“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> When a quantitative prediction of a mathematical model is shown to be incorrect the model is falsified. As an example in the twin paradox the two brothers (only one accelerates) produce identical calculations from the quantitative model. No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. Even theoretically it is certain that at least one of those quantitative predictions will fail miserably upon observation of the facts when the traveler returns. So you will always have at least one miserably failing prediction of the time dilation model. So what needs to be falsified in your view? Or is it just fine in "your science" when quantitative predictions fail miserably? Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

polymath257 wrote: <quoted text> No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. <quoted text> Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model. These calculations have been shown in reality to be as predicted by several different methods also haven't they? I know when we talk of the twin paradox it is just a mind twister into understanding LR and SR , but real figures have been done on smaller scales that match the groundwork done by Lorentz and Einstein , so I don't understand what hb is arguing about. I posted this link hoping he would read it, ill do it again. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gpsrel... Also the Gravity B probe has shown GR to be correct also. So how can hb argue about it when real world tests have confirmed the theories?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. So then, lets look at the good old twins paradox. Can you produce quantitative predictions as calculated by both twins that numerically agree on the aging of both twins? Choose which ever acceleration and velocity for the traveling twin that suits you best. Lets see if you can produce two simple predictions or if you in fact have been uttering nonsense here. polymath257 wrote: Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model. I find your comments very funny. Just put your money where your mouth is and give me two simple quantitative predictions that agree on the aging of the twins.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Earth to Polymath, Earth to Polymath. Come in Polymath.
Can you produce agreeing quantitative predictions as calculated by the two twins?
Or will you admit your defeat and declare the relativistic model FALSE?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden


humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Aura Mytha wrote: luna Here you go: http://www.luna.fi That's somewhat off topic though... Do you have any argument supporting the relativistic model how you could produce two identical ageing predictions as calculated by both twins in the twins paradox? I would very much like to hear an logical argument from you, or from *anyone*. Anyone? Otherwise it's looking very very grim for the relativistic model. Or do you just have blind faith in the relativistic model???

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

Sure. Take twin 1 and twin 2. Suppose that twin 1 stays at home, unaccelerated, while twin 2 moves away at .8*c, goes to a station at a distance of 8 light years, turns around returns at .8*c.
The total trip from the point of view of twin 1 is 10 years out, 10 years back, for a total of 20 years. The time dilation factor for a velocity of .8*c is sqrt(1.8^2)=.6 so twin 1 predicts that the trip out will be 6 years long for twin 2 and the same for the trip back, for a total aging of 12 years for twin 2.
Twin 1 prediction: twin 1 ages 20 years, twin 2 ages 12 years.
The story from the perspective of twin 2 is more complicated because twin 2 changes reference frames at the halfway point. We have to see how those two reference frames relate to each other.
The first part of the trip is easy enough: twin 2 sees twin 1 moving away at .8*c and the station approaching at the same speed. But there is a length contraction factor of .6, so the station initially appears to be only 4.8 light years away, so it takes 4.8/.8 =6 years for the station and twin 2 to meet up. Similarly, twin 2 says the return trip will also take 6 years, for a total of 12 years.
So far we have complete agreement between the two twins. The whole question reduces to how much twin 2 predicts that twin 1 will age during the trip.
For notation, let (x,t) be the spacetime coordinates that ship 1 gives to an event, (x',t') the coordinates that twin 2 gives for the outward journey and (x'',t'') the coordinates for the inward journey. The complications come from the fact that the inward and outward journeys are in different frames. Now, at the beginning of the trip, (x,t)=(0,0)=(x',t') and at the midpoint,(x',t')=(0,6)=(x'',t' '). Also, the relative velocity between the (x',t') frame and the (x'',t'') frame is (.8+.8)/(1+.8^2)=40/41. The dilation factor between these two frames is sqrt(1(40/41)^2)=9/41.
Now, the Lorentz transformation between the first two frames is given by x'=(x.8*t)/.6=5*x/3 4*t/3 t'=(t.8*x)/.6=5*t/34*x/3.
And that between the primed frames is x''=(x'+(40/41)*(t'6))/(9/41) t''=((t'6)+(40/41)*x')/(9/41) I take into account that t'=t''=6 when turning around.
Now, ship 1 has coordinates (0,t) when its clock reads t. This becomes (x',t')=((4/3)*t,(5/3)*t) for the outbound twin.
Now, plug this into the x'' equation and set x''=0 to determine the t value when the two ships meet again. Well, x''=[(4/3)*t +(40/41)*[(5/3)*t6]]*(9/41).
You can check that x''=0 when t=20, so twin 1 is predicted to age 20 years. So, again, we have agreement.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: Earth to Polymath, Earth to Polymath. Come in Polymath. Can you produce agreeing quantitative predictions as calculated by the two twins? Or will you admit your defeat and declare the relativistic model FALSE? You are a troll and a fool when it comes to these matters. Go cry in your milk now.


