Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
James R said:
So now you want to claim that Relativity does not hold that each and every observer sees himself as at rest? Good luck with this bullshit. I feel very confident that many here are actually starting to see through this "Blue Wall""
Well, well, well. You just can't give up with the unsupported attacks and outright "LIES" regrading things I have said and supported. You sir are a deliberate liar, I regret that but seems to be obvious at this time.
I have many times and you have even agreed in the past very specifically to the issue raised here but now you choose to try and ignore the facts and to post horseshit.
Sorry it no longer sticks to the wall. You clearly have no answer or refutation of my facts. You are a loser. A bad sport loser but a loser none the less.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3347&stc=1
Constant relative velocity has been and remains the only issue I have raised. The rest is irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to confuse the issue. Do you retract your above concession? Are you going to flip-flop once again in an effort to save your precious Relativity?
This is hillarious I have not argued the affect is not seen I have shown clearly that it simply only preception and not reality. You have agreed that there is no net affect in constant velocity cases and yet you want to argue, argue and argue horseshit which has nothing to do with my posts or the issue at hand. Stick to the issue.
Take a position and defend it with actual proof. Every post attacking my understanding, altering my statements claiming they mean something different than was clearly stated, grasping onto typo's and trying to claim it as evidence of misunderstandings when infact I have typed the same point numerous times correctly and/or used the formula's many times to produce correct calculations many times and calling me a liar shows just how weak your position is.
Your above concession it absolutely on point and covers the entire topic of this debate. My view is valid, PERIOD. END OF ARGUEMENT. Move on.
Last edited:
Now I am a little confused with this.
A sees B as velocity 0.9c because A is deemed at rest. But B sees A "receeding" at 0.9c and if B is deemed at rest then why would A's recession be considered as negative velocity.?....for all intents and purposes it is receeding from B at the same velocity as A is.
Look one way and look the other the velocity would be the same would it not?
[assuming no other reference frames were available]
QQ:
Velocity is a vector. It has direction and magnitude. The magnitude of the velocity is called the speed. An object can have constant speed yet changing velocity.
If A's velocity relative to B is v, then B's velocity relative to A is -v. Both have speed v=|v|.
Velocity is a vector. It has direction and magnitude. The magnitude of the velocity is called the speed. An object can have constant speed yet changing velocity.
If A's velocity relative to B is v, then B's velocity relative to A is -v. Both have speed v=|v|.
ahhh....I see......I'll be......ha....I automatically assumed velocity was just another word for speed....boy, that's an opener.....ha!
MacM:
It seems everything has to be explained to you three times, when once is enough for just about everybody else. And even then, you're usually incapable of appreciating the point. Maybe I use too many big words for you. I don't know.
Your current fixation appears to be my purported "admission" that you were right and I was wrong all along. Unfortunately, that is a dream of yours. Once again, let me explain it for you, using small words.
1. In a symmetrical situation, it is quite possible to have 2 clocks record the same time.
2. The 2 clock example we have been discussing for most of this thread is not symmetrical.
3. Whether or not the 2 clocks record the same time depends on when they are started and stopped, obviously.
4. For most of this thread, we have been discussing a situation where the clocks are not stopped simultaneously in at least one of the two frames.
5. My "admission" you are so proud of referred to a symmetical situation. I have posted that situation in detail previously.
6. You confuse the two situations, just like you confuse everything else.
Poor confused MacM.
You're raving.
Look at what I wrote, then look at your reply. Did I say that relativity does not hold? No. Did I say that each observer does not see himself at rest? No.
You're putting words into my mouth that I never said. You're in fantasy MacM la-la land.
Your fantasy may be easy to refute. My words are quite another matter.
No response, as usual. You don't answer because you can't answer.
Waffle on, MacM. I know that nothing I say will make the slightest shade of difference in your fantasy land.
It seems everything has to be explained to you three times, when once is enough for just about everybody else. And even then, you're usually incapable of appreciating the point. Maybe I use too many big words for you. I don't know.
Your current fixation appears to be my purported "admission" that you were right and I was wrong all along. Unfortunately, that is a dream of yours. Once again, let me explain it for you, using small words.
1. In a symmetrical situation, it is quite possible to have 2 clocks record the same time.
2. The 2 clock example we have been discussing for most of this thread is not symmetrical.
3. Whether or not the 2 clocks record the same time depends on when they are started and stopped, obviously.
4. For most of this thread, we have been discussing a situation where the clocks are not stopped simultaneously in at least one of the two frames.
5. My "admission" you are so proud of referred to a symmetical situation. I have posted that situation in detail previously.
6. You confuse the two situations, just like you confuse everything else.
Poor confused MacM.
You're raving.
Look at what I wrote, then look at your reply. Did I say that relativity does not hold? No. Did I say that each observer does not see himself at rest? No.
You're putting words into my mouth that I never said. You're in fantasy MacM la-la land.
Your fantasy may be easy to refute. My words are quite another matter.
No response, as usual. You don't answer because you can't answer.
Waffle on, MacM. I know that nothing I say will make the slightest shade of difference in your fantasy land.
Quantum Quack said:
You are absolutely correct in the outcome. However they do generally refer to +/- velocities. But as I have point out to Paul T above (-X)<sup>2</suo> = X<sup>2</sup>, it is a nonsense distraction from the actual situation. It meaningless dribble.
It changes nothing.
QQ:
Physicists tend to use some words much more precisely than the common usage of those words by people in their day to day lives.
Most people don't distinguish speed and velocity. Physicists do. There are also important differences between momentum and inertia, distance and displacement, rotation and revolution, mass and weight, to take a few examples of words many people use interchangeably.
Other terms in physics have very specific meanings, which become much more generalised in common understanding. "Energy" is probably one of the most abused terms in physics. Most non-physicists use that word to mean all kinds of things which have nothing at all to do with the physical definition of the word.
It is very important when having discussions of physics to know or to learn the technical meanings of words. If you don't know, then you often miss important parts of physical reasoning, or you can misinterpret concepts. This is one of MacM's major failings. He uses terms such as "reference frame", which sound technical, without actually knowing what they mean. The end result is that his use of the term does not match the technical meaning of the term, and so he continually makes statements which are incorrect, based entirely on his inability to understand the concept.
Physicists tend to use some words much more precisely than the common usage of those words by people in their day to day lives.
Most people don't distinguish speed and velocity. Physicists do. There are also important differences between momentum and inertia, distance and displacement, rotation and revolution, mass and weight, to take a few examples of words many people use interchangeably.
Other terms in physics have very specific meanings, which become much more generalised in common understanding. "Energy" is probably one of the most abused terms in physics. Most non-physicists use that word to mean all kinds of things which have nothing at all to do with the physical definition of the word.
It is very important when having discussions of physics to know or to learn the technical meanings of words. If you don't know, then you often miss important parts of physical reasoning, or you can misinterpret concepts. This is one of MacM's major failings. He uses terms such as "reference frame", which sound technical, without actually knowing what they mean. The end result is that his use of the term does not match the technical meaning of the term, and so he continually makes statements which are incorrect, based entirely on his inability to understand the concept.
This I think is the most important thing that has been said the entire thread...certainly for me any way.
The interesting thing i have been thinking is
If we take two objects A and B and place them in a void of nothing and they are separating at a speed of say 0.9c how are we to determine which has negative velocity.?
Do we arbitarilly choose one object over another or is there some other means that I can't see?
the above I think is at the heart of the reciprication issue?
James R said:
Your words should match your level of competance. NOt only "CAN" two clocks record the same time, they "DO" record the same time because your symmetry is not at issue "Reciprocity" is. And in reciprocity even asymmetrical motion (as in acceleration) the consequence of computing affects from each observers view nullifies any net change or result.
Give it up. You are boxed in. Stop trying to confuse jpeople that a one sided view or calculation has any merit in a discussion regarding "Reality". It is only an expression of a moving observers "Illusion" a perception.
NOr have your calculations included "Reciprocity". When reciprocity is applied do you claim a NET result? Yes or No.
Obviously and one not only can but must specify simultaneity. It is ludricrus to claim a time dilation by claiming they are started or stopped at different times.
The arguement over simultaneity is a smoke screen that HAS been eliminated by my synchronization proceedure. which you failed miserably at trying to refute. Actually proving simultaenity infact is not even part of the jproblem it can and should be stipulated to do a fair and balanced evaaluation of Relativity. Not doing so is deliberate efforts to avoid addressing the issue.
Perhaps by you but not by me. Lets discuss my presentation and stop altering the playing field to post irrelevant BS.
And as I have pointed out including acceleration (non-inertial) data does NOT alter the conclusion as long as acceleration is applied to both clocks. When it is not applied to both clcoks, then yes there dan be a time shift but it is due to the non-linear portion of the test and there is still no net time shift due to relativie velocity itself. Your efforts to discuss symmetry in this sense is nothing but a smoke screen.
I am clearly not the one confused here.
And you are avoiding the issue.
Fine then apply that fact to your calculations and tell these folks having applied reciprocity that you still get net time dilation. You DO NOT.
You say it is easy to refute, then give a valid refutation.
This statement applies to yourself.[
quote]Waffle on, MacM. I know that nothing I say will make the slightest shade of difference in your fantasy land.[/QUOTE]
Only if you say something that is applicable to the issue which is a valid refutation and stop meandering all over the place with irrelevant horseshit.
MacM said:
Because your knowledge of relativity is just that little. You don't even familiar with Lorentz's transformation. When come to LT, v or -v make the difference. Learn more mister, don't stuck with just one or two formulas...and particularly not the wrong TD.
- Status