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 ©2008 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 ©2008 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.