🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 12, 7:27 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
> Introduction to Classical Mechanics
> David Morin
> Cambridge University Press
> Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies
> quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when
> they meet up again. Solution: From A's point of view, B's clock is
> running slow by a factor gamma, on both the outward and return parts
> of the trip. Therefore, B is younger than A when they meet up again.
> This is the answer, and that's that. So if getting the right answer is
> all we care about, then we can pack up and go home. But our reasoning
> leaves one large point unaddressed. The "paradox" part of this
> example's title comes from the following alternate reasoning. Someone
> might say that in B's frame, A's clock is running slow by a factor
> gamma, and so A is younger than B when they meet up again. It's
> definitely true that when the two twins are standing next to each
> other (that is, when they are in the same frame), we can't have both B
> younger than A, and A younger than B. So what is wrong with the
> reasoning at the end of the previous paragraph? The error lies in the
> fact that there is no "one frame" that B is in. The inertial frame for
> the outward trip is different from the inertial frame for the return
> trip. The derivation of our time-dilation result applies only to one
> inertial frame. Said in a different way, B accelerates when she turns
> around, and our time-dilation result holds only from the point of view
> of an inertial observer. (...) For the entire outward and return parts
> of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough
> strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up
> older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not
> required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2
> shows."
>
> The moment a rational scientist comes to find the following excerpt
> consistent he becomes irrational, that is, he becomes a Believer:
>
> "For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe
> A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the
> turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a
> discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively
> understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."
>
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
> Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
> He explained the photo-electric effect,
> And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
> His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
> He should have been given four!
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
> Professor with brains galore!
> No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
> Egad, could that guy derive!
> He gave us special relativity,
> That's always made him a hero to me!
> Brownian motion, my true devotion,
> He mastered back in aught-five!
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
> Professor in overdrive!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
> We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
> Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
> Einstein's postulates imply
> That planes are shorter when they fly.
> Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
> And look warped from aberration.
> We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
> Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

The difficulty you have is understandable but misguided.
You believe that if you do not understand it, then it must be
irrational.
And therefore if it is deemed irrational by you, then it must be bogus
science.
Because you believe that you should be able to understand anything --
absolutely anything -- that is rational in science.

It does not occur to you that the reason you do not understand it is
that your gray matter has been replaced by solid bone.

PD