I believe that Paradox below will show how SR is completely out of touch with "Reality"...but first a little 'short version' of how I came to this...

Starting from the premise that New SMBH's/New Galaxies are being created on a regular and on going basis, where we can 'see'/detect the High Energy Gamma Radiation, (Long GRB's >2 sec's to 500 sec's) and the Xrays from the afterglows, where I am hypothosizing/predicting that the electrons/positrons/protons/neutrons are being newly created as the event horizon is forming, that once cooled enough, will become the Hydrogen/Hemium/Lithium to be seen as HI Dark Galaxy first, and then 'see'/detect "First Star Light" in the core of the new galaxy...
http://kencroswell.com/FirstDarkGalaxy.html
http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

I then have shown that this would mean that the FLRW EFE "Expanding" Naked Singularity is shown to be negated due to Cosmic Censorship, which automatically includes all the proposed Big Bang expanding horizons.

Once determining that the expanding horizons do not exist, I had to determine 'some kind of so called intitial conditions', although "Intitial" is by no means the correct term, as there is NO 'observation' anywhere in cosmology that can put a start date on the Universe...it is scientifically unknowable!!!

Anyway, through a very long process of dealing with the 'singularities', both Big bang Naked singularity, and the singularities in the depths of SMBH's, and determining, that since there are NO non-rotating black holes (Per Tim Thompsons agreement, sigma as close to 100 as possible ), I determined/posited that 'something' MUST be going "Straight Through" the "Torus" "At the Pit of SMBH's" (Lee Smolin), which means that mainstreams concept of "Space-Time" being 'flipped' at the singularity with a - negative sign repelling cannot be 'real', and which therefore means that SR/GR applied to SMBH's has reality problems as well, including "Spherical Event Horizons"!

For many other reasons, such as 'frozen time', and time dilation as well as this totally unrealistic SR paradigm/consequence...
...

And, as I have stated before....the Maths are all "Purr-fect", BUT do NOT depict "Reality".

To the Ultimate Twin Paradox

Take 10 sets of Twins and place them, evenly spaced, on the Fifty Yard Line of any football field in the world.

One Twin of each set on the ground, the other Twin beside them in a spaceship/rocket.

The first rocket nearest either sideline takes off at .1c, the second at .2c etc until the 10th takes off at .999999999999999999999999c.

There is absolutely, No a priori reason, that the motion of any of those ships taking off Affects/Effects any of the Twins on the fifty yard line!

Every Twin there, 'observes' all the others at rest, and can confirm that there is NO Reason they should ever be considered to be in motion, while the ship would be considered "at rest".

In addition, it is absolutely impossible for the Earth to be considered to be in motion, based on the 10 different rockets ships motions.

Good Luck getting out of this one

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Where is the paradox?

Grant Hutchison

Yeah, this supposed paradox seems very, very much not a paradox. We can arbitrarily consider any number of reference frames moving in arbitrary directions and at arbitrary speeds relative to each other. Ten sets of twins aren't necessary.

Maybe some questions for the OP might help.

3A. What is a paradox?

3B. What sequence goes 0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.999999999999999999999999. in ten steps?

3C. Why is it impossible to consider the Earth to be in motion if we have ten other objects to consider?

3D. Is it impossible to consider the Earth to be in motion if we have to consider the other planets, Pluto, and the Sun?

I am skeptical of your belief, but I'll have a look.

affects

Why not? The twin in the in the rocket traveling at 0.1c can regard himself at rest, the twins on the 50-yard line to be moving in one direction at 0.1c, and the twins in the other rockets to be moving in the opposite direction at varying speeds.

Why not? The first twin can consider the earth to be in motion at 0.1c, the second twin can consider the earth to be in motion at 0.2c, and so on.

There are different satellites moving around the earth at different speeds, and different people on the surface of the earth moving at different speeds in different types of vehicles, and also riding on animals or traveling on foot. Are we to conclude that because these satellites and these people are traveling (relative to the earth) at different speeds, the earth must be stationary, and not in motion around the sun?

I must agree with grant hutchinson.

I don't see what there is to be gotten out of.

Edited to add - I agree with Kwalish Kid also, whose post was not there when I began writing mine

Perhaps you could explain exactly what about this scenario is supposed to invalidate special relativity?

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Heh heh, how about this one:

RussT, suppose that, in addition to the ten sets of twins on earth, there are ten other sets of twins performing the same exercise on a football pitch on Mars? Does it follow that both the Earth and Mars must be stationary? Can you explain how this is possible? (I would use SR, but even applying the principle of relativity in a Newtonian universe would resolve the paradox introduced by your way of thinking.)

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

Well, it's not up to me, but I would like RussT to address the question in my second post, and show how it is SR and not his own way of thinking that creates paradoxes.

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

Wow! What a word salad!
Q1: What does it have to do with the twin paradox?


Q2: If the first twin takes off at .1c, the second at .2c what would be the speed of the 10-th twin?


Q3: Who says it does?
Q4: Do you understand the twin paradoxx?


Q5: Why not?
Q6: What does your statement have to do with the twin paradox?
Q7: You realize that you are denying Galilean relativity, nothing to do with SR?


