Alternative Twins Paradox

And they have, Jack. Over and over again.
Is there anyone besides yourself who thinks you're right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, learnig. That thing you refused to do.

And yet every single person who has a qualification in physics thinks you're wrong. This would suggest it might be a problem with your understanding.

Like the posts of mine which you couldn't retort? You even quoted it : http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2513578&postcount=142
but didn't reply to anything I'd said, just made excuses. I've posted that more than once because you didn't respond the first time. All you ever do is mass quote and then ignore what you've quoted.

You keep claiming Rpenner and I haven't 'broken' your claims but we have. We time and again reply to your posts, point by point and have provided a great deal of maths, pictures and explanations. You do none of these things. I'm more than happy to go back through this thread and point out all the times you've simply ignored posts of ours where we retort your claims. Then there's all those times in this and other threads you claim we haven't responded, only to be linked to a response which you have already quoted but not retorted! You're capable of nothing but lies, all you do is go to another thread say "They haven't retorted me" and then you hope no one points out they have and that you've even quoted them retorting you!

Go on, respond to the post of mine you quote in the link I just provided. I claim you have never retorted it. If you claim otherwise provide a link to a post where you actually address the points I make in it. Unlike you I don't need to lie so when I say you haven't retorted them you haven't. Someone needs only to scroll up in this thread to see you claiming you've retorted me and when I say "Please provide a link" you avoid a direct answer and try to change the subject. Surely if you have the results you claim you'd be able to provide them? And back up your claim you could easily get published.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was thinking about this earlier (while insulating a loft...) and I've realised that part of Jack's issue is the common misunderstanding people have between coordinates and vectors. The notation is the same for both, so a point one unit up the z axis in 3 dimensional Euclidean space is (0,0,1) while a unit vector in the z axis direction is also written as (0,0,1). This is to simplify notation but you really shouldn't confuse the two.

Lorentz transformations don't actually act on coordinates. This is a point I went into when I went through the tangent bundle formulation which Jack didn't understand and didn't retort. The reason why we view them in terms of coordinates is that when you work out the paths the vectors define via the geodesic equation (which is trivial in SR as the space-time is flat) you can replace vector terms with coordinate terms but you must not forget you're only able to use coordinates because the space-time is flat and all inertial paths defined by vectors will be straight lines. Obviously in GR the paths are geodesics and are in general curved and hence why SR is only true point by point in GR.

Jack's whole "OMG they disagree on the location of the sphere centre" follows from the fact that there's different time-like vectors definable at the point of light emission (ie the light cone apex). Choosing a frame is equivalent to picking a time-like vector at that point which is parallel to the 'axis of the light cone', if you see what I mean. Each frame will see the light sphere expand about a point whose worldline is formed by the line projected out from the light-cone apex along a given vector. Choosing that vector and choosing a frame are equivalent to one another. Never-the-less the frames all agree on the light cone surface, ie causality.

Jack doesn't like the fact different frames see the same light-cone. He think's in a Euclidean manner and if you boost an objects path surely you should alter the behaviour of light? Nope, that's why SR isn't Newtonian. And despite me pointing it out many times he's failed to acknowledge that its an experimental fact that the motion of light is independent of the motion of its inertial emitter. The motion of the emitter is basically picking a vector defined at the point of emission and thus SR requires the light cone to be independent of the vector and only dependent on the location else it would contradict experiment. Jack is arguing that nature itself is inconsistent and wrong.

Of course it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he did claim that explictly. He believes he knows better than all physicists, mathematicians and biologists in the last 100~400 years (depending on subject) so going one step further and demanding reality bends to his will isn't out of character. He certainly seems to believe if he repeats a lie long enough it'll become truth.

I suggested Jack read 2 short chapters in a book by Geroch called 'Mathematical Physics'. To prove I'm not just throwing out citations in the hopes of getting people to think I've read them when I haven't I'm willing to scan in the 4 or 5 relevant pages and then discuss them with Jack or anyone else. Guest recommended the book to me so I'm sure we can rope him in too if he's about. Jack says he knows all about vector spaces and bundles etc so he's got nothing to fear if he's not a lying hack.

 

No, this is not the case.

Good words, but posts this that you say.

 

I retorted to everything that was on task.

You are usually off task.

Yes, you posted some stuff on LT.

What your failed to do is undestand the recursive algorithm used that forced logical decidability against reciprocol time dilation.

You forgot this part and called LT absolute truth against logical decidability.

Obviously, you are wrong.

 

No, this is a perverted analysis. Time dilation simply means the two clocks are not involved in light events. In particular, the two light emission points are not involved in light events and further, this case satisfies Einstein's logic since each are moving vt relative to one another so that time dilation applies.

