esbo

It is mainly an upper class public school thing, I see so many who cannot pronounce an 'r', you often see them on the BBC when they are interviewing an 'expect' on something, experts are nearly always upper class as they can afford the education. They look Widiculous!!

Merely saying "relativity" is not evidence, nor is saying "Relativity, which has been experimentally and observationally verified to an amazing degree over the last hundred years tells us that there is no absolute frame of reference." If it has been experimentally verified tell me about the experiment, I mean you must be pretty familiar with the experiment? Yes? I asked how strong the force of expansion was, not the rate of expansion, I can easily look that up, bit harder finding the force of expansion. As there is quite a bit we do not know, that seem to leave a lot of room for error in what we *think* we know. Whilst we think we have learned a lot in the last 200 years we may well learn much if it is wrong in the next 200 years.

What evidence is there that there is no absolute reference point of velocity and the same goes for time, where is the evidence? How strong is the force of expansion specifically, can you give a number? Given we do not know what dark energy is it seems there is a lot we do not understand about the universe

I am lead to believe this is the case, if it's not then well I guess I am wasting my time!! So.....if they are how is this possible, we are told this is impossible. It seems to be the case that people will say yes some are moving faster than the speed of light but that is because space if expanding. That leads to new questions such as, how fast are they really moving. It seems to me that nothing is moving very fast really indeed I think that basically everything is basically pretty static and that there is a standard time for the universe which I will call 'real-time'. So I think there is a common reference point for time and that any different time of moving objects are basically due to 'clock error' so we could refer to their time as standard time - clock error. Also what if we tied two galaxies together with a rope? Would they stop moving apart? Or would the rope snap? Basically how strong is the force of expansion? Maybe this is something to do with dark energy? Maybe someone can explain?

Just to throw in my answer, B's world has contracted to due to the extra gravity, thus distance has changed and makes up for the change in time thus giving the same answer for C. I just know I am right on this one so please tell me I am right and email me my Nobel prize for physics. (just the money I have no more room for trophies). I mean B's rular has contracted (or expanded). Any how point is the light arrives at the same time for both, so I am thinking this is to do with simultaneousness, I mean lets face it they do not know what time the light was sent out only when it arrived. So yea it does arrive at different times on each's clock (but at the same time really ) But the BIG thing is neither know when the light pulse was sent out, all they see is darkness until there is light. I think that is the key point, the length contraction is a different minor issue I would imagine. I guess you could learn more if he sent out two light pulse say 1000 seconds apart, that might be a more meaningful problem, then again it might not especially if you made a mistake with your logic.

Why claim is false, I am not aware of making a claim, I am basically say, ""explain this". So what specifically are you referring to when you say my claim is false. I am not sure so perhaps you could refresh me on the claim you say i have made. Well not really the sun is stationary and they are the ones moving.

I know c is always measured as a constant, I just want the apparent anomalies explain but in a specific rather than generic way. The sun is not moving in the example, or at least not considered to be.

Well there are examples which can be used and have been used to point out inconsistency. What I am saying is look at this example, it does not seem to fit with SR, where is the error. Now I think it is reasonable to expect someone to point out the error rather than simply parrot out some line about SR or maths or simultaneous need. I am finding those kind of non answers rather tiresome. And the "this is about maths bit" is a bit silly, it is about the question asked and the solution, the examples point out the inconsistencies that is the whole point of them. The error is pointed out in the examples provided,. the best way of to replying to a response like yours would be to simply repeat the question, however I won't do that, but you can read it again if you so wish, and that is your answer. The spinning of the earth is pretty irrelevant to the question, the point is they are moving in opposite directions and that was just a way of illustrating that point.

