Twin paradox "resolution" article

makis,

What would not this make LR a preferred view and view the paradox in SR as evidence of its questionable validity?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

What would not this make LR a preferred view and view the paradox in SR as evidence of its questionable validity?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Dear Mac,

A couple problems with that:

1. It's like trying to solve a problem in Euclidean geometry using Lobachevskian principles and then declaring one or the other invalid.

2. There is no proof yet for the LR or the SR hypothesis, only experiments from which no inductions can be made so that the hypothesis is rendered a general physical law (see Galileo and Newton principles of experimental philosophy)

However, your suggestion is one way to go about invalidating SR but it takes more than naive interpretations and the problems are more profound than appear to the naked eye of the layman. So profound that many prefer to stay away from a resolution of the paradox because it may cause severe problem in science, and elsewhere.

I'm sure you, in particular, understand what I'm getting into but that's not a place for discussing these issues for now.

Forget the twin's paradox...The question for me is:Why age anyway?Whether on Earth or elsewhere?


Just because everybody seems to be doing so, it doesn't mean it has to be that way

And just because our 'physical laws' state so, it doesn't mean that there are no 'other' laws out there refuting the ones we have established here so far and that we keep 'proving' with such consistency...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

And just because our 'physical laws' state so, it doesn't mean that there are no 'other' laws out there refuting the ones we have established here so far and that we keep 'proving' with such consistency...

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Your question have merit withing the subject of Metaphysics, which examines what "things" are out there, why or why so. But in Physics, laws are validated by experimentation and subsequently rendered general by the rules of induction. SR is not stating any Physical laws aa some inerpret wrongly, but just a models or hypothesis. In that context, the model is consistent as is also LR or the Meta Model. When a physical observation is made that contradicts the model in such a way as to be general then the model is abandoned. Although, several experiments have been made that show contradictions of SR with observations, others has shown improved understanding of our world using that theory or model. Therefore, the jury is still out.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Your question have merit withing the subject of Metaphysics, which examines what "things" are out there, why or why so. But in Physics, laws are validated by experimentation and subsequently rendered general by the rules of induction. SR is not stating any Physical laws aa some inerpret wrongly, but just a models or hypothesis. In that context, the model is consistent as is also LR or the Meta Model. When a physical observation is made that contradicts the model in such a way as to be general then the model is abandoned. Although, several experiments have been made that show contradictions of SR with observations, others has shown improved understanding of our world using that theory or model. Therefore, the jury is still out.




<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Yes, I hear you , Makis.But what is Metaphysics, if not what comes AFTER physics(...as we know it?)?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: the paradox is all about why this is happening in SR and not about how it is happenning<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Anyone can set up a straw man by making a false claim such as this one, then arguing endlessly about the consequences of the false statement. You and I have had this trouble before. If you have genuine questions, ask them. If you want to learn, then confine your remarks to understanding the science without taking jabs at people or groups. Nix the flame bait.

The Twins Paradox is not about whether or not asymmetric aging occurs. That was proved to happen long ago in muon experiments. True, it has not been proved to apply also to biological systems. But it would be weird if all of a person's atoms slowed down their motions, yet the person continued to age at a normal rate.

The Twins Paradox is about the reciprocity dilemma. If one twin ages less than another, why isn't the younger twin entitled to think that the other twin did the traveling and should therefore be the younger? The article addressed and solved THAT paradox.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>the paradox was not resolved but simply proved that it is a true paradox of SR.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The word "paradox" in physics means an apparent contradiction with a resolution. All paradoxes in physics have resolutions. If they did not, they would be contradictions, not paradoxes. The expression "Twins Paradox" uses "paradox" in that sense. -|Tom|-