
Re: Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
Posted:
Jan 7, 2013 9:41 AM


On Jan 7, 11:28 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 5:47 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/01/2013 3:59 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Instead of v, let?s say (B = v / c) for simplicity. The earth is > > > Point #0, outbound spacecraft is Point #1, and inbound spacecraft is > > > Point #2. > > > > According to the Lorentz transform, relative speeds are: > > > > ** B_00^2 = 0, speed of #0 as observed by #0 > > > ** B_01^2 = B^2, speed of #1 as observed by #0 > > > ** B_02^2 = B^2, speed of #2 as observed by #0 > > > > ** B_10^2 = B^2, speed of #0 as observed by #1 > > > ** B_11^2 = 0, speed of #1 as observed by #1 > > > ** B_12^2 = 4 B^2 / (1 ? B^2), speed of #2 as observed by #1 > > > > ** B_20^2 = B^2, speed of #0 as observed by #2 > > > ** B_21^2 = 4 B^2 / (1 ? B^2), speed of #1 as observed by #2 > > > ** B_22^2 = 0, speed of #2 as observed by #2 > > > > When Point #0 is observed by all, the Minkowski spacetime (divided by > > > c^2) is: > > > > ** dt_00^2 (1 ? B_00^2) = dt_10^2 (1 ? B_10^2) = dt_20^2 (1 ? B_20^2) > > > > When Point #1 is observed by all, the Minkowski spacetime (divided by > > > c^2) is: > > > > ** dt_01^2 (1 ? B_01^2) = dt_11^2 (1 ? B_11^2) = dt_21^2 (1 ? B_21^2) > > > > When Point #2 is observed by all, the Minkowski spacetime (divided by > > > c^2) is: > > > > ** dt_02^2 (1 ? B_02^2) = dt_12^2 (1 ? B_12^2) = dt_22^2 (1 ? B_22^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** dt_00 = Local rate of time flow at Point #0 > > > ** dt_01 = Rate of time flow at #1 as observed by #0 > > > ** dt_02 = Rate of time flow at #2 as observed by #0 > > > > ** dt_10 = Rate of time flow at #0 as observed by #1 > > > ** dt_11 = Local rate of time flow at Point #1 > > > ** dt_12 = Rate of time flow at #2 as observed by #1 > > > > ** dt_20 = Rate of time flow at #0 as observed by #2 > > > ** dt_21 = Rate of time flow at #1 as observed by #2 > > > ** dt_22 = Local rate of time flow at Point #2 > > > > So, with all the pertinent variables identified, the contradiction of > > > the twins? paradox is glaring right at anyone with a thinking brain. > > > <shrug> > > > >    > > > > From the Lorentz transformations, you can write down the following > > > equation per Minkowski spacetime. Points #1, #2, and #3 are > > > observers. They are observing the same target. > > > > ** c^2 dt1^2 ? ds1^2 = c^2 dt2^2 ? ds2^2 = c^2 dt3^2 ? ds3^2 > > > > Where > > > > ** dt1 = Time flow at Point #1 > > > ** dt2 = Time flow at Point #2 > > > ** dt3 = Time flow at Point #3 > > > > ** ds1 = Observed target displacement segment by #1 > > > ** ds2 = Observed target displacement segment by #2 > > > ** ds3 = Observed target displacement segment by #3 > > > > The above spacetime equation can also be written as follows. > > > > ** dt1^2 (1 ? B1^2) = dt2^2 (1 ? B2^2) = dt3^2 (1 ? B3^2) > > > > Where > > > > ** B^2 = (ds/dt)^2 / c^2 > > > > When #1 is observing #2, the following equation can be deduced from > > > the equation above. > > > > ** dt1^2 (1 ? B1^2) = dt2^2 . . . (1) > > > > Where > > > > ** B2^2 = 0, #2 is observing itself > > > > Similarly, when #2 is observing #1, the following equation can be > > > deduced. > > > > ** dt1^2 = dt2^2 (1 ? B2^2) . . . (2) > > > > Where > > > > ** B1^2 = 0, #1 is observing itself > > > > According to relativity, the following must be true. > > > > ** B1^2 = B2^2 > > > > Thus, equations (1) and (2) become the following equations > > > respectively. > > > > ** dt1^2 (1 ? B^2) = dt2^2 . . . (3) > > > ** dt2^2 = dt1^2 (1 ? B^2) . . . (4) > > > > Where > > > > ** B^2 = B1^2 = B2^2 > > > > The only time the equations (3) and (4) can coexist is when B^2 = 0. > > > Thus, the twins? paradox is very real under the Lorentz transform. > > > <shrug> > > It's a variant of the old Dingle argument, > > @t1/@t2 = @t2/@t1 is a contradiction. > > (@ = partial derivative) > > > See:http://tinyurl.com/ah3ctmm > > > Koobee's response:http://tinyurl.com/a9jkwxp > > << > > What Koobee Wublee wrote that you have quoted was an application of > > the Lorentz transform in a specific scenario. You don?t understand > > all that, and apparently, you don?t know what you are talking about as > > usual. It is laughable that a college professor from the University > > of Trondheim would attempt to swindle his way out using irrelevant, > > bullshit claims. <shrug> > > > You are cornered. Why don?t you stay in the topic of discussion? > > <shrug> > > Excellent documentations, paul. When you are plagued with these > embarrassing blunders, at least, you have a skill in good > documentations. Koobee Wublee is indeed very grateful that you are > able to document His great posts. Seriously, paul. All that good > documentations still did not save you from that job in the private > industry, did it? When someone charging in claiming a Doppler shift > in 10^8 should be seriously considered in adjusting the carrier > frequencies for compensations, the management just have to do the best > for either parties. :) > > By the way, Koobee Wublee never uses the partial derivative like what > you have done. dt still basically the rate of time flow when > comparing two observers. Thus, total derivative has to be > considered. <shrug> > > Or better yet, if you are still confused with the Lorentz transform, > why don?t you look into the equations describing Minkowski spacetime > which Koobee Wublee has included in this post? That should leave no > confusion about what Dingle had to say was actually visionary. Well, > not quite. The stuff is so simple that it is a big surprise when all > the socalled bright minds in the scientific communities have so much > trouble understanding. What a shame, no? <shrug> > > > His arguments were as lethal and to the point as always. :) > > You bet, paul. Glad you are finding amusement amid these gross > blunders of yours. In doing so, you started personal attacks. Not > until Koobee Wublee pointed out to you, you have now calmed down. By > the way, have you finished the JAVA applet yet with the twins > traveling using the exact same acceleration profile? Please also > leave an adjustable coasting time with no acceleration in the > program. <please and thanks in advance>
Koobee says ? Stuff is so simple that it is a big surprise when all the socalled bright minds in the scientific communities have so much trouble understanding.? Stuff is simple and they don?t have any trouble in understanding. But they cannot go against the politics of people belonging to one race and same people who happen to hold the strings of economy of great America. Coming back to Paul, he will never consider the example you suggested, that, A and B both go away from C and come back to C. In this case, there is no way to show difference in time in the clocks of A and B, though, according to Einstein, each other?s clock was running slow and still their own were running at proper rate. This proposed reciprocity is exactly the foolishness that SR is based on.

