esbo

OK this is question I don't seem to be able to get and answer to. 1. Initially all triplets (A B and C all 5 year olds) are at rest on earth. 2. Triplet C accelerates off to 99% the speed of light and remains at that speed for 50 years (as measured by Triplet A who remain on earth) before returning to earth. 3 Triplet B also accelerates off to the 99% the speed of light but only remains at that speed for 10 seconds (as measured by twin A who remain on earth) before returning to earth. 4. Triplet A remains on earth. Now can we have the ages of the triplets, you can give numerical ages if you like. Best of luck!!! First correct answer wins a Nocigar prize for physics!! Hopefully I have phrased the question to exclude "cop-out" answers which fail to answer the question but I am aware there are plenty of "cop-out" answer specialists in relativity!! I woudl say triplet A is almost certainly 55, twin B must be nearly 55 (within a day) and twin C is still close to age 5 (less than 7 years old). Just improve the question assume that triplet B and C set off together but that triplet B decides such high speeds are too dangerous and returns to earth after travelling with C for just 10 seconds (as measured by A). Actually after I posted I google the triplets paradox and found this http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/about/ Not sure it it is relevant as I have not read it ll yet!! I expect it is similar in the answers it seeks.

It is precise enough to answer my question(s) As you see above there is an unanswered question, maybe you can answer that? Use maths if you must but it really should not be necessary,

I know what maths is, it is just a code for expressing ideas which can be expressed in English. Maths is a description of the real world in a coded form, I just want the description not the code thanks. I don;'t want to learn a new language, most of us here speak ENGLISH so no need to put it in code we can cut the middleman out. If you were in china woudl you talk to you English friends in Chinese? I expect you would!!!!!! Strictly speaking the escaping twin would have a gravitation effect on the other twin. IN your example as the rocket moved away it's gravitation pull on you woudl have progressively decreased however you probably would not have noticed.

OK so lets say both twins experience acceleration. So this is what happens. Initial both at rest, twin A is accelerated to 99% the speed of light for 50 years and then returns back to where he started. The same is done to twin B be he only spends 10 seconds at 90% of the speed of light. What are their respective ages (approximately) They have both experienced the same acceleration thus that effect will cancel out. Again you gloss over the tricky bit. You have not given a space time diagram or explained what it is . I don't believe the accelerating twin remain in the same inertial frame in the first place so restating the obvious is not much help. I gave an example where both twin accelerate but remain at a high speed for different lengths of time. Perhaps you could use that example to describe the ageing process of each twin. Now that would be helpful.

That is kind of typical of a lot of answer I see. It says something which may well be true, it might even be untrue, but as it does not actually answer the question it is neither here not there really. Do you seriously believe you answer the question? Precisely what effect does breaking the symmetry have? Unfortunately is seems just like so many answers I have seen, ie it does not really answer anything in a meaningful way, but thanks for trying. Sorry if that sounds slightly rude, but I am just being honest.

Hi all!! Glad I found this thread because I was going to start a thread on this subject, however I see there is already one going on so I will use this one!! Forgive me for not reading all 18 pages now I do not have time but I will read them later. I will just throw my tuppence ha'penny worth in though!! 1. Firstly the basic proposition goes one twin (B) remains young because he is travelling very fast and the other (A) is at rest (on earth or whatever). 2. Then someone says "but from the perspective of the the fast twin (B) the twin (A) back on earth is moving fast so twin (A) should be younger. 3. So the problem is that contradiction both cannot be the youngest 4. I have seen acceleration put forward as the explanation (with out and explanation of exactly how that works). Other sources it is not acceleration but hen don't seem to give an explanation of the solution (many just into a pile of dense maths at this point). I don't think we need maths here, we are not looking for a numerical answer rather a logical one. 5. If acceleration is the solution then it seems to me there is a limit to the age difference that can arise because you can only accelerate to the (near) speed of light and back, so that would seem to put a cap on the age difference. 6. Once you get to near the speed of light you can effectively spend millions of years flying about at that speed and that would seem to make any acceleration effects very small indeed effectively zero in comparison. 7.So you seem to have the situation where an age difference of millions of years should be able to arise according to standard theory of fast moving objects. But then that leads to the contradiction mentioned in point 2. So can someone explain this to me, in simple language, I do not believe maths is needed for the explanation and will pretty much regard mathematical answers as a failure to give the required answer. Thanks a bunch, look forward to being educated but kind of doubt I will be. I will now have a wade through the thread to see if I can find anything helpful (I'm not too optimistic given there are so many mathematical posts at this stage!!)

