[geocentrism] Re: Fwd: Relativity
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:15:02 +0100
Whether you believe relativity or not is beside the point. The theory
is internally consistent and agrees with observation so their are no
paradoxes.
The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes but are posed as
such, usually these days to test your understanding. The paradoxical
nature is invariably brought about by the tacit (and incorrect)
assumption that an event that is simultaneous in one frame of reference
is simultaneous in another frame of reference.
There are several ways to reolve the twin paradox (all essentially the
same though) but it requires an understanding of the maths if you want
to be absolutely sure there is no paradox. The simple answer is that
one of the twins turns around and thus feels accelaration while the
other doesn't. This is where the symmetry (and supposed paradox) is broken.
Regards,
Mike.
Gary L. Shelton wrote:
> Jack, I believe Dr. Jones was referring to what I have read about called the
> "Twins Paradox". I asked the BA directly about this, and really don't agree
> with the response I received. Anyway, my recap of that problem is that
> relativity supposedly says that there is nothing absolutely still. There is
> only motion relative to other things, the only "stillness" (ie.,constant)
> being the speed of light. That is, if you fall and hit your nose on the
> ground, it should be equally true that the ground came up and hit your nose.
>
> So the famous story about astronaut Peter leaving twin brother Paul on earth
> and flying away at the speed of light says that astronaut Peter returns in
> one year of his time only to find brother Paul aged to 80 years or better.
> This is due to the fact, I understand, that time slows down dramatically
> when going speeds approaching "c".
>
> But wait. If relativity says you have no absolute stillness, and that it is
> equally true that the ground hit my nose, as I hit it, then why isn't Paul
> aging just as slowly relative to astronaut Peter since he is separating from
> Peter at the same rate as Peter is separating from him and relativity says
> both frames are equally valid.
>
> Peter should be both old and young when he returns, and Paul should be both
> old and young when Peter returns.
>
> This is my understanding of the problem in a nutshell, and I believe what
> Dr. Jones was referring to. I'd forward you the BA response if you're
> interested.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary
Other related posts:
