Yeah, it was kind of fun.

Actually, you're closer to being right than you ever were before. He saw that SR was incomplete, and so by extending it to cover non-inertial reference frame he did in fact resolve what appeared to be a paradox in SR. Can we leave it at that, or do we need 50 or so more pages? :wink:

That's not the right word to use.

WRONG! Very wrong.

SR doesn't include acceleration or gravitational effects. Neither did the Clock Paradox!

There were other, real influences to cause Einstein to revise and improve his theories of relativity.

We've had this discussion before though, and I disagree with your assessment of the answers that have been given. The "paradoxes" have been explained.

PS: the relevant paradoxes

Sam, that's exactly what SeanF said. That the traditional "paradoxes" appear to be just that. Until you explain them correctly with the appropriate theory. So the Twin Paradox appears to be a paradox, until you examine it and SR theory closely, in which case you can resolve it, and make sense of it. I.e. the twin paradox isn't a paradox, but a solution to a system using SR.

you know, they explained it. And since it appears, at a quick glance, to be a paradox, but isn't, once you get to the nitty gritty, it is only an apparent paradox. Sorta like Zeno's Paradox with the arrow never reaching the target. It's true, except 2 things: Caculus and it's limits, or just hte fact the arrow has a length.

Now, whether they explained it to your personal satisfaction or not, is an entirely different can of worms.

I enjoy Sam5's lack of understanding you guys (refusal, more like it). I don't understand most of the math but...
The first time I saw you on here Sam5 you were disputing a very simple image of how light gets distored around the sun. The effect had been observed and the cause had been attributed the the graivty well of the sun altering the path that light took around it, slightly changing it's apparent position relative to the sun as viewed from earth.
Now, I'm the first to admit I'm lost when it comes to math, but a picture carries several y's over to an ^ factor of 10... vs. any math you can throw at me 8) I understand that gravity distorts spacetime...
But I've enjoyed watching this: ](*,) from both sides, Sam5 and the 'in-crowd'... That statement won't help... oh, well, Submit!

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

And more directly, there were no paradoxes to explain. The whole conversation was somewhat alike to "How do you deal with all the paradoxes in Relativity Theory?" "What paradoxes?" "You know, THE paradoxes." "Can you give examples?" "My book said something about clocks and paradoxes." "Oh. The clocks are pretty crazy. In as few words as I can muster, it works like this." "Ahh, I get it. Crazy!" "Stop trying to rot peoples minds."

One may attach whichever names one wishes to the "quoted" sentences above.

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Geepers, 6 responses to my last post. Let’s see, that a ratio of 6 to 1. Hmm, that means if the ratio holds good throughout all our debates, out of 70 pages of posts, only 10 are mine and 60 are yours. (Somebody check my math.) :wink:

[post recount info added]

If there were no SR “paradoxes” to explain, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of “SR clock paradox resolution” pages in books and on the internet.

For example, there is no clock paradox in GR theory, and thus there are no GR “clock paradox resolution” pages in books or on the internet.

Lucky guy. I think my ratio is like 20 to 1.

I would've said you maybe missed one, but I know you didn't.

"The true foundation of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is the so-called Principle of Equivalence. This principle is incompatible with the idea proposed by Mach and accepted by Einstein as an incitement to his attempt to describe the main situation in the universe as an analogy in 3 dimensions to the closed surface of a sphere" (Oscar Klein).

ie without the Principle of Equivalence the Principle of Relativity is invalid. The Principle of Equivalence as Einstein invisioned it is that there is no difference between the force of gravity and any other inertial force ie acceleration due to gravity should be indistinguishable from acceleration due to a rocket.

And?

As noted by Sherwin, acceleration does not affect the clock rate, whereas gravity does; at least it seems to do so in stars. Though there is still room for doubt whether gravity affects clocks.

Have you done any research on it, Yannox? Maybe you could show us your sources?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Ok, I think I’m beginning to understand what the problem is.

There are certain situations where atomic clocks slow down when they move, such as when they experience acceleration. So, it is possible that when these situations are explained to you, and when someone says “this resolves the clock paradox”, then you think it really does “resolve the clock paradox” of the SR theory.

