Twin paradox "resolution" article

makis
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 5 months ago #5962 by makis

Replied by makis on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade 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.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I wonder how can anyone see anything non genuine in my statement. It troubles me that you begin your argument with an ad hominen attack. I do not expect this behavior from science people of your caliber.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

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.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Why is it so hard for a person that has a Ph.D in orbital mechanics to understand that what was done in the article was simply proving the paradox rather than resolving it. You just prove what you state above and that is simply the paradox. In essence, your reaffirm the paradox. There was no resolution, even a undergrad in physics can understand that. Why can't you?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade 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.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is exactly where your error is and you should try to reflect back and see what is wrong with your thinking, while refraining from attributing intentions to people they do not have. In short, the resolution of the paradox must take place within the framework of SR. But in that framework or model, reciprocity comes from an axiom and therefore, no resolution of the paradox can be. It is that simple. Try to digest it. Your alleged resolution is an eclectic mixture of your SR and LR interpretations, which are wrong in some counts but in others show an advanced understanding.

This was not an intent to undermine your work which has been tremendous and your accomplishements are recognized. This was a criticism about a specific point where you are simply wrong. While I learn from you, conceding to your own errors may help you to advance your current state of your understanding our the world and resolve some of the contradictions present in your models.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5964 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: I wonder how can anyone see anything non genuine in my statement.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Making false, provocative statements on the internet is called "flame bait". No one appreciates it unless they are seeking entertainment instead of knowledge. Genuine inquires are normally framed as a question, even when the asker is already certain of the answer. That is merely being polite. But making an assertion without justification, especially one that others see as plainly wrong on its face, is merely provocative.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It troubles me that you begin your argument with an ad hominen attack. I do not expect this behavior from science people of your caliber.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You get the benefit of the doubt the first time, but not thereafter. You have done this before, then claimed to be the victim of an "ad hominem attack". I said your statement is plainly wrong for the reasons I listed. Such criticisms of one's scientific opinions and methods of communication are not considered by most people as attacks against the person. In science, we are taught to welcome constructive criticism, and to recognize the difference between constructive and destructive. Your message shows little recognition of that difference on your part.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Why is it so hard for a person that has a Ph.D in orbital mechanics to understand that what was done in the article was simply proving the paradox rather than resolving it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Provocative, argumentative, and uninformative. Compare: "Are you still beating your wife?"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>You just prove what you state above and that is simply the paradox. In essence, your reaffirm the paradox. There was no resolution, even a undergrad in physics can understand that. Why can't you?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Repetitious. You have not succeeded in communicating any meaningful point, if you have one. Make an effort to express your point in a different way so that others can see if you have one, or you don't.

[tvf gives definition of paradox in physics]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This is exactly where your error is and you should try to reflect back and see what is wrong with your thinking, while refraining from attributing intentions to people they do not have.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is continued provocation without adding anything useful to the discussion. Making apparently false claims without adding justification (reasoned argiment, experiment, observation, or citation) is just flame bait. Justify that you are correct and I am wrong about the meaning of "paradox", or refrain from posting. If you just want to argue, find another message board.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It is that simple. Try to digest it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Patronizing and insulting. In the meantime, consider yourself cautioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your alleged resolution is an eclectic mixture of your SR and LR interpretations, which are wrong in some counts but in others show an advanced understanding.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You don't say what you are talking about, or what is wrong with it. I suspected before that you were under-age. Kids often imitate adults without understanding the adult implications of their words.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This was a criticism about a specific point where you are simply wrong.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

But I cannot learn anything from someone who makes claims without explanation or justification, then blusters and repeats himself when asked for specifics or details. Who could? If you are sincere, as you claim, then *explain* what is troubling you and ask if I have an answer, instead of just asserting that you are right and I am wrong. Watch how others behave, and imitate it more closely.

In any classroom, expect bad results when you insult the teacher. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

makis
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 5 months ago #5965 by makis

Replied by makis on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Repetitious. You have not succeeded in communicating any meaningful point, if you have one. Make an effort to express your point in a different way so that others can see if you have one, or you don't.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

There is another side to every coin. In this case the other side is that maybe you cannot understand simple arguments. I do not perceive this forum as one to make demonstration of mathematical knowledge. My argument was straightforward and simple.

I will repeat for a last time what you did in your latest paper: You simply proved the conclusion of the paradox, which is that the earth bound twin will age faster. This is exactly why it is called a paradox within the framework of SR because one of the postulates, axiom, laws or whatever you want to call them, of that theory is the non-preferred reference frame notion. It does not matter which is the mechanism for the difference in aging. In the past people thought it was because the travelling twin had to accelerate. You claim constant velocity and time slippage. But the mechanism is not what resolves the paradox. It is the contradiction within the theory, between the interpretation of one of its postulates and a deduction regarding aging in non-preferred reference frames.

Now, how simpler one can give you of an explanation. If you cannot understand this do not blame it on me, please!