OK I have had a bit more time on this, and it sort of sound plausible to some extent apart from the fact I am not too happy with length contraction. It's perhaps better if that is addressed first as follows. Now,as I understand it we will always measure the speed of light as a constant. So say you have two people on opposite side of the earth measuring the speed, one spinning towards the light and one away from it. Because of the earth's spin on it's axis they are both doing the same speed but in opposite direction (we can ignore orbit speed to keep it simple). So doing the same speed they will the same (rate of) time, correct?? And also the same length contraction? Correct? So that is the problem, how can they measure the same speed when light has to travel further over the identical metre ruler they had when they met up? You see the problem is one ruler is travelling towards the light and one away so light will have to go further to cross the ruler moving away from the light. So I do not quite see how someone can answer this with "oh it's due to simultaneousness". Or maybe you can? I suppose you can say one twin could be considered stationary and the other travelling at twice the rate of spin??? So either way it is a bit confusing to think about when things we take for granted change. So what is the explanation to that problem, is it as I said? So you could say for the stationary one there is no contraction, but there is for the one moving towards the sun so his length will contract *and* his time will slow down. AT first though that seems to give the opposite of the what I want to explain it, but I am not sure. I need to think about it a bit more, I think. It might give the answer possibly. I suppose if the ruler length is the distance light travels in a second and his time is slower then it will not have travelled as far consistent with his shorter ruler? But I am not OK with that yet, need to give it more though.

Thanks at least you appear to given a comprehensive answer, I don't have time to go through it right now,, but I will later.

I have now but it basically boils do to "Do the simultaneity calculation." and I don't believe that is a good enough answer it is too vague. You need to highlight the error. I mean you are basically say there is an error, go find it. However, my basic question is "where is the error in this?" So it's your job to find it!! Not mine!! As I said before, that is basically a cop out answer. You are basically saying you won't or rather can't find a specific fault in it. It is you who is using the old trick of telling me to find my own solution. Nice try but I am not falling for it. You can basically 'answer' all questions with that kind of response. And form what I have discovered this is not the first time you have failed to provide and answer which *proves* the proposition wrong.

The proposer has in effect provided his proof, you are saying it is wrong, I think the onus is you to prove he is wrong by say specifically where he is wrong. It's like in a maths question and you saying he has done his maths wrong, you need to provide a correction to the detail ie say in which specific line of maths there is an error. Just saying "you need to check your maths' is a bit of a cop out, I because anyone could say that irregardless of whether they knew were the error was. So if anyone can provide that specific detail I would be very grateful grateful. If they can't I guess I will be forced to look elsewhere.

But I don't consider that a sufficient answer, he needs to explain precisely how simultaneity is the paradox. indeed you say 'suggests', basically it all seems to vague to be an adequate answer. More details is needed.

A lot of scientist have been though of as crackpots in their time. Here is a list of a few of them. Arrhenius (ion chemistry) Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics) Baird, John L. (television camera) Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs) Bardeen & Brattain (transistor) Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology) Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930) Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800) Crick & Watson (DNA) Doppler (optical Doppler effect) Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria) Galvani (bioelectricity) Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628) Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle) Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint) Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery) Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope) Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships) Goethe (Land color theory) Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits) Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria) Lister, J (sterilizing) T Maiman (Laser) "Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles) Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy) Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori) McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons) Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table) Nott, J. C. (mosquitos xmit Yellow Fever) Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons) Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law) Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices) Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease) Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982) Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer) Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever ) Steen-McIntyre, Virginia (southwest US indians villiage , 300,000BC) Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance) Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor) J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D) Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory) Wegener, Alfred (continental drift) Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines) Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933) Zweig, George (quark theory) I never put people down for asking questions, it is a good thing. Something to be encouraged. I will always try to answer questions so they can understand them. I think it is people who lack confidence in their own understanding who seek to put people down to deter them from asking questions they can't answer. There has always been a bit of that in science, people do not want to lose their reputation etc.. And even if the crackpots are wrong at least they are provoking discussion. Remember one thing science constantly does is prove old theories wrong or improve on them. The mainstream is not always right, but they do fear being proved wrong. . Here is just one example of a crackpot who was right, so do not be to quick to putt hem down!! J Harlen Bretz Endured decades of scorn as the laughingstock of the geology world. His crime was to insist that enormous amounts of evidence showed that, in Eastern Washington state, the "scabland" desert landscape had endured an ancient catastrophy: a flood of staggering proportions. This was outright heresy, since the geology community of the time had dogmatic belief in a "uniformitarian" position, where all changes must take place slowly and incrementally over vast time scales. Bretz' ideas were entirely vindicated by the 1950s. Quote: "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over." You can just imagine the amount of ridicule he had to endure.

