| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 Jul 2006 11:50:15 AM |
| Object: |
Where is the flaw? |
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday; to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
"... See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
Thank you,
Craig"
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is the flaw? |
06 Jul 2006 12:30:00 PM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1152204615.149361.285610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday; to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
"... See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
Thank you,
Craig"
There is a big clue in the "I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took
physics in high school, which covered that topic."
What on Earth would make you think this basic understanding allows you to
refute SR.
The internet is not the best place to post PDFs - use HTML or text, it makes
life easier for everyone.
As for your document, it is simply the product of you not actually
understanding what you are talking about. You refute nothing. Ending a
document with "yeah, right" is not a refutation.
If you had spent 15 minutes on Google Groups you would see an almost endless
list of buffoons trying the same argument and being corrected daily. You
have provided nothing special here.
Your whole attempt at a refutation is based on your issues with which clock
should show less than the other. Can I suggest you actually learn the
predictions of SR (and while you are at it, learn about the experimental
validation that has taken place over the last 100 years). I have no
intention of teaching you for free. If you solely require USENET education
then I will ridicule you for free.
The twins paradox is not a "real" paradox but a teaching aid to get a
specific point across. You need to get that idea on board from the very
start.
FOLLOW UPS SET TO SPR WHERE THIS IS MORE APPROPRIATE
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is the flaw? |
06 Jul 2006 11:53:47 AM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message news:1152204615.149361.285610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday; to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
Bad idea.
Followup set to sci.physics.relativity
Dirk Vdm
"... See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
Thank you,
Craig"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is the flaw? |
07 Jul 2006 01:20:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday; to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
"... See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
Thank you,
Craig"
It's easy; all you have to do is assume one of the spaceships is
stationary, work out the time measured by each clock as a function of
the relative velocity of the spaceships and the speed of sound in the
string, and show that the two times are equal, resolving the paradox.
There are some things you could easily miss, such as the length
contraction of the half of the string being dragged by the moving ship,
and the relativistic velocity addition needed to get the speed of the
signal in the moving half of the string, but mostly it's just simple
algebra. I'll show you my solution if you post what you've done so far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is the flaw? |
07 Jul 2006 01:35:28 AM |
|
|
Jim Black wrote:
cafeinst@msn.com wrote:
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday; to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
"... See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
Thank you,
Craig"
It's easy; all you have to do is assume one of the spaceships is
stationary, work out the time measured by each clock as a function of
the relative velocity of the spaceships and the speed of sound in the
string,
and the length of the string,
and show that the two times are equal, resolving the paradox.
There are some things you could easily miss, such as the length
contraction of the half of the string being dragged by the moving ship,
and the relativistic velocity addition needed to get the speed of the
signal in the moving half of the string, but mostly it's just simple
algebra. I'll show you my solution if you post what you've done so far.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Where is the flaw? |
06 Jul 2006 12:09:32 PM |
|
|
In message <1152204615.149361.285610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
cafeinst@msn.com writes
I posted the following to sci.physics.relativity yesterday;
Good.
to get a
better variety of responses, I decided to post here too:
Bad. The whole point of spr is to filter relativity-is-paradoxical
postings out of this group.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