If you don't get the treatment it is very ineffective, in fact you might as well have not had the treatment at all!! Not sure what the grammatical term for this!

In kids choice for careers scientist came 18th well behind vet and astronaut http://shareranks.com/4780,Most-Popular-Careers-Children-Want-when-they-Grow-Up The point about how a tool is used is that it does not matter who well of badly you use the tool is it is used to create inequality. The wealth created by scientific developments tend to remain in the hands of the few not the many. For example in the USA there may be great advances in medicine by a large section of society have no access to it because they cannot afford health care and drugs.

Science i irrelevance, it is the application of science that matters. It is just a tool in that respect, it depends whether the tool is used to provide for you or kill you.

Well yes lots of arguments really. 1. For a start most people are useless at science. 2. Even if you are good at it there are very few job and thee jobs there are are low paid and insecure. 3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists. 4. Science does not benefit most people in fact for many it makes their lives worse, ie it takes away their jobs. 5. Much of 'science' is more political, ie global warming which is made such a fuss of is not a problem at all, it is more a religion than science. i) First point is we will not stop global warming until we have ran out of fossil fuel. ii) The effect of warming are good not bad (or at least not proven to be bad) ie there is more good than bad. iii) The only positive of it is it helps preserve fossil fuel, fossil fuel running out is a real and far far far mroe serious problem. 6, Science is of interest for those who want to know answers though. 7 The bigger problem we face are more social and political 8 What is important to people is getting a job, few employers want scientists. The average IQ of a democracy is 100, ie not very high. The vote of an idiot is worth as much as the vote of genius. Votes are usually cast based not on science but on the propaganda of those who control the media. Few countries are true democracy's anyway, the banks run the world whoever you vote for.

Video proving the Russian Meteor and DA14 are connected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkLEVzDWmlY

Yes me!!! I am uploading a video to youtube to explain it, gonna take another 70 minutes, huge file 1 GB for 3 mins of video lol. Never made a video to upload before so I have a lot to learn there. I believe I have proved it could be linked.. Will post a link when it is ready.

Interesting we get two meteors so close together both rare events. I see the scientists say the events are unrelated, although one Russia one said they could be related. Occums Razor (simplest ttheory) says they are related. The reason the scientist suggested they were unrelated is one hit on the other side from which the bigger one came from. However they didn't pick up the small one untill it was seen visualy and I have some calculation which show it could easliiy have came from the same side and complete a near half orbit before impacting. You certainly could not rule it out anyway, the initilal trajectory matter a bit but we will never really know that as it was not picked up untill late. So seems to me the are part of the same 'event', and it seems to me there could well be more smaller meterors in the 'series' indeed possibly bigger ones further away!!

