Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
Pete said:
Long rod? Are you forgetting Lorentz contraction of the view of the moving observer.
And yes I am sure, if you reverse the observer at rest and redo you calculation they are equal and offset any net differential. There is no net differential in either time, mass, energy or dimension. This is reciprocity and is mandated by Relativity.
Persol said:
So in your limited intelligence Relativity only affects things physically if we specifically look at them and claim a given frame of referance?
Do you not think that the Quasar material is moving relative to your car or bowling ball if you are not lookiing at it. LOL :bugeye:
If Relativity is real then it applies at all times, to all frames of reference, and any frame of referance which requires higher energy will impact your local physics.
Please claim otherwise so we can write off your ability to contribute anything meaingful to this discussion.
If you are prepared to acknowledge my claim that Relativity is perceptional and not physical reality then perhaps we could talk but as long as you claim it is physical reality, I'm afraid you have a long ,long ,long way to go.
You are showing your small level of undetrstanding now.MacM said:
It matters not what is moving realtive to my reference frame (except for gravity/etc). Actions within my reference frame (aka: driving a car) do not change.
The change is in regards to the quasar. Without that comparison there is no change.... so yes... you do need to see the quasar to see the change. That doesn't mean it isn't physical, I'm just pointing out that you need some interface to observe the change.
However, the change between you standing still and you driving a car at 60mph is not measurable... so it isn't a very good example. Yet, even if we were going .99 c you would still not see any change caused by the quasar.
Persol said:
Nice try but hardly conviencing since it is you that seem to be lost.
I hope all the readers are pickiung up on this claim. Relativity has no affect unless you specifiy a frame.
Do I notice my car engine load up when I go up hill. It did so because it is physically real and affect my physics.If Relativity, as in"Relative velocity" affects, are physically real then they have a physical affect if we note them or not. Any object whaving a relative velocity near the speed of light requires that for you to accelerate in that vector to apply substantially more energy.
The Quasar is the accelerator coils and frame - The lab. You in your car is the particle. Are you now saying that it takes your car no more energy to acclerate in that vector?
Wake up you are on a collison course with the claims of Relativity here.
The change is in regards to the quasar. Without that comparison there is no change.... so yes... you do need to see the quasar to see the change. That doesn't mean it isn't physical, I'm just pointing out that you need some interface to observe the change.
However, the change between you standing still and you driving a car at 60mph is not measurable... so it isn't a very good example. Yet, even if we were going .99 c you would still not see any change caused by the quasar.[/QUOTE]
Pete said:
Sorry to see you throw in the towel. You have kept it reasonably polite. However, I must emphasize that you have not effectively addressed this situation.
Are you willing to admit you do not have the answer or are you going to just claim "MacM doesn't understand". If so then I must hold that it is you that do not understand and you leave this debate since you have no answer.
Thanks Mac, but:
1) Your opinion on how well I have addressed the situation holds very little weight for me.
2) You don't understand the clear answers provided for you.
3) You don't even understand that you don't understand - that's why you keep denying it.
4) I understand that you will hold that I don't understand - but see point 1.
1) Your opinion on how well I have addressed the situation holds very little weight for me.
2) You don't understand the clear answers provided for you.
3) You don't even understand that you don't understand - that's why you keep denying it.
4) I understand that you will hold that I don't understand - but see point 1.
Don't play dumb. Relativity is about