I notice that you posted the same response to both items, but it doesn't really seem appropriate to either.

In the first response, it is yourself that is misinterpreting the Einstein paper, not Einstein. He got that part right--but you keep insisting on a misinterpretation of the theory in order to insist that it's wrong. That's your fault, no one else's.

In the second response, I'm baffled. You brought up the pyramids--and we were discussing general relativity effects. I'm not sure what that stuff about special relativity has to do with it.

Since your post of 18 Jun 2004 00:18 you mentioned Einstein's "Section 4" but I don't know what's your beef because 12 pages is a lot of chatter indeed. I understand Relativity, circular paths or straight, and I disagree that there is any *unresolved* paradox. But circular path scenarios must be resolved with GR, there's no choice. Try me.

Personally I don't know why you have to constantly quote hundred-year old Einstein texts, since Relativity is finely polished NOW and hangs tough, and Einstein isn't the end-all be-all authority to cite.

Here's a good blurb I put together: bingo

Nice website kjavds. Although somehow I think it will be futile in some aspects. :roll: But I still like it! =D>

I think that's Sam5's contention. But that's not strictly true.

A circular path scenario was even expressed in Einstein's original 1905 paper, and he worked it out neatly.
Sam5 has made some assertions about errors in early Einstein papers, and some of us are disputing those assertions.

Sorry. I had a guy talking to me while I was tring to post, and I did not format correctly. I’m busy now. I’ll get back to you later. In order for me to answer the questions of four or five guys, I’ll need a little time to consider their questions.

We keep telling him that, but he just won't accept it.

Not "must". It's easier with GR, but you can do it with SR. Einstein did it with SR in Section 4 of the 1905 paper, in fact.

Your only response to my question has been, "You answer your own question, Sean!" so I hope you're not including me in the "four or five guys."

Maybe I'm the fifth guy.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I think maybe you aren't seeing the point I'm trying to make. At this point I'm only trying to show that the finite speed of light has implications on measurements. I haven't added motion to the mix.

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Take your time.

I'm going to go over and look at the spires, I thought I saw some hobbits earlier.

You claim these are "little jokes" and yet you post them anyway, as if they are serious comments. It's irrelevant to the discussion. It's unfathomable to me that a reasonable person can look at an ASCII text "diagram" and treat it like a detailed drawing - I only drew it because you were talking about perspective and optical illusions, and wanted to make it clear that the cameras were on the finish line.

But you interpreted it differently, despite the supporting text that made the situation clear. And you spend an inordinate amount of time on irrelevent minutia instead of the concepts. Why am I not surprised at this?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Why don’t you explain to us why and how the top of the space shuttle will separate from the bottom when the rocket is pushing up from the bottom? I would like to hear about how that happens.

Also, explain why you said Bob wasn’t “moving” on your website, when you knew that he was?

I’ll answer your questions later when I have time.

He didn't say that. Go back and read it again. He said if there were different engines providing the same acceleration at the front and the back, it would separate.

In fact, he specifically said, "Well, if you're going to push from behind, it's going to be hard to separate, I agree."

And again, you're not helping yourself when you do this. Why would anyone accept that you're not misunderstanding the 1905 paper when you continuously misunderstand simple stuff like this?

The whole point of General Relativity is that any reference frame can be considered to be motionless. When Bob is considered motionless, he's not moving. That's not too tough, is it?

Here's a suggestion. Stop wasting your precious time coming here and asking more questions and instead work on those answers.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I already said that wouldn't happen.
We've already discussed this, too. (We both need that Evelyn Woods course)

That's just relativity. Different reference frames are allowed. In one reference frame, he moves. In another, he doesn't.

This is really basic stuff...it goes way back, before Newton. He called it Galilean relativity.
I have another one for you. I looked back through the thread for the previous discussion, and I found this post of yours where you quote part of a post by SeanF, and then chastise him for trying to ignore part of a paper. I missed this the first time--but your quote leaves off a bunch of the context, and changes the meaning of what he said. Reading his post, it doesn't have anything to do with ignoring parts of that paper. Do you think that's fair?

Well, look, I assume Bob is “not moving” relative to his clothes, but you have him moving relative to “at home”, so he will experience some acceleration, so you can force his atomic clock to tick slower than Ann’s, so don’t you think you should tell your readers that he really is “moving” relative to "at home", rather than “not moving”?

Eh?

Let's see, here's the page...

In the middle of the second paragraph, it says "Ann stays at home and Bob rockets away at 3/5 light speed."

In the first sentence of the third paragraph, it says "What if we make the step to general relativity, and insist on analyzing the situation as if Bob did not move at all?"

What are you missing?

In your "example" (ie. your SR resolution at http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm) you ("you".. that's your site, right?) state, "Bob zooms off after Ann at 15/17 light speed (now we know why it was important), and of course catches up. It takes him 4 years, and he has seen 8 years since Ann left. Ann has aged 10 years. Same result. No paradox."

You fail to even address how Ann ended up aging ten years! yeah, we NEED that info or we don't believe your conclusion: "No paradox".

You also claim on your main (twin2.htm) page that Bob ages less due to Time Dilation. I balk at that. My SR-only resolution found at http://ezrelativity.com, Addendum IV, correctly attributes the aging difference to relativistic Time Dissynchronicity BECAUSE dilation effects are still covariant -- so THEY cannot play that role.

No, I said that the professor’s emphasis on the math and not on the conceptual aspects of his thought experiment is what led to his mistake about the A clock “ticking faster”. He neglected the Doppler effects of the light signal and he made some other conceptual mistakes. He relied on the math and the light signals, and that led him astray. If he had used the more direct method of the dropping marbles, he would have realized his error. I’ve always said that if the conceptual stuff is not correct and not understood, the math, perfect though it might be, is useless, such as in Section 4 of the SR theory.