But it doesn’t. That “acceleration” stuff doesn’t solve anything in SR theory, because there are no “acceleration” effects considered in SR theory.

Of course atomic clocks slow down when they experience acceleration. Nobody disputes that. That concept comes from Lorentz’s electrodynamics theory, and Einstein wrote a paper about it in 1911, it became a big part of GR theory, and it’s been proved many times, but this information is NOT in SR theory.

So, the GR theory does NOT “resolve” the “clock paradox” of the SR theory, since SR theory does not contain any acceleration effects or gravity effects on any of the clocks in the theory.

In the SR theory, there is NO real physical reason for any of the clocks to slow down their tick rates. Not only that, but Einstein says in the theory that just “relative motion” causes clocks to “slow down”, but that turned out to be wrong. Also, he said that both of two “relatively moving” observers would see each other’s clock slow down at exactly the same rate. But, in his first clock thought experiment, in Section 4 of the theory, he says that only one of two relatively moving clocks “lags behind” the other when they both unite after the relative motion. He even called that a “peculiar consequence”, so he noticed something odd about that claim right from the beginning. The two observers in SR theory can’t see each other’s clocks “slow down” the exact same amount, but with only one of the clocks “lagging behind” the other when they unite.

So this is the SR clock paradox: We’ve got two observers and two clocks. The clocks are synchronized and made synchronous while both are stationary. Then the relative motion begins and no acceleration or gravity effects are considered. Both observers see each other’s clock slow down its tick rate exactly the same amount, but when the clocks unite, only one of them “lags behind” the other. So, which one? Nobody knows.

That’s the paradox. They both can’t “really” slow down during the “relative motion”, with only ONE of them “lagging behind” the other when they unite. If they both did really “run slow”, in the same amount, during the relative motion, then they would both have the same reading when they unite, and neither would “lag behind” the other.

But in GR theory, there is no “paradox”. Atomic clocks do slow down when they experience strong gravity or acceleration and they speed up when they experience a little or no gravity or acceleration. So, if strong gravity or acceleration slows down an atomic clock, that clock will “see” other atomic clocks existing under less gravity or acceleration as ticking “fast”, and the fast clocks will “see” the atomic clocks that are in the gravity field or that are accelerating ticking “slow”. Thus, there is no paradox. The slow clocks see the fast clocks ticking fast and the fast clocks see the slow clocks ticking slow. This leads to no paradox in the first place. But the errors of the SR theory do lead to the famous clock paradox.

Some people, trying to protect Einstein’s reputation of infallibility, try to claim that the GR theory “resolves” the SR “clock paradox”, but it does not, because there are real physical forces in the GR theory that can really slow atomic clocks down, while there are NO real physical forces in SR theory and just “relative motion” alone can not slow down any clock. The so-called “kinematic” effects of the SR theory are just invented illusions that can’t slow any clocks down. Real kinematics can produce an illusion like a Doppler effect, but it’s just a visual illusion. The clocks really don’t slow down.

So, apparently what you think is a “resolution” to the clock paradox of the SR theory, is just the presentation to you of a different theory that has no paradox in it in the first place.

That is so backwards I don't know what to say.

The 'peculiar consequence' in the 1905 paper you are so fond of decrying isn't a paradox either. It has been shown to you that consistent results can be achieved to this paradox using only SR.

GR doesn't even come into it at this stage, and there is still no paradox.

There is no "acceleration" in the 1905 paper, but there is "difference in relative motion."

And that's why there's no paradox.

But then, we've been over this before, haven't we?

__________________
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

Your math is fine, but you've made a very bad conclusion from it.

In the first 50 pages of the Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof that it's SR? thread - you posted no less than 517 times. Considering that only 25 posts are displayed per page, you posted enough times to fill 20 pages all on your own. Your ratio is a little worse than 6 to one.

Thank god it's around then!

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

My only response to this is to ask anyone with whom you've discussed relativity to talk about Einstein's contribution to quantum mechanics after the 1920's or so. He was so completely wrong about most everything at that time, though he did provide some good criticisms which forced the QM boys to work a bit harder. No one is saying that he was infallible, only that he was right about relativity.