No lets get the fact straight, My opponents made the claim tha rice yields declined with temperature based upon some rather dubious 'research'. These were based on experiment of rice grown in one field in one location!!! Absolute rubbish!! They noticed a drop in yield as night time temperature rose ( there seem to be some particular mentionof night time temperature for some reason) it's a very complex article making it hard to read and easy for them to hide the truth. For example easy to miss where they say. So the decline could have been due to typhoons or indeed any number of other varibles, ie bad farming failing to rotate crops, disease pests and ll sorts of other things, (including down right cheating). And of course a different strain of rice igh have grown better and had the grown the rice in a cooler place the temperature increase might have shown an increase in rice yields. Indeed there are a lot of place where the increase in temp would have made it posible to grow rice where it was previously to cold to grow rice. Hence the whole experiment is in layman's terms "total bollocks". One wonder why they were even allowed to was money on such a uselee experiment. Surely anyone with half a brain (and I expect you have at least half a brain) could have see the experimet was a waste of time. I mean did they try growing rich in areas nearer to the artic, if they had they would have seen an increase in yields, expecially where the ground changed form frozen solid to a temperature above zero where things can grow. THe whole thing is laughable, there is no exidence of anything in the experiment save that those running the experiment were either retarded or deliberatelyl seting out to decieve. Perhaps they should hve tried growing palm oil instead Not much evidence of a decline there!!! Yes you can find all sort fo graphs Lots of graphs, but what to they show? THe show global warming is not a problem, we are producing food at an every increasing rate hence there is no problem for mankind from global warming. It is not wonder we have a problem with obesity. Perhaps is warming reduced the food supply we would have a healthier population? So as you can see all the evidence for the 'problem' of GW is bullshit, it is not a problem. Indeed all our fossil fuels come from times when it was much warmer. I do not even know why I am wasting my time proving the blatently obvious.

Well as there is no evidence for them I expect the global warming alarmists do.

But that is not good enough, the global warming alarmists have to show global warming is doing some kind of real measureable damage that matters, problem is for them is they can't because food yields of all kinds have increased during the warmingperiod. They have more than trebled depite the 'harmful effects' of global warming. That is why they have to cherry pick statistics and leave out the vast majority of the statistical information. That is why the are always banging on about the north pole which is melting a little but never mention the increase in ice around the south pole. That is also why they never mention the great benefit of frozen land ie that tyou can live there and grow food there, No they never mention that. I wonder why??? But your links do not support your claim, one of your links mentions rice yields declinging as the temerpateure rises howver the actually evidence shows rice yields have sky rocketed. That is the problem iwth your links, they are wrong because they are based on false and biased analysis so why should I waste time unraveling the twisted lies when I have already exposed one massive lie? And of couse the opposite of what you claim is true, it is he global warming alarmist who chery pick days and study the melting north pole pole and ignore the freezing south pole. The same people who concentrate on the decline of the polar bear but ignore the *massive* increase in the fih population and the increase in the number of brown bears who do not like ice. It's all bullshit, selective manipulation of the truth to present a lie as the truth.

Light does not have mass but it's energy can be converted to mass.

Science education is not very important for most people.

No your results are highly relevant you have proven that you have failed to produce a fur subsitute, so worthwhile research, you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you failed in your objective.

Unfortunately the links you provide are inadaquate to prove your point. For example one point to some over deatailed and confusing waffle about reduced rice yields Howver the actually evidence show rice production increases with temperature. Which is why they try and replace the real evidence with over complicated waffle and misleading statement and down right lies. If what they were climing were true this graph would be goig from top left to bottom right, however unfortunately for the global warming decievers and liars it is going fromo botttom left to top right, destroying their false claims totally. Soperhaps one of the global warming scare mongers can tell me why this graph is going in the wrong direction?

I am a it's not an issueist so to speak. The main points are. 1. We will not avoid burning all the fossil fuel anyway merely delay it. 2. There is no evidence warming is bad overall infact all I can see are positive aspects. So CO2 is a none issue, you wll be <insert expletive here>ing glad of the warmth the CO2 provides when all the fossil fuel runs out!!

He says we don't know which God butt hat does not matter, there is only one God the God of the Jews the Christians the Muslims etc,, That is basically your one God. The bottom line is basically the same in all religions. 99% or religions have Christian values. And even if you had to pick the right one, you can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket. With out a ticket you are doomed to hell!! The is just one of those know it al who knows sod all.

depends how much work you use and energy you put in.

Yes it is like that. He says he will discuss anything and then he says he won't, he is frigging joke.

what a load of rubbish the man is an idiot, he says he will "have any conversation" - except for the key one, the one he has no answer to. It like me saying I will meet you anywhere for a fight, any you say OK next Thursday at McDonalds, and I go "Oh sorry I can't make that, I have a squash court booked!!!". The man is an utter idiot, him and his male 'friend'