So to give you a helping hand, try to focuss on the interpretation of the axiom. There is where the answer lies and not in your time slippage thing. If you, the brain and omniscient TVF, can realize a different interpretation of the axiom then the paradox will be resolved. The secret is in the axiom and the paradox is a challenge to that.

P.S. For your information, Einstein considered this type of paradoxes as an indication of the world being "strange". He did not elaborate on that. My own personal explanation is that there can be no theory without a paradox. Maybe that is why Einstein meant by "strange".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

In any classroom, expect bad results when you insult the teacher.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I agree. This applies to all of us, I hope.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #6038 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: I will repeat for a last time what you did in your latest paper: You simply proved the conclusion of the paradox, which is that the earth bound twin will age faster.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

*I* did not prove that the earth-bound twin will age more than the traveling twin. As I said in my 2nd previous post, that was shown in muon lifetime experiments many years ago. There is no longer any room to doubt the basic property of reality, that objects moving rapidly have longer lifetimes. If you are unfamiliar with muon experiments, I recommend reading up on them.

This obviously does not prove any contradiction because it is part of mainstream science. Or do you think all mainstream scientists are irrational and accept contradictions?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It does not matter which is the mechanism for the difference in aging.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No, but it does matter that the asymmetric aging is known to exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>the mechanism is not what resolves the paradox. It is the contradiction within the theory, between the interpretation of one of its postulates and a deduction regarding aging in non-preferred reference frames.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So you do maintain that the theory contains a contradiction, and that mainstream scientists are either stupid or irrational. But my article was one of hundreds of ways written about over the last century to show that no real contradiction exists -- only an apparent contradiction, which is called a paradox. If you do not understand my explanation, we could discuss it. But you seem to be saying my explanation is irrelevant. And you seem to be in denial about what the experiments show about reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now, how simpler one can give you of an explanation. If you cannot understand this do not blame it on me, please!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You have clarified enough that I can at least address the point you raised. Before, I could not understand what you meant at all.

It took 25 years after I was first taught special relativity before I understood the theory. I never did accept it as a valid description of reality. But I now do understand that it is an internally consistent theory. I recommend that you likewise adopt a humbler approach to things you do not yet understand until such time as they at least make sense, even if you do not agree with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>try to focuss on the interpretation of the axiom. There is where the answer lies and not in your time slippage thing.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"Time slippage" is a way to understand special relativity, not reality. I do not accept either postulate that underlies SR. But I have no problem describing reality with LR, which requires neither postulate. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

makis
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 5 months ago #6165 by makis

Replied by makis on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

So you do maintain that the theory contains a contradiction, and that mainstream scientists are either stupid or irrational. But my article was one of hundreds of ways written about over the last century to show that no real contradiction exists -- only an apparent contradiction, which is called a paradox. If you do not understand my explanation, we could discuss it. But you seem to be saying my explanation is irrelevant. And you seem to be in denial about what the experiments show about reality.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We are making significant progress in this discussion because we focussed on the issue at hand rather than accusing each other of ignorance, etc.(almost) I will try to answer your dense statement above, which contains several reference from the epistemological and ontological domain, which remain unanswered at large.

I do not say the theory has a contradiction. What I say is that a deduction in the theory leads to a contradiction with one of its axioms. I cannot say if that is permited or no in a theory. Aristotle and Euclid said it is not. Formalists of the 19th century resolved some issues regarding contradictions by introducing addtional axioms in logic but made some others worse.

You make reference to experiments. I would like to know on what good scientific grounds the inductions made from those experiments were rendered general and called a physical law. I understand the muon lifetime experiment. I also understand that there is no way for a muon to decide if another muon has aged faster or slower and transmit this information to humans. But this decision was made in another reference frame, that of the experimental setup, which violates the non-preferred reference frame axiom in the first place, because it is my interpretation (and claim) that the experimental setup (and specifically the concious interpretations of the humans involved) acted as a preferred reference frame. Just an example...

You see, things can get a little more complicated than appear. And I have only tauched the surface. I did not even get into epistemological or ontological issues of any deapth at all.

Maybe you are right, SR is a consistent theory but wrong model of reality. My point was that there is still a valid paradox in SR but that may depend on certain interpretations of a postulate. Furthermore, even if the interpretations are correct and the paradox is real or if other are correct and the paradox apparent and resolved, I cannot jump to the conclusion that the theory does not represent reality. This is simply because we have a metaphysical reference here: what is reality? is there one reality? is it constant? is it concious dependent? etc.

So humbler are those who are open to some possibilities rather than those who make definite or defiant declarations.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 5 months ago #5967 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]: I would like to know on what good scientific grounds the inductions made from those experiments were rendered general and called a physical law.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The theory of Special Relativity does not have the status of a physical law.

I take it we are agreed that SR can be discarded, even if not agreed about why. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.185 seconds