Proposal: Time paradox in Special Relativity Theory.

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Emil, Sep 29, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I want to show that there is time paradox in SRT.
    I challenge anyone who says that this paradox is a false paradox.

    I will present a concrete situation where is time paradox.
    Who responds to the challenge will need to show that there is no time paradox.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GASHOLE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    What are your premises? I am not challenging you, I am just curious.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,753
    For Pete's sakes, get on with it already! You've started two threads stating what you plan to do and have not yet presented your argument. So far, this does not bode well.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I wait for an opponent who "raises the glove".
    Are you the one who engages?
     
  8. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,753
    So you aren't going to produce your argument until someone accepts your challenge?
    Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to engage is such a pointless exercise. The only times I engage in such discussions is to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. Since this can be accomplished here by not responding, I choose the easier route. In fact, I suggest this course of (in)action to anyone else tempted to accept said challenge. One less pointless argument with a clueless Anti-relativity crank cluttering up the forum, the better.
     
  9. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    So you're just one of the "believers" who do not engage in any serious debate.
     
  10. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I would like to accept, but you haven't met the threshold of the "Formal Debates" forum.

    Are you proposing a one-one debates using standard rules? If so, you need to phrase your proposal more formally. Presumably you wish the topic for which you will take the affirmative side is "There is a real paradox in situation X when analyzed with the special theory of relativity" but you haven't defined the word "paradox" and you haven't said what X is. Thus there is no way to know if the question is a real and valid question or not. X could be "the neighbor's grass is always greener."

    By paradox do you mean mathematical contradiction or contradiction with Newtonian intuition?

    I would accept the debate if you specified standard rules and adopted the proposal in the form "X is a hypothetical, but physically realizable situation modeled by special relativity yet leads to a mathematical contradiction Y."

     
  11. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,753
    Is this an example of the type of "debating" style we can expect? An amateurish attempt at goading?
     
  12. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Janus58, what are you doing here? You just came to say:
    Is this trolling?
     
  13. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    From my point of view the definition of the word paradox is sufficient as defined in the dictionary.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/paradox

    You will need to show:
    If you disagree, please define it yourself.

    The case X I will present in the debate.
    If you have questions about the case, you will address the question(s) to which I will respond.
    From this moment I consider, from my point of view, the debate is closed.
    Follow your explanation why this paradox is not a real paradox.
    I will not comment on your explanation in the debate.
    Maybe I will comment in discussions.
    I will not delay more than 36 hours.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    So you guys are going to follow the scientific method and peer-review Einstein's work to discover a fatal flaw. You do understand what the phrase "peer-review" means, right? It means that you are Einstein's peers.

    So each of you has a PhD in physics?
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Then it is just a thread with two posts and no proper debate at all. Your proposal is unacceptable.

    1) First of all, questioning may result in admission that you have relied on some assumption which is not part of special relativity, thus rending your X paradoxical but due to no fault of special relativity. Thus it is fair to want to know what X is before I commit to invest time in this.
    2) Second, if you never respond after I take the time to understand your viewpoint and respond, how do I get confidence that you have understood my viewpoint? Unless you seek in the debate thread to respond to my argument our opinions haven't been symmetrically reviewed by each other.

    At this time, X is completely mysterious. It may involve special relativity or it may be off that intended topic. So while it is improper to discuss X in this thread prior to debate, defining X I think is essential if you want anyone to accept your challenge. And in every case of anti-relativity claims being made before, it will be essential for me to invest time explaining the math and/or logic of special relativity for a true meeting of the minds to occur.
     
  16. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    You do not have to strive that I understand, the audience needs to understand.
    If I do" some assumption which is not part of special relativity", then it will be easier to prove that I'm wrong, is not it?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,130
    Emil:

    As far as I can see, you have not suggested a topic for debate at this stage.

    Please post one, or I'll close this thread.
     
  18. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    rpenner,
    I forgot to mention.
    I never ever contested your math. I can say a priori that your math is correct.
     
  19. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    The case, in short, is this:
    (I can fill with data if required.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
    When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
    At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?[/QUOTE]
     
  20. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I answered and: "Your post will show when a moderator has approved it".
     
  21. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    I try to post the image link changed.

    The case, in short, is this:
    (I can fill with data if required.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
    When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
    At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?[/QUOTE]

    View attachment 5876
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,222
    There was discussion on this issue years ago here at sciforums... concerning the wheels of a train relative to platform.
    The end result If I recall is that "rotational vectors" are excluded from SRT....as in SRT only allows straight line vectors. To put the "twins paradox" in this scenario would be considered as non SRT if I am not mistaken.
    I am sure some erudite SRT'ist will entertain explaining this...
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Emil, I would not commit to a debate on any issue. I just don't have the desire for that kind of a time commitment. The following comment is as observer only.

    Is your intent that the debate is restricted to the conditions of SRT alone or will GR come into the debate?

    The reason I ask is that in the absence of gravitational fields, the circular paths involve not only speed or velocity, but a constant acceleration defined by the curved paths. While SRT can deal with acceleration, it is far more easily dealt with, from the context of GR and the equivalence principle.

    It still seems that your basic proposal requires more detail. It should include what underlying conditions and assumptions, are to be considered.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page