Since: Apr 11
Location hidden

Aura Mytha wrote: luna 22Oct12..... .....'tic' Ps:...thou arth. Forever and Ever BobLoblah

Since: Apr 11
Location hidden

22Oct12..... .....For the benefit of the General Public on TOPIX Forums, and especially the 'youth' of the WholeWideWorld.....would Skeptic and Dude explain what 'f*ck' means. Ps:.....Dis otta fall in line with the Terms and Conditions you agreed to 'before' you signed on the dotted line of joining onto TOPIX Forums. ....You are both schidtforbrains....and when it comes to 'skeptic'..BobLoblah believes dat there is more brains in a bottle of wadda. Forever and Ever BobLoblah

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Judged:
1
The Cartesian problem is i think central to this forums question. Science being a matter of reason and religion being a matter of faith. And that neither the twain shall meet. But is the answer to the problem that simple. Anyhow can't faith be both applicable to science as it is to religion. Take for example that the world is round and not flat. Surely there is no reasonable and therefore logical way to discern the objective truth from mere sense perception alone. And that scientists would be well advised, to understand that they themselves too take an awful lot on matters of faith. What about Quantum Mechanics. How many of us would except and understand the arguments for Quantum Mechanics without ever testing such a faith logically in the laboratory in the undertaking of Particle physics. Then there's reason or logic being applied to religion, there are numerous examples here i could mention but just to argue that although i can see a Cartesian model making sense in both science and religion there are as i have said contradictory methods of approach (to both science and religion) where the Cartesian method is devoid of practicality.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Judged:
1
None disputes the fact that science is foundered upon a systematic approach of reasonable necessities. Or that somehow in some way faith could be surgically removed from religion in some kind of laboratory experiment. Nevertheless, sometimes the science is a far cry from logic as religion can be from faith. In fact both have trials of necessity that would would confuse if not contradict the practicalities of both logic and faith in science and religion respectively. Moreover, logical science and science based on sound first principles of faith are sometimes not all that different, and are sometimes alike. The fact is where science meets technology scientist probably no the least about the technical side of its operations. Not least of all its practical applications. Faith can penetrate science as a whole remember cosmology and the study of all those blurred images taken in our real time but capturing time and image and happenings of things perhaps a trillion years ago in the past. Science before i can remember began with predicate and antitheses as the first ranked solutions to problems of logic that would necessitate into good and sound science. Long before science was merely built up into a methodology of observational sense perception.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Judged:
1
Yes science was sincere, but it has been a science much neglected. Antitheses is making a comeback through Antimatter, and in area of gravity. In fact the graviton was found recently be CERN no two years ago by the antitheses scientific method. But then faith is a much neglected area of religion. Take conversion who in there right mind in the twenty first century is going to convert from scientist to the religious in one single throw of Einstein's dice. Which will illustrate here just how effective taking a antithetical approach can be. Would you dare give the dice to Einstein and shut God out completely. Or would you allow science a chance to be applied within the confines of you faith.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Real time. If two people were a part any vast distance greater than a planetary distance then real time kicks in. Light travels not to the eye first donkeys like sound travels to the ear dummies, but visa versa. Our eyes and our ears are very powerful objects, too powerful for sound waves or light particles travelling light years away to make any differential impact whatsoever. Eyes do nano. Eyes do neutrinos. If i was to stare at a midday sun, then it would not be the suns heat that would make me look away but the suns energy that would be chemically reacted in my eyes. Neutrinos absolve light particles and turn them into heat radiation. Its not the suns heat that tans my skin. Its its light. The greater the light, greater the chemical reaction in the body by those neutrinos.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Judged:
1
It is then on faith that light takes a year to travel to my eye so that the light is one light year distance away right. wrong. Neutrinos have to traverse the distance between my eye and the source of light. Like a moth to the flame it happens a lightening speed but this speed is then magnified by the strength of the lens. When this occurs the eye starts to see the light. Like a stream of neutrinos between object and eye the eye sees. then a little later on message in the brain look away as light has been streamed back to eye for further chemical reaction. It is only as this point in time that one looks away and breaks the stream. Therefore deadens the chemical reaction in the eye. a