As you can see, I got around all the rules with this one.

I was specific with this.

When the clock at the light emission point of the stationary frame reads r/c, then light is a distance r in all directions from the light emission point in the frame.

No, this is not a sufficient condition of a proof.

Do not forget, I had to use another component of SR, the light sphere.

We have already calculated LT.

x' = ( rγ - rγ/c) γ


Now, when the clock at O elapses rγ/c, the clock at O' elapses r/c by time dilation.


But, since the clock at O' elapsed r/c, then light must be r in all directions from O' by the logic of the light sphere.

Hence, light is r from O' and at the same time light is x' = ( rγ - rγ/c) γ from O'.

 

Jack, this might be the single most ignorant thing you've said so far. Where did you get that idea from?

Time dilation simply means that moving clocks run slowly.

 

So, will you apply time dilation to a non-emission point light events?

You will find, light events in the moving frame in front of the light emission point have clocks that run slowly.

Once the clocks are less than x = vγt/(1+γ), given r in the moving frame, they run quicker from the view of the stationary frame.

You should have a firm grasp of these matters to discuss this with me.

 

Because, when you place a clock at the light receiver in the stationary frame, upi meaure the light path from the emission point in the frame to the receiver.

Now, since the measurement is taken only after light strikes the receiver, the light emission points in the frames diverge by vt after any time t.

The rules most follow is to onlu apply SR. I did a combo with the rules of SR to break LT. SR folks do not do these things.

Because, LT does not describe all of LT. I hope you realize, in the moving frame, light proceeds spherically from the light emission point.

LT cannot answer when in the time coords of the stationary frame, light is some distance r from the light emission point.

Whence, LT is incomplete.

No, An I am sure can bring you up to speed on this.

But, I will let Einstein explain it to you.

The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical wave with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system. This shows that our two fundamental principles are compatible.5
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If there is no light sphere in the moving frame, then the two postulates of SR are incompatible.

Yes, see above on the light sphere.

Fine.

What you are leaving off is that what is simultaneous in O is not in O'.

Also,

What you are leaving off is that what is simultaneous in O' is not in O.

O' has a light sphere also.

Simply set t'=r/c and you can see how the points translate back to the O frame.

Both frames have a light sphere.

Here is some further reading.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html

I did not look them over because it is off task.

What is not being done by either of you is to apply to apply time dialtion and the logic of the light sphere to the problem.

I assume he calculated correctly, but it would not matter if he did not. LT is LT anyway.

 

Perhaps if you bothered to "do the maths", Jack, you'd have a clue.
There was no mistake in James's post.
Your misunderstanding, and James's attempt to figure out what exactly you were asking, does not amount to a correction.

 

I see.

You explain the c³ term in his equations.

Since he change it, I assume you know why.

Once he did, they matched my results that I have posted over and over for the LT calculation of the problem I proposed.

So, you wil ned to explain his c³ term since you say the equations were correct.

 

He changed it to answer a different question, because your question as posed was barely coherent.
The questions James answered are clearly spelled out in his posts. Read them. Learn something. Cease your self delusion.

 

Been done.
Wilful ignorance is a sin, Jacko.

 

You retorted nothing. You even directly contradicted yourself by saying "I'm okay with this" and then saying the opposite.

The fact something goes over your head doesn't mean its 'off task'. I know you have a very 'you-centric' view of existence but you really should try to realise there are some things you don't understand.

Ah, you're stuck for an argument so you're using buzzwords you don't understand again. Or even spell.

And you don't even know how to use the buzzwords properly in a sentence. You know by now that no one thinks for a second you grasp any of logic or decidability. You can't even use the word 'proof' correctly.

Then retort my posts. Or put your money where your mouth is. I keep offering to bet £1000 and help you submit your work to a journal and all you ever do is avoid replying. Can't you back up your claims? Can't you show you're more than just talk?

Obviously not. It must be quite depressing for you to have built up your claims so much and then so easily been demonstrated to be ignorant and a liar by so many different people. And you're not mature enough to just say "I was wrong".

 

I see and read your post before.

That is exactly SR, very good.

Now, we are exploring when in the time coords of the stationary frame that O believes light is a distance r from O'.

That is our taks.

Your equations do not solve this problem.

If your answer are correct, you have claimed it is an absolute fact that I' does see light a distance r in all directions.

I assume that does not happen on some continuous range of times. I assume there is one time in the stationary frame.

It would be quite comical if SR concludes light is a distance r in all directions for some time range [t1,t2].

That would imply the same event of light being a distance r in all directions from O' is "frozen" in some time interval.

Anyway, once you realize you cannot use LT to answer this questions alone, then you will understand what I am doing.