I see you know how to mimic the comments of others but you seem to lack any ability to actually think. Invoking GR into the Twin Paradox does not resolve the debate over SR claims in the situation. Try again.
If you read carefully, it didn't actually state anything about GR. In fact, the only thing needed to explain it is that Paul changes inertial frames when he turns around. No GR necessary, not even if we conceed that this requires an acceleration phase.
Riiiight... do you even read people's posts before you respond? The whole point was that SR can't predict the outcome of experiments designed to measure time dilation, since reference frames will need to accelerate relative to one another. You can phrase the experiment however you want, but at the end of the day you're always going to need a general theory to make the prediction. That's why the one is called the "special" theory and the other is called the "general" theory. One needn't "invoke" GR; it's obvious from their names that SR is only to be considered in the larger context of GR. Exactly. Moreover, you don't need much in the way of a general theory of relativity to resolve the twin paradox; all that is required is that the guy in the rocket feels the acceleration when he launches and turns around. You have no business trying to "debunk" relativity if you don't already understand this stuff. The ideas you've been attacking are not relativity, but rather a set of common misconceptions about relativity, you fucking knucklehead.
My point is that both descriptions are internally consistent and both descriptions accurately calculate the motion. You may prefer one frame for any or no reason at all, but you need to realize that your preference is only a preference and not a proof against the validity of your non-prefered frames. Mathematically they are equivalent as shown. Since this thread is so thick with metaphors I think I will throw my own in. You are saying, "The glass is half-full". GMontag, quadraphonics, and I think James R are saying "The glass is half-empty". I am saying, "The glass is equally well described as being half-full and half-empty and I can show it mathematically". URI is saying, "If I spin the glass real fast over my head the H2O2 stays in" but everyone ignores him. You then say, "It is silly to call the glass half-empty because you can only drink out of the full half". Everyone else pulls their hair out and says, "Just because we can call it half-full or half-empty doesn't mean that the empty half is the same as the full half". Meanwhile URI asks, "Can I get some ice? This stuff burns my throat." Hmm, kind of long for a metaphor, but I had fun writing it anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -Dale PS You may want to re-think your insistence on only using inertial frames since that means that you are agreeing with BillyT who also dislikes accelerating frames and frame forces.
I think we are talking past each other. A changing relative v does not mean something is accelerating. It may or may not be. It depends on if it is undgoing the F = ma. If not then it is neither accelerating or undergoing a change in velocity in universal terms. It means something else you are measuring against is accelerating and changing velocity.
Completely false. False. False. See above jerk. Go troll somewhere else or go learn a bit about the subject before pretending to know it all.
Whoops, what I meant to write was not that SR can't predict the outcome of experiments to measure time dilation, but that it can't predict the outcome of experiments that would resolve the twin paradox. Which is exactly what you're hung up on here, with all of the stuff about distinguishing between apparent acceleration and the actual application of a force. There is surely no more compelling method of argument than simply shouting "nuh-uh!!". Particularly when the person you're shouting at agrees that you have the basic ideas right, but have simply misunderstood the way in which the standard theories accomodate them. But then, it's pretty obvious that you're more interested in being an ass than contributing to anyone's understanding of physics, particularly your own.
You are just plain wrong here. A changing v is the definition of acceleration: a = dv/dt (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acca.html#c1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Acceleration.html http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=acceleration) Newton's second law defines force, not acceleration. By the way, did you miss the "frame forces" in the X* frame? I also am a big fan of Newton's second law, so I thoughtfully included frame forces in order to make sure that F = m a would be satisfied in the X* frame too. -Dale
The glass is full. Half of the composition of the contents of the glass is water, and the other half is air. Failure to recognize the existance of that which is not easily seen is a common error when examining the glass. But, don't ask me how this applies to SR. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Assume a glass in a vaccuum, half full of ice... (You know how air introduces awkward complications to simple scenarios Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Why on earth would you say that? Funny I'm not hung up on anything. I have presented certain physics claims and facts and have posed a question which you apparently either don't understand or can't answer. Which is it?
Because any such experiment would require acceleration, putting it out of the reach of SR. Or so I thought; FunkStar's link seems to say otherwise. I will review some references, but at the end of the day the biggest mistake I could've made is to refer to as GR what is actually part of SR, which actually strengthens my original point that SR doesn't have the flaw you imagine it to. James R answered your initial question satisfactorily in the second post of this thread. I have nothing to add to his explanation beyond the fact that relativity DOES distinguish between apparent acceleration due to choice of reference frames and the actual application of force. Thus, you are attacking a strawman.
Considering that you don't seem to understand what is GR and what is SR and/or how to seperate them as to function and/or testing, I find your evaluation of my understanding to be of little value. You don't seem to understand the issue. The strawman as you put it is infact a very important physical consideration and that is that a definition of acceleration which is devoid F = ma as to its origin is a ficticious acceleration and should not be considered to create velocity affects. Relative velocity is not physical velocity and that is where SRT has gone wrong. Emperical data does not support any time dilation affects occuring due to relative velocity alone. Emperical data only supports time dilation for relative velocity in an object that has actually accelerated and undergone F = ma. There is not ONE case of the non-accelerated clock showing any relative velocity affect.
Come off your high horse, MacM Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Quadraphonics is at least acting reasonably and willing to investigate the limits of his own knowledge. He will actually learn something. You, on the other hand, will continue in your stupidity (e.g. trying to use F = m a as the definition of acceleration). I think his willingness to study and learn is commendable while your deliberate ignorance is disgusting. -Dale
For fuck's sake buddy, I agree everything you've said except the assertion that SRT conflicts with it. That Feynman quote, from the "Relativistic Mass and Energy" chapter in the Feynman Lectures, can be considered as definitive. If you'd read it, you'd have noticed that he's emphatic on the point that the clock that the force was applied to is the one that runs slow. Please point me to one single reference on relativity that says otherwise or drop your contention that relativity conflicts with these facts. And before you ask, no, further unsupported assertions by yourself that "only relative velocity matters in SRT" will not cut it. And no more weak-suck ad-hominems instead of substantiative answers. Ad-hominems are only funny if you put them at the end of reasoned posts, you witless piece of shit.
You should refrain from this type of comment, as I did, when MacM repeatedly called me much worse. - I was, among many other things, a full “sack of shit,” not just a piece. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I suggest restraint in this area because this area is MacM's only field of expertise, but in "DUCK and WEAVE" responce he is also very good.
Actually I cut him a lot of slack because he was admitting his errors and insufficancy. But those facts invalidated anything he had to say regarding my understandings. Your assertion that requiring F = ma to be part of any acceleration is ignorant and disgusting is amusing. It certainly limits the value of your post as well.
I like to agree with you MacM when I can, so I state that you are correct if speaking of the acceleration of an object with mass. It is strange, as DaleSpan has noted, that your strong inclination to dispute anything I say has made you inconsistent. You said (In the rest & motion thread): "Frankly I reject those views and your arguement against centrifugal force." My main argument against "centrifugal force" force is that to accept it as a force, would require making a list of exceptions to Newton's three laws, even in the very classical realm where they are valid. This is very same argument you advancing here! I.e. In effect you are saying that if there is a non zero "a" then there is a non-zero force. Just as I say that if there is a force, then there is an 'equal and opposite" force (acting on the agent that applies the first force.) I am consistent in this adherence to Newton. You, however, are not. When it suits you, you say I am wrong to reject centrifugal and Coriollis effects as forces on the grounds that they would require being listed as exceptions to Newton's three laws. As it is not much trouble, I will try, once more, to educate you. (I remain convinced that you are smart, just ignorant.) As several have already tried to tell you, acceleration “a” is the second time derivative of position, BY DEFFINITION. Mass is (at least for me, although some more modern young guys may resort to complex GR math, and others may start to babble about Higgs bosons, etc.) an empirical net of relationship between an intrinsic characteristic of matter (and probably inertia is same also). - For example, roughly speaking, four normal hydrogen atoms have same amount of this intrinsic characteristic as one helium atom. Once you know these relative relationships, anyone can be set to unity or 10,000 etc. and you have "absolute masses" (numerical values with units) in that set of units. (Historically not this way, but related to pieces of metal, etc.) OK so we have independent definitions of both the “m” and the “a” in Newton’s first law, F = ma. Congratulations! You guessed it! (Before I got there, in my usual long-winded way.) This is the definition of “force.” "Force" is a little bit messy as requires a known test mass and careful measurement of its dynamics, but soon you forget all about that and are weighing the fish you caught on a calibrated spring balance, etc. Unfortunately, you seem to think F =ma defines acceleration, but a lot of your thinking is based on ignorance, so this is not surprising.