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Sure. Take twin 1 and twin 2. Suppose that twin 1 stays at home, unaccelerated, while twin 2 moves away at .8*c, goes to a station at a distance of 8 light years, turns around returns at .8*c. The total trip from the point of view of twin 1 is 10 years out, 10 years back, for a total of 20 years. The time dilation factor for a velocity of .8*c is sqrt(1.8^2)=.6 so twin 1 predicts that the trip out will be 6 years long for twin 2 and the same for the trip back, for a total aging of 12 years for twin 2. Twin 1 prediction: twin 1 ages 20 years, twin 2 ages 12 years. The story from the perspective of twin 2 is more complicated because twin 2 changes reference frames at the halfway point. We have to see how those two reference frames relate to each other. The first part of the trip is easy enough: twin 2 sees twin 1 moving away at .8*c and the station approaching at the same speed. But there is a length contraction factor of .6, so the station initially appears to be only 4.8 light years away, so it takes 4.8/.8 =6 years for the station and twin 2 to meet up. Similarly, twin 2 says the return trip will also take 6 years, for a total of 12 years. So far we have complete agreement between the two twins. The whole question reduces to how much twin 2 predicts that twin 1 will age during the trip. For notation, let (x,t) be the spacetime coordinates that ship 1 gives to an event, (x',t') the coordinates that twin 2 gives for the outward journey and (x'',t'') the coordinates for the inward journey. The complications come from the fact that the inward and outward journeys are in different frames. Now, at the beginning of the trip, (x,t)=(0,0)=(x',t') and at the midpoint,(x',t')=(0,6)=(x'',t' '). Also, the relative velocity between the (x',t') frame and the (x'',t'') frame is (.8+.8)/(1+.8^2)=40/41. The dilation factor between these two frames is sqrt(1(40/41)^2)=9/41. Now, the Lorentz transformation between the first two frames is given by x'=(x.8*t)/.6=5*x/3 4*t/3 t'=(t.8*x)/.6=5*t/34*x/3. And that between the primed frames is x''=(x'+(40/41)*(t'6))/(9/41) t''=((t'6)+(40/41)*x')/(9/41) I take into account that t'=t''=6 when turning around. Now, ship 1 has coordinates (0,t) when its clock reads t. This becomes (x',t')=((4/3)*t,(5/3)*t) for the outbound twin. Now, plug this into the x'' equation and set x''=0 to determine the t value when the two ships meet again. Well, x''=[(4/3)*t +(40/41)*[(5/3)*t6]]*(9/41). You can check that x''=0 when t=20, so twin 1 is predicted to age 20 years. So, again, we have agreement. Here comes the fun part: Do you notice how you used absolute time there in your calculations? Let me put it this way: Twins 1 and 2 are in the same rest frame. Do you think that acceleration away from that rest frame *always* means that observed proper time will begin ticking slower for that who accelerates??? What if I claim that within the relativistic model sometimes the traveling twin must age more? Would you agree? Or do you insist that the traveling twin must always age less? Do you still have an answer?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: You are a troll and a fool when it comes to these matters. Go cry in your milk now. Listen mitch... I will teach you something now if you manage not to cling to your religion but let logical reason guide you.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Here comes the fun part: Do you notice how you used absolute time there in your calculations? No. In fact, it is quite clear that each part of the trip experiences time differently. I gave you what you claimed could not be given: a description from both twin's point of view that predicts the aging of both twins. Furthermore, the predictions of the two twins agree. Let me put it this way: Twins 1 and 2 are in the same rest frame. Do you think that acceleration away from that rest frame *always* means that observed proper time will begin ticking slower for that who accelerates??? If one twin accelerates and the other twin does not, then when they meet up again, the accelerated twin has aged less. What if I claim that within the relativistic model sometimes the traveling twin must age more? Would you agree? Or do you insist that the traveling twin must always age less? Do you still have an answer? Do the calculations. The Lorentz transformations are fundamental and show how both length contraction and time dilation come about. But they also take care of the situations that are not located at the same place or at the same time in some frame.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Listen mitch... I will teach you something now if you manage not to cling to your religion but let logical reason guide you. You don't know enough to teach a monkey how to eat a banana. In particular, you have shown, repeatedly, that you misunderstand the terminology of special relativity, don't understand how to use it to make predictions, and are generally incompetent in the basics of the subject, let alone any subtleties.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: If one twin accelerates and the other twin does not, then when they meet up again, the accelerated twin has aged less.
Do the calculations. The Lorentz transformations are fundamental and show how both length contraction and time dilation come about. But they also take care of the situations that are not located at the same place or at the same time in some frame. I find it funny when you revert to religious ambiguity and are too afraid to give a clear and direct answer. Your claim is that the accelerating twin will always begin to experience a slower rate of time relative to the stayathome brother. Now, is it possible that in some situation the accelerating twin's proper time will in fact start ticking faster relative to the stayathome brother ? Yes or no?(premise: no other large sources of gravity except Earth) Simple question and you're not able to give a direct simple answer?

