The Twin (Earth) Paradox

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by conscienta, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Perhaps you should just save your off-topic, personal, and humorous free associations then. I seem to remember you complaining about:

    "What has the above comment have to do with science, or the discussion?"

    Don't blame me for expecting what you've indicated you desire. The hypocrisy is what is "rediculaus"(sic).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Syne, I could be mistaken but I don't believe I have ever complained about any attempted humor, even off topic comments that were not personal or derogatory comments about other members.

    I have used the report button once, for a thread I though might be better in a different folder. It was not moved so apparently the mods did not concur. So I have never made a formal complaint about any post or anyone, that I can remember anyway.

    I am sorry if you felt injured in some way, as I have mentioned several times now, in different words, that was not my intention.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    What does any of this have to do with the report button?! That's one hell of a non sequitur.

    I haven't "felt injured" in the least, but I expect the intellectual honesty to refrain from justifying things after the fact as humorous. You did try to refute what I said about the atom, and when I called you on that, you accused me of semantics and tries to play it off as humorous.

    If you're sensitive about what comments are on-topic or not, you should be extra careful yourself, so as to avoid any impression of a double-standard.



    P.S. Or better yet, why not just refrain from interjecting off-topic discussion in replies meant for others.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    OK I see the point you are now making. I really did not read your earlier posts from that perspective. As to the atom... I only was providing a clarification of when the atom became a generally accepted scientific reality. I provided a link, to a paper the outlined that position. Prior to Einstein's 1905 paper there was no consensus, I was a topic of debate. Even Mach refuted the existence and Einstein was greatly influenced by Mach's ideas.

    There was no intent as far as I can see, re-reading the post, that I was in any way refuting of what you were saying, other than a reference as to when the existence of atoms became a matter of scientific consensus.

    As far as I was concerned that was a minor issue of timeline..., and I did offer a link to a reference that supported what I had posted.
     
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800


    Good morning, Syne, everyone!

    Mate, at this rate you'll next be bringing into evidence all the observed UFO 'effects' and 'sightings' and 'witness' testimonies from anyone and everyone on earth having a 'theory' about how to 'see' and 'interpret' all those 'effects' and 'sightings' presented as 'evidence' based on one theory or another depending on the 'observer' and the 'interpretations' affecting those 'observers' and those 'observations'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To forestall such an eventuality, let's cut to the chase, mate. In science there is no way any 'indirect evidence' (as you call it) is anything but an 'indication' of something requiring further empirical study to arrive at a consistent 'theory' about it.

    And you seem to have it back-to-front about 'corroborating evidence' etc. Whereas the corroborating evidence is brought in after the fact to shed the light of 'probability' on something 'observed initially', in this instance 'distance contraction' was NOT 'observed initially' but MANUFACTURED after the actual evidence already established (ie, time dilation and doppler effects) which could be called 'corroborating' ONLY IF there WAS an OTHER EARLIER 'observation' which needed corroboration. BUT THERE IS NO OTHER INITIAL 'distance contraction' observation TO 'corroborate by reference to known time dilation and doppler effects, because the 'observation' of 'distance contraction is an AFTER THE FACT CONCOCTION BASED ON LATER THEORETICAL OVERLAY on the known facts of timd dilation and doppler effects which are THE ONLY ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS NOT CONCOCTED IN THEORY but actually theory-independently observed (unlike for distance contraction which is an after-the fact 'interpretive effect' not 'initially observed ex-theory as the other two effects are).

    The operative word is 'theory'. So far, time dialtion and doppler effects have been evinced even BEFORE any 'theory' was overlayed to make consistent interpretations based on that theory after the fact of time dilation and doppler effects being directly evinced on their own terms without requiring 'theory' in the first place for them to occur and be directly observed to occur. Period.

    So here we all are still waiting (unlike for time dilation and doppler effects) for 'distance contraction' to be EQUALLY PRE-THEORY evinced on its own terms. Period.

    See? The THEORETICALLY DEPENDENT 'distance contraction' is a THEORY-ARTIFACT 'interpretation' based on the directly evinced time dilation and doppler effects which are NOT THEORY DEPENDENT in order to BE observed on their own terms.

    That is the crucial difference. In science, any theoretically dependent INTERPRETATIONAL OVERLAY over other directly observed THEORY-INDEPENDENT EFFECTS are based on HYPOTHETICAL EXTRAPOLATIONS and based on THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS and such theoretical hypotheses and assumptions DO NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE ANY KIND OF 'evidence' (direct or indirect or otherwise) because they remain a theoretical interpretation and not a theory-independent observable as for time dilation and doppler effects.

    You are perfectly welcome to argue with yourself all the semantics and evidentiary rules you like, and accept such a theory-dependent assumption/hypothetical as distance contraction as some equally theory-independent observable 'fact', but some are not so easy-going as to want to accept IN THIS CASE/CONTEXT the purely theoretical interpretation as 'evincing' of anything but a certain theory interpretation pure and simple.

