The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox

[Strange]

5 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Therefore, since logic and math are opposites, that’s a very good reason why we should not define logic as a type of math.

Formal logic is a branch of mathematics. We use logic when designing electronic circuits. And then we can use mathematics to prove the properties of those circuits. There is an entire branch of mathematics that deals with first and higher-order logic. This can be used, for example, in automatic theorem provers. 

The rest of your post was equally ignorant and fallacious. You shouldn’t post this sort of drivel in the first place, and certainly not in someone else’s thread. 

Did it deserve down-votes? Probably. 

[TakenItSeriously]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:52 AM, studiot said:

Well I have no idea about the downvotes, but I can spot several inconsistencies in your explanation which stand out.

I do rather tend to read the prospectus rather than rushing to the voting booth.

 

Yes I think there is a lot of truth in that.

 

 

But I don't see how this follows since there is much logic used in the development of any mathematical analysis. (By development I don't mean the initial creation of the mathematical theory, I am referring to it's use in the case concerned.)

I’m not familiar with the example your citing, but logic and math can work hand in hand based on their complimentary property, in that they can cross validate each other.

For example, we think up a new method for solving two unknowns using two equations,  which by virtue of its origionality and its informal application is still logic..

next we formalize it applying logical properties and make it deterministic, so now its math based on logical premise,

Now if we find an intuitive paradox. we can check its validity using deterministic math to prove or disprove the paradox by finding consistently correct results

Since by definition, they are complimentary, they always must approach a problem from different vectors that make their cross validation possible.

does any of the above explain your example?

 

 

 

 

On 2/2/2018 at 8:35 AM, Strange said:

Formal logic is a branch of mathematics.

 

The formal logic I speak of was based on validity and falicy of a spoken language which in turn was the basis of greek philosophy.

Edited February 3, 2018 by TakenItSeriously

[YuanShenhao]

 

 

[Janus]

On 2/2/2018 at 2:53 AM, TakenItSeriously said:

The Definitive Solution:

To find the solution using logic, we must find the assymetry to the problem keeping in mind that the solution wont be intuitive because its still in the relativistic domain. So if time is symmetrical, and velocity is invariant, then that leaves only distance.

 

Now, if we look at the two inertial reference frames:

in the traveling twins inertial reference frame we only have the ship

In the Earth twins inertial reference frame, we have the Earth, the destination system, and the distance inbetween.

 

Therein lies the assymetry! The Earth twin only sees the ship contract, the traveling twin sees the distance to the destination contract. Note that its only the dimension in front of the moving object that gets length contracted in the effectively static frame.

 

So, because the traveling twin is only traveling 60% of the distance, the trip only takes 60% of the time.

 

It seems amaazingly trivial in hind site right? 

 

 

 

Yes trivial. But that's because you stopped with the analysis only partly done and before you got to the tricky part, which is explaining why our traveling twin agrees that the Earth twin aged 66.66...% more that he did during the total trip.  You can't separate the fact that if he measures the distance traveled as only being 60% of that measured by the Earth twin, then by his measure, the Earth twin is only aging 60% as fast as he is during the trips out and back.  It is reconciling this with the fact that he returns to find his brother older than he is that is the "meat" of the Paradox. Just sweeping this under the rug deprives one of getting to the heart of Relativity, which gets down to our very understanding of time and space. 

[TakenItSeriously]

12 hours ago, Janus said:

Yes trivial. But that's because you stopped with the analysis only partly done and before you got to the tricky part, which is explaining why our traveling twin agrees that the Earth twin aged 66.66...% more that he did during the total trip.  You can't separate the fact that if he measures the distance traveled as only being 60% of that measured by the Earth twin, then by his measure, the Earth twin is only aging 60% as fast as he is during the trips out and back.  It is reconciling this with the fact that he returns to find his brother older than he is that is the "meat" of the Paradox. Just sweeping this under the rug deprives one of getting to the heart of Relativity, which gets down to our very understanding of time and space. 

OK, fair enough. I actually have proven how to explain the time paradox portion. In fact it’s another case of treating them as complimentary pairs as in: X vs ~X.

I just didnt include it here because I didnt want to create multiple lines of debate. which In my view would be off topic to the op since his topic was based on the consequences of the TP not the solution.

If I can find the time to squeeze it in, I will prepare an argurment and post it in a seperate thread so that this thread is not hijacked. if you dont see it in the next couple days, Ill try and post it after I move but I predict many complications in my near future, that has me feeling uncomfortable about it. Meaning I cant make any promises.