Regarding the “closed curve”, you seem to think that Einstein was thinking that the clock slowed down during the closed curve. I’ve read in several books that acceleration does not affect balance clocks in that way, like it affects atomic clocks, and, anyway, Einstein wasn’t read yet for acceleration considerations in 1905.

“So far we have applied the principle of relativity, i.e., the assumption that the physical laws are independent of the state of motion of the reference system, only to nonaccelerated reference systems. Is it conceivable that the principle of relativity also applies to systems that are accelerated relative to each other?” A. Einstein, 1905 (“Collected Papers, Vol. 4, page 301)

I think it would help if your understanding of this difficult subject if you would buy a few more pertinent books.

In that paragraph you are re-capping your “special” relativity page. Then in the next paragraph you go on to the GR theory. Then you say Bob doesn’t move and isn’t resting in a gravity field, but he experiences acceleration. This can be confusing to students who don’t know you and aren’t familiar with your verbose rhetorical prolixity and textual machinations.

I think it might be best if you bought a few pertinent books on math before you start slinging such barbs.

I’ve been answering your questions since last November. What do you want to know now? There are several people ahead of you.

Let me ask you this. If we have a track 20 yards wide (meters or whatever), and we’ve got about 15 horses, where do we set up what kind of camera(s) to get the most accurate finish-line photos for nano-second accuracy?

I think we’ll have to go to a series of maybe 30-50 digital cameras stretched across the track directly over the finish line, looking down, with white reflective tape on the ground representing the finish line. We run the cameras all by a single master clock and each is set to go off as soon as it sees a nose cross the finish line. We time-stamp the images and run them through a computer, which will assemble them in descending order, showing the first horse at the top of the screen and the last horse at the bottom. Instead of relying on our visual judgement, we use the nano-second time stamp to determine the winner. Any suggestions?

Well, a couple of guys and I have been chatting about horse races and how best to arrange cameras to most accurately capture pictures of the true finish.

It is the first Section 4 thought experiment that led to the modern so-called “twins paradox”. But the way the paradox is most commonly pretended to be “solved” today is by adding “the earth”, and two living people. One of them “blasts off” into space, and the acceleration slows down his atomic clock. This, of course, does not resolve the first Section 4 paradox of the 1905 SR theory.

I didn't write the theory, he did.

He is the one who first had the K and K’ systems overlap before the motion began, not me. He “imparted” a “velocity” to K’ but he didn’t say how. No acceleration was involved. This is a hypothetical theory. He just went from 0 v to some v, just like that. No acceleration, no rockets, no traction. The “imparting” of the motion did not use any “force” or “acceleration”. I’ve alaready said there are errors in the theory, but they are his errors, not mine.

Section 3:
”Now to the origin of one of the two systems (K’) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant measuring-rod, and the clocks.”

That is a gross mischaracterisation. The words that milli360 and Einstein use may be different, their labels against the different entities may not be the same, but the math used is the same, and the results match up.
I don't expect you to understand that.

All space bodies in the universe are moving relative to the earth. Under SR theory, that means, since we are here at the earth where clocks tick "normally" and all clocks that are moving relative to the earth tick slower than normal, the earth has the fastest clocks in the universe. Do you believe that all other clocks in the universe tick slower than earth clocks?

Case in point. I didn't expect you to understand.

That statement is meaningless. Explain where you think I am wrong. People on this thread have said that M31 clocks runs slower than Milky Way clocks, so if all clocks are moving relative to earth clocks, then according to SR then all clocks in the universe run slower than earth clocks.

10 years and a time dilation of 80% is 8 years. It's all in there.
The page that you call a main page is the general relativity treatment, the other page is the special relativity treatment.
So...Michelson and Morley would probably not be getting all this grief from the geocentrists today if instead of light, they'd just used their marbles?
The conceptual stuff is correct, but you're correct about it being useless if it is not understood.
You can take Einstein's own words for that--he says it was slowed down around the closed curve in that 1905 paper. He's not talking about mechanical considerations, he's talking about time itself.
It's relativity. Anybody who doesn't understand it, can ask.
True. And it's sort of a coincidence. When I struggled to write that first page, it was for myself, and only after I had looked at all sorts of references, did I choose that way of describing it--because it seemed the most intuitive to me. It may even have been ol' Sam5 who had found a copy of the 1905 paper on the web, when I first noticed that that method matched the one in the paper. I hadn't realized that Einstein had addressed the issue that early.

You're missing an important caveat. Or is is more misunderstanding?

What if you lost your marbles in a game as a child. Where does that leave one?

Well, sort of, but you're not using the term simultaneity in the same way relativity defines it. SR defines it so that the two events are separated by a purely space-like interval, i.e a frame-dependant definition; your definition seems to be more like "another event exists so so that the two events are on the 'surface' of its backward light-cone", which is a frame-independant definition. (sorry for the fancy terminology)

I'm butting out now; until Sam5 stops using the debate tactics of a 5-year-old, exchanging further words with him seems a futile exercise.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

No, there's not ONE thing there to justify Ann having aged ten years from Bob's viewpoint -- Bob being first stock still in space for 4 of his years and then speeding off to chase Ann, according to your verbiage.

No sir -- it is definitely NOT "all in there". It's a shambles and elucidates nothing because there aren't strictly TWO viewpoints compared in your tale -- one where Ann is unmoving versus one where Bob is unmoving. You've got it all "mixed and matched" with no clear derivation of the results. You don't explain for one second how Ann aged 10 years from Bob's viewpoint stock still in space.

If you want elucidation, it's not to be found at milli360's site but at my own www.ezrelativity.com where Addendum IV righteously and meticulously resolves the paradox. 'No offense.