obviously time travel is impossible else you could travel back in time and shoot yourself dead. Loved the bit in the Family Guy video where one oft he Brian's was dead and Brian says shouldn't they all be dead then? The answer is of course no, if they were from before he died they coudl be alive , there should be no Brians from the future after he was dead. Brians from the past could have travelled into the future past his death though (if time travel forward is possible) so I guess forward time travel could be posssible, but not back.

there is a excellent Family Guy episode which includes time travel. It's really good stuff it goes into the danger of time travel and all that, I can't remember exactly what happens but they have to be careful not do ore not to do certain stuff. One of the best episodes I have seen it end up with hundreds of : Brian and Stewie all together from difference times periods deciding what they need to do!!! It fact here is the episode here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNq_t1S3JH0 really good!!

I don't think a study has to be carried out on paper, in my opinion though can only occur in the mind, paper can be be used to aid memory but thought occurs only in the mind. People can make mistakes in their maths and thought can be used to determine a thought has occurred. I am confident I know in my own mind what though and though experiment mean.. Einstein used thought to make sense of experimental data/results. Mathematics is derived from thought. #Well agreed' is not the same as proven, and even proven often turns out to not proven in some cases. Indeed SR itself unproven much of what was thought to be proven. I wonder how Einstein would have responded to someone saying the maths of classical physical is self-consistent , pretty simple and well agreed? There seems to be an attitude in this forum that everything is understood and agreed and cannot be challenged. If it were not for people rebelling against that attitude we would still be living in the dark ages, and indeed some say we still are!!

But to me it depends on whose perspective you are looking from. When they are together in space they are in the same inertial frame. One accelerates off to earth thus he should appear to age slower than the one in space. You seem to be picking earth as an absolute 0 reference frame, but there is no such thing (apparently). For example say we to go back to before any of these experiment sstarted and we discovered the twins were born on a different planet which was moving near the speed of light (with respect to earth) and they then jetted off to earth to big the experiments. That seems to turn everything on it's head if you see what I mean?

But given an object has no memory of previous accelerations, then the two twins are briefly together in space they are in the same situation as in the the initial twin paradox proposition where both start on earth, one accelerates way for a period of time and then comes back being much younger. So in one analogous situation a twin jets away at high speed and stays very young but in another he remains at almost the same age.

Swanout is saying C is 12ish yet you are saying B, who spent most of time on earth is younger than him. We will cross that bridge when we get to it, this needs answering first. We have contradictory answers to this one to clear up.

That sounds disconcerting close to "Sorry I don not understand it well enough to provide a coherent answer"? It that a fair synopsis? Either way it's not an answer to the question so not really helpful in answering it.

But surely some thought is required in determining the experiment? Or is no thought required in determining the experiment? Which is the case? Or is it both or neither?

But surely that contradicts swansont's post? Then you must disagree with delta1212? Yes or no? Perhaps you could also have a go at the muon problem where the twins see difference number of muons?

Now supposing twin C synchronises his clock with B before he returns to earth and just before the 50 years is up he takes off again to tell B it is now time to come back to earth and they both come back together. Surely C has aged more slowly that B over this period? I mean is that not like the original twin paradox experiment but it is C who seems to remain stationary whilst B disappears off at high speed, thus ageing more slowly?

I found the following on the web, comments welcome!!! http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/about/ The triplets paradox text removed