On Dec 31 2012, 6:13 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 31/12/2012 5:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 8:24 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 12/30/12 12/30/12 6:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> What is a paradox in special relativity (hereinafter SR)? > > >> The first problem is that the word "paradox" has multiple > >> meanings; the relevant ones are: > >> 1. A SEEMINGLY absurd or self-contradictory statement that when > >> investigated proves to be true. > >> 2. A contradiction. > > > Tom is pretending to be a lawyer. In science according to scientific > > methods, a paradox can only be a contradiction and nothing else. > > Since Tom is no longer abiding to scientific methods as a professional > > experimental physicist, he is playing with the meanings of words to > > justify his voodoo belief. The accusation by Koobee Wublee is very > > fair. If Tom does not think so, Koobee Wublee is very willing to > > defend these accusations. <shrug> > > >> You are using (2), but common writings about the "twins paradox" use it in the > >> sense of (1). Indeed, ALL of the common "paradoxes" of SR use the word in the > >> sense of (1) -- they are TEACHING LESSONS, and would be useless if they were > >> contradictory or incorrect. > > > Total bullshit! <shaking head> > > That's always a convincing argument. > > Tom is clearly correct in stating that there are [at least] two meanings > of the word paradox in general use. It is also true that there would be > no point in using a real sense (2) paradox in teaching special > relativity since any real sense (2) paradox would invalidate the very > material being taught. > > However, I doubt that anyone posting in this (now these, apparently) > group(s) who's claiming to have found (or more typically, copied) a > paradox is using the word with sense (1). What they may be doing is > taking what was in fact a sense (1) paradox, and through lack of > understanding, trying to present it as a sense (2) paradox. > > > > >>> [... further elaboration, valid using sense (2)] > > >> Note that the mathematics of SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is > >> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So we can be EXTREMELY confident > >> that there are no "paradoxes(2)" in SR. > > > What mathematics does Tom believe in? Didn?t Tom has claimed that he > > has believed in the projection of proper time where there is no > > mathematics involved but faith? <shrug> > > Is that relevant (even if true, and properly represented, which I rather > doubt). Looks like an ad-hominem attack to me. Why would someone who has > a effective reason based argument resort to ad-hominem stuff? > > Sylvia.
Sylvia The time would be the same for both twins if they were at rest,but once moving their time respect to each other changes. This has been confirmed by experiments. TreBert