🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 12, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

the best one can do is to feel understanding

real understanding is epiphenomenal, not real