    We wait for theory-independent observation as confirmation for the so far only theory-dependent assumptions/hypotheticals and interpretations for 'distance contraction' which have been cavalierly put forward as, and unjustifiably treated as, 'evinced facts' instead of purely theoretical overlay on other known facts data evinced independent of theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If you still want to argue the semantics (yes, I said it) case instead of the theory-independent evidence case for or against distance contraction as an 'observable' rather than an 'interpretation, then I beg to be allowed to respectfully decline being part of such a semantic war in lieu of sticking to the science itself. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers!

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    OnlyMe, water under the bridge.
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Your request for clarification is trolling. This subject matter is 'foreign to you' as evidenced by your complete lack of knowledge of the physics. You're so far behind the discussion you should get your clarification from a text on SR. The dimension for length and distance is L. The same thing. You learn that stuff in high school. Dimensional analysis 2nd chapter high school physics.
     
  11. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Please keep out brucep, you are trolling opinion based on 'baggage' rather than contextual reading of the relevant exchange here. The posters can present their own replies based on the points presented in context. Syne et al claimed and based 'explanations' on things which motivated a genuine request for clarification of what THEY posted, and the request was to prevent cross-purpose interpretation/communication and to further highlight the essential points. The outcome of the ensuing exchange will determine who knows what. Your making remarks from your own opinion base is neither here nor there and only clutters up the thread and delays proper discussion to objective conclusions. We have already seen where ego and trollish disregard for the actual facts of the matter led to ridiculous and absurd faux pas on the part of self-professed 'experts' who nevertheless do not have a totally consistent understanding of the 'references' and 'facts' they pretend to be 'expert' in. Read all about it for yourself in this thread. See how arrogant dismissal of others without first having all the contextual points properly addressed will lead to some quite funny 'illogic' episodes of 'expert opinion' based on arrogant misunderstanding of the facts presented and their own 'understanding', followed immediately thereafter by refusal to admit error and try to save face by spoiling the thread with a snow-flurry of empty/trolling posts and accusations insults etc in the hopes of distracting from their own mistakes. Truly tragic whenever that happens (all too frequently) to 'experts'. Take care, mate! Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're the obfuscation troll RC. You need to learn some physics. Pretending to know something and posting nonsense in a science forum is trolling. The posters who have provided you with explanation have been real easy to understand so if you still can't understand then you should move on to text.
     
  13. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    You don't know what you are talking about, mate. Read the thread and see for yourself the presented points not addressed but merely 'stock explained' away without due reference to the context, and so inevitably requiring clarification IN CONTEXT PRESENTED not in 'stock' explanation irrespective of context.

    And see for yourself the 'expert' meltdown and the ensuing snowstorm of trolling/insulting etc posts from that 'expert' aimed at distracting from his ridiculous faux pas and thereby succeeding in having that other thread/discussion closed down prematurely before objective conclusions could be reached.

    That 'expert' snowstorm of empty avoidance posts distracting from his errors succeeded in getting the other thread/discussion closed. Is that the first recourse of 'experts' who make mistakes and will not face them squarely? Is that the 'expert scientist' way? Sad if so.

    Will you please just keep your opinions out and stop cluttering up the discussion with 'cheerleading' and 'opinion' based on 'baggage'? See what happend to the 'expert' and then think again before 'cheerleading' and 'prejudging' mindlessly.

    Are you here with your opinions and empty posts in order to help certain 'experts' get THIS thread/discussion closed down too, just because certain 'experts' cannot face their mistakes?

    Take care!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Really? So after complaining so much about "personal disparagements", you have no problem demonstrating a hypocritical double-standard? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Hell, you could at least keep from making up wholly fictitious and ad hominem nonsense.

    You have no idea how science works, and don't even seem to have read any of the references I provided you. If we only relied on direct evidence, when corroboration of enough indirect evidence suffices, we would not have made anywhere near the scientific progress we have. We wouldn't even have a working atomic theory.

    Wrong again.

    SR was proposed in 1905, and time dilation itself a bit earlier than that. Guess what? It wasn't experimentally verified until 1938.


    Do you ever get tired of being so blunderingly wrong?

    Length contraction is evidenced as the atom is. Enough said. To refute that, you have to admit equal doubt of the atom. No amount of doublespeak can avoid that. But certainly you won't break your streak of "making no claim", so it's a given that you must accept the evidence for length contraction. At least if you are at all reasonable or logical, which is so far in serious doubt.

    You clearly don't know how science actually works. We do not abandon working science just because of our incredulity, which is exactly what you propose. Until you offer a credible alternative, all this talk is completely and scientifically useless. Ignoring science we personally dislike is no way to make progress, as science is very often counter-intuitive.

    You're just here campaigning for the end of science.

    There's nothing to argue, as you haven't offered ANY competing theory at all. You're just arguing for us to abandon a work theory with absolutely no replacement in sight.

    No wonder you never learn in physics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, when asked to demonstrate your knowledge of standard SR, you straight out refused to do so.

    There's no "DIRECT EVIDENCE" that you've done any such reading. According to your special brand of reasoning, that is more than sufficient reason to doubt you know anything about SR.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Please can you give mathematics required for SR?
    Without any comment, starting from the postulates and
    using the mathematical apparatus, to derive the formula for time dilation and length contraction?
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Mate, it was a humorous illustration of where semantics arguments like yours could lead. That's all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And just because the theory predicts and explains somethings (time dilation and doppler) which can be observed to ACTUALLY HAPPEN because we observe the REAL already evinced EFFECTS of time dilation and doppler effects in/between clocks etc, it does not make another something (distance contraction) just as 'evinced' or 'actual', simply because, as has been observed more than once already, distance contraction has NOT YET been equally already 'actually' evinced because it STILL remains DEPENDENT on the theory whereas the other two can be observed directly THEN AND NOW (however it is explained consistently by the theory...these other things are NOW theory-independent observables.......distance contraction is not equally so).

    See? The time dilation and doppler effects actually occurred and puzzled us and someone explained them and demonstrated them experimentally.

    No such 'actually occured' status can be yet given to 'distance contraction' nor do we actually demonstrated same experimentally. WE ONLY STILL demonstrated the already occurring/explained time dilation and doppler effects and THEN ONLY IN THEORY STILL have interpreted/assumed/hypothesied that 'distance contraction' is as 'actual' as the other two effects which are still theory-independent irrespective of when that theory arose.

    That's all, mate. We wait for equal status theory-basd-interpretation-independent evidence as we can get for the other two at any time irrespective of theory-interpretation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    NO sweat off my nose mate. Your opinion is neither here nor there. I just observed as others have done the status attached to distance contraction is no way definitive in actuality since (unlike for time dilation and doppler effects) there is only STILL theory-dependent interpretation and not equally theory-independent observation of it like for the other two actual effects which can NOW be 'evinced' directly and independently of any theory.


    Well, it seems to have reached a point of agree-to-disagree. So no more going over the same ground will change that unless you have already seen the point of the observations being made about distance contraction not yet 'actually' independently evinced as have been the other two effects actually. Otherwise......

    Cheers, and thanks for your discourse so far with me (and others) on this particular matter; much appreciated!

    See ya round, Syne!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, in some ways that is a tall order, the best source of what you ask for is, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, Einstein's original paper. I know you work with translators, if this document is a problem you should be able to search on the name and find an already translated copy. I don't remember what language, or since you are not American, what languages you prefer. (the American comment is from an old joke)
     
  19. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    OnlyMe, I asked only mathematics and I have my motives for that.
     
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    What purpose would that serve? I'm currently interested in whether or not RealityCheck has even a simple conceptual understanding of SR.

    The semantic argument is yours, as science doesn't make such a distinction between the empirical nature of direct and indirect evidence.

    I've already corrected you on this once. No one had observed time dilation prior it being proposed in SR. Do you even read my posts at all, much less the references I provide? Is this just willful ignorance?

    We observe consequences of length contraction to ACTUALLY HAPPEN, just as we observe the consequences of atoms. Do you equally doubt the existence of the atom? Those consequences are real and empirical evidence. And all I'm hearing from you as far as ANY other explanation is noisy crickets (your silence is conspicuously deafening). Or perhaps attentional bias is keeping you from seeing all the times I've asked for ANY alternative now. Either way, your reasoning is impaired. You cannot logically deny THE ONLY AVAILABLE EXPLANATION.

    Well...I'm sure you can manage to, but you don't seem to be very interested in actual physics.

    The empirical consequences of length contraction do not rely for their existence upon any theory. These MUST be explained otherwise if you wish to deny SR.

    No, you simply deny the majority of physics. The atom, SR, GR, QM, etc.



    And all those others you so associate yourself with share your lack of understanding of SR. It just a matter of the mutual reinforcement of ignorance, a communal reinforcement. Once again, your silence on your proficiency in SR speaks volumes.

    Yep, willful ignorance it is. If I don't agree with you then there's nothing for it, huh? When is the last time you actually tried to learn something, despite all of your claims that that is all you've been doing here?

    If you aren't making any assertions AND haven't learned anything at all, then you have demonstrably made useless posts throughout the entirety of this thread, and proven yourself a troll.
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, if all you need is the math, it is all in that document and the math is the math, no translator required. At best once you have gone over that you might ask additional questions.

    Asking anyone to just reproduce what is easily available, without more specifics sounds leading and probably a debate without merit.
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Agreed.
     
  23. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I do not understand your recommendation to read different books, when all you need is a page of math at high school level.
    The rest is an essay.
     

Share This Page