- Thread starter logicman
- Start date

- Status
- Not open for further replies.

however they have been verified experimentally.

There are

It basically boils down to the realisation that time and space are not what they appear to be at first sight.

In our everyday lives, we are used to considering time and space as completely separate things.

Einstein's proposal is that time and space are completely intertwined,

relative movement in space will inevitably result in relative motion in time.

By accelerating relative to another observer, you are also changing your relative motion through time.

For the twin paradox, the accelerated twin takes a longer journey through space, but a shorter journey through time,

while the stay at home twin takes a shorter journey through space, but a longer journey through time.

If you work out the 4-dimensional mathematics, the total length of their journeys through

It is full of logical holes and simply tries to say that Einstein's Theory must be incorrect because it does not follow everyday experience.

Observer A & B both thinking they are stationary is just ridiculous.

The key word in

However they can each observe the other, and clearly see that

The key feature of all these doubters of Einstein is that they always seem to misunderstand the core concept that there is

The stations are stationary relative to each other. If you don't understand what that means, I'll explain it to you. Imagine two cows on the pasture. If the cows stand in place, then they are stationary relative to each other.

It is full of logical holes and simply tries to say that Einstein's Theory must be incorrect because it does not follow everyday experience.

Observer A & B both thinking they are stationary is just ridiculous.

The key word inrelativitytheory isrelativity.

Relativeto the things moving at the same speed as they are (their "station") they are obviously stationary.

However they can each observe the other, and clearly see thatrelativeto each other they arebothmoving.

The key feature of all these doubters of Einstein is that they always seem to misunderstand the core concept that there isno absolute point of reference.

Allvelocity measurements arealwaysrelative,

At one point it is indicated that neither observer will put the brakes on,

because they both observe themselves to be stationary, with the other one moving,

so it is the responsibility of the other one to slow down.

I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing this discussion.

I think The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close is well worth reading. He explains how all the "weird" things associated with special relativity are due to the wave nature of matter. Then when you understand this, it isn't weird at all.

I, too, caught a similarity between your paradox and the twin paradox. Both explanations boil down to the same difficulty.

It's really nice that so many things in Physics can be explained by diagrams and simple logic. In this instance we can't do it. An expert might be able to prove this to you but unfortunately I'm not one. All I can do is point out where your logic is wrong: You are trying to understand the problem in terms of Euclidean Mathematics. Unfortunately your paradox and the twin paradox share a similar feature which is very hard to picture and understand until you can handle the advanced Math. Both paradoxes expose that SR uses what is called an "indefinite metric." This is the SR version of the "dot product" between two vectors that you may be familiar with. That means when we "square" two vectors in SR the result can actually be a negative number. It sounds ridiculuous but it's true and is the source of much confusion. (This is the meaning behind my previous comment: You can't separate the space and time in space-time.) Like I said, I can't draw the pictures to show you how to do it. My apologies for that. But the experimental successes of SR show that the Math is correct.

-Dan

The paradox was invented recently, and the video has been on YouTube for several days. So what would be on google? The problem with you is that you can't think for yourself. So you were looking for what the better than you think. And when you didn't find anything, you found it sucked.the Kaziuk paradoxand all you see is the same old spam trying to get you to watch some tedious video that claims special relativity is all wrong.

I think The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close is well worth reading. He explains how all the "weird" things associated with special relativity are due to the wave nature of matter. Then when you understand this, it isn't weird at all.

- Status
- Not open for further replies.