Q8: Why not?
Q9: What does this have to do with the twin paradox?

Please answer Q1-9

Of course the Earth is stationary - but not always.

Sometimes the turtles holding it up move around a bit.

__________________

:-)

Elephants you mean.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If that's a new ATM idea shouldn't you start a new thread ....

Judging from the many rocket launches I've seen, this is not true. You'll likely end up with 19 dead and 9 destroyed rockets soon after the first launch.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Speaking of elephants, if I ever see an inebriated elephant fly up into a tree while dreaming about spooky pink elephants, I just might try to figure out what the OP is all about.

P.S. Walt Disney's documentation does not count.

Apart from the spurious and completely unnecessary distraction, I'll start by pointing out that you forgot to say which observing frame you have the twins starting at the same time, 'cause with 11 inertial frames, you have 11 different observations about which order and when which of the moving twins took off, ditto about when who turns around.
You'll also have 11 different observed values for the distance between the equal-velocity twins.

You're making the classical ATM mistake of believing there's a universal Now agreeable on by everyone regardless of movement.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Where is the problem? Of course,the motion of the ships don't affect the inertial time frame of the twins at rest. Every twin at rest will see the other twins on earth, and thereby in the same inertial time frame, as also being at rest in respect to him/her.

The rocket ships moving in respect to earth have no infuence on the inertial time frame of the earth. Since there is no absolute inertial time frame and everything is relative, the earth will be considered to be in motion, only respect to a different inertial time frame.

Where is the paradox?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Stands, walks to door, opens door, steps through door, closes door.

There, I just got out of that one.

Next?

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

RussT, what is the "paradox" that we are supposed to get out of?

The paradox that he still doesn't understand the twin paradox?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

That he still doesn't understand SR?

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Aside from the probability (pretty high) that if a spaceship took off at even 0.1c, one twin is going to be pretty darn flat.

This is a cousin to those incredibly complicated perpetual motion machines. There really isn't any point deconstructing them because the premise is impossible.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Do as I try to do when looking at these type of problems, eliminate the complicating bit about acceleration and say they're actually moving with constant velocity but have coordinated their activity so they're all at the right spot at the right time to set up the starting condition.

In this case the problem becomes obvious, since the twins moving at different velocities have different ideas about when the t=0 where they're supposed to pass the "stationary" twin is.

It isn't the instantaneous acceleration that's the problem but rather the concept of starting them all at the same time.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Apologies, I was being a bit facetious about the acceleration, but then the George Carlinesque challenge was slightly annoying ("Ha! We got him THIS time, guys!").

My SR is dimmed by my distance from college, but conceptually I viewed the problem using two sets of twins. We could also use one set of quadruplets, I suppose. There are three local frames of reference: the two twins on the ground and each twin in a spaceship moving at a different velocity. All three reference frames are equally valid.

If an astronaut on the way to the moon looks out the window, he will see the earth 'receding' from him. If two sets of astronauts headed for the moon at the same time at different velocities they would see the earth receding at different rates. People on the ground would see two spaceships receding at different rates.

Am I missing something? Sometimes I can be pretty slow.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

First off, it is highly unlikely that VirgoHI 21 is a dark galaxy. It is easily explained as being tidal debris stripped from NGC 4254 due to an interaction (e.g. in Duc et al. 2008) or due to the combination of an interaction and ram pressure stripping (e.g. Vollmer et al. 2005). In fact, observations show that VirgoHI 21 is joined to NGC 4254 by a bridge of HI emission.

Second, what are your predictions for the stellar populations in NGC 2915? How do these compare with observations presented in the literature? On what timescales would you expect this large mass of pristine hydrogen to be created by a SMBH?

I feel I can almost predict which "quotes" will appear next... Something to do with local neighborhood.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Is this so-called "paradox" meant to be a parody of the posts of a certain unnamed poster and his/her interminable paradox threads? Inquiring minds want to know!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

RussT are you going to do any maths with this scenario or is this going to be like all your other scenarios where you have a gut feel about the answer and you don't feel any need to do the maths?

Matt, you're responding to the blab put in to push his other, already failed, ATMs rather than to the question he claims to be the one for this ATM.

Please don't fall for this trap.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Precisely. So let me clear this part up.

I obviously should have included that ALL rockets take off simultaneously.

And, I really don't care how you wish to visualize getting to 'speed', whether it be instananeous or acceleration.

The whole issue I am focused on here is "Spookie Action at a distance".

The 'assumption' that either Twin can 'know' the speed of the other and therefore automatically be considered to be 'matching' that same speed when the other is supposedly "At Rest" IS the Paradox.

When all those rockets take off simultaneously, which speed is supposed to be matched by the grounded twins? They can't match all of those speeds simultaneously as individual 'observers'.

Now, if you want to try to say that the "earth" is moving/'matching' those speeds, that is another story and we will deal with that seperately.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Actually, that's okay....I am going to split that out into it's own thread.

And, since I am following mainstream in agreeing that SMBH's are at the center/core of galaxies, and mainstream has NO established consensus on "When" those SMBH's become part of a galaxies life, and in fact have many 'wild speculations' on exactly that topic, my hypothesis/theory is no less failed than any other!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!