Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Twin paradox?

You mean modern, as one that is different from the real science, like modernism from real art?

Sure I did not.

e s

"Modern Physics" is not related to "modernism."

"Modern physics" is the course in which most students get introduced to relativity and quantum mechanics - subjects of which you continually and vociferously prove your abject ignorance.

This is distinct from "college physics" in which students learn the basics of statics, dynamics, thermo, electricity, waves, optics, etc - basically just short of relativity and QM.

I'm guessing that if you have any academic credentials at all that they're in sociology or art history.

I question your judgment about those.

Let us assume that the traveller sends light impulse, with each his heartbeat.

The observer counts the impulses that come around. In his coordinate system, the pause between impulses will be (1 + v/c), as long as traveller moves away. Even when traveller stops and turns around, the observer still will continue getting impulses with that frequency, since there is a lot of them already send by traveller, but not arrived yet to the observer.
Observer will receive all impulses of the above frequency, and then the (1-v/c) paused impulses begin to arrive, and totality of them will be received at the moment of traveller arrival.
From the observer point of view traveller's heartbeat was 1 second all the way, and the traveller was moving all he time.

In the traveller coordinates nothing really changes, since his heartbeat time appears to be shorter, but his messages still arrive to the observer, and their count is the same.


e s

In fact, there is no such illusion either, it is a calculation error illusion

ES

No it is not. It has been demonstrated experimentally by the decay time of a muon created by cosmic rays. Within its own framework travelling with the muon, the decay time is the same as when one observes it witin a laboratory; but because the muon generated by cosmic rays travel at a fast speed relative to earth, the time observed by us for the moving muon to decay is much longer than in the laboratory. You cannot argue against experiment.

Johnny Boy wrote:
"You cannot argue against experiment."

But they will. It is truly amazing to watch.

You assume that if a theory prediction agrees with experiment, the theory is correct.

Quite a naivette assumption.

ES

extrasense wrote:
"You assume that if a theory prediction agrees with experiment, the theory is correct."

No No No No No No and No!

We assume that results are results are results. The point of a theory is to create an analogy that helps us understand the result of the experiment.

Didn't they learn you nothin' in skool?

Here is my paper on "Twin paradox", which shows that in Special Relativity there is none.
The General Relativily consideraions are other matter.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mycommon/Twin-paradox-non.pdf

ES

extrasense wrote:
"Here is my paper on...."

Been there ... done that.

If every academic is wrong and your work proves this ... get it published in a peer reviewed journal. No one is going to take a .pdf at SAGG seriously: Count me among the many.

You know full well, that "peer reviewed journals" are run by pseudoscience mafia.

I am trying to publish this article, but:

the editors afraid, as it is touchy issue;
the reviewers are afraid to endorse anything controversial;

The "electrodynamics of moving bodies" would not be published nowadays.
The science is on the death bed.

ES