks.

[johanfprins]

This works only one way round. If I have what seems to me a very good argument that says Einstein + 1000s of physicists afterwards have all got it wrong, I can be pretty sure that I am making a mistake.

I admit that the probability is high that in such a case the person raising an argument might be wrong; but to reject his/her arguments on the basis of such a probabilty classifies you as a quack-physicist. Since the inception of the Royal Society of London (although this Society later consitently commited treason against this fundamental concept in physics) ALL physics might at any stage be proved to be wrong. Thus to reject the argument because it is "improbable" without objectively analysing it is nothing else but TREASON against all that physics is supposed to stand for.

But if i am pig-headed I may not admit it.

It can also be pigheaded to dogmatically refuse to even consider the possibility that Einstein could have made a mistake that have not been picked up for 100 years.

And I will still argue it, even if reasonable, wanting some resolution of the apparent inconsistency. I am sort of hoping this is Johan's position.

This is EXACTLY my position.

[johanfprins]

No offense Tom, but you've been arguing a host of issues that are off issue, like the acceleration/dilation/scaling issue.

When it comes down to real beans, acceleration and scaling is not an issue for the Twins Paradox. People like Sachs may think so, but truly, that's not right for the reasons I've copied here before and can copy again.

If you copy dogma which I have READ many times; and you are doing this without having the mental capacity to understand any of the physics you are copying, then you are just making noise like a dog barking up the wrong tree thinking that he knows that there is a cat in the tree: You are not contributing to any physics discussion. Please go and learn somewhere how to be REALLY humble. Believe me you have a lot to be humble about.

[johanfprins]

If I understood correctly, it's not that the acceleration would be causing some huge physical effects, but rather that when you apply mathematical tools that have limitations in a wrong way to situation were they are not supposed to be applied, the results can be total crap.

If you apply Pythagorean theorem to other than right triangle, the results will be more or less crap. So that the acceleration is not "the solution" but it explains why that kind of mathematical attempt to turn the twin paradox in a "real" paradox is wrong, kinda like pointing that the triangle is not a right triangle.

Do you REALLY think that you have made sense here??

[johanfprins]

The Twins Paradox is an exclusively Special Relativity issue.
If you don't have a deep and abiding understanding of SR, you don't understand the Paradox.

You just admitted above that you do not understand physics at all. So why do you then think that you can take part in this discussion?