The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
Replies: 5   Last Post: Jan 6, 2013 4:47 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Paul B. Andersen

Posts: 33
Registered: 8/5/10
Re: Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
Posted: Jan 5, 2013 8:14 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 04.01.2013 22:49, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:03 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 04.01.2013 14:36, Pentcho Valev wrote:

>>> Clever Draper,
>>> Special relativity predicts both - that the travelling twin proves younger
>>> and that the sedentary twin proves younger

>> Can you prove that the Lorentz transform predicts this?
>> We all know that you can't, which I am sure you will demonstrate
>> by failing to do so.

> On the other hand, the little professor from Trondheim has
> demonstrated that he has failed miserably at understand the Lorentz
> transform. <shrug>

>>> - but Einsteiniana's scenarios demonstrate only the former
>>> prediction and conceal the latter.

>> Here you can see the twin scenario from both twins' point of view:

> Good job, paul. You have handed over the material that proves you
> have no understanding of what the Lorentz transform is all about.
> <shrug>
> When B is not accelerating, the Lorentz transform says there is no way
> to tell absolutely who is traveling and who is not. Time dilation
> should be building up when A observes B as well as when B observes A.
> The JAVA applet does not reflect what the Lorentz transform says. You
> may want to decrease the acceleration distance to just 1 and increase
> acceleration to 2 for a better dramatic effect. <shrug>
> paul?s gross blunder: The mutual time dilation is building up when B
> is not accelerating. The applet violates the principle of
> relativity. <shrug>

I won't bother to quibble about your nonsense.
Nobody cares about your babble anyway.

> Hopefully, paul remains ignorant on this one since else he would
> remove the material just like he did with the rest of his blunders.
> <shrug>

I have deleted nothing.
I have however changed the host for my homepage, so the pointers
in old postings in the Google archive won't work.
My current homepage is at the bottom of the page.

However, many of the papers are of an "ad hoc" character
an is not found on that homepage, but you will find them

I am sure you will find the rest of my blunders there.
Was it any particular you had in mind?

I look forward to yet another request for a reminder
of one of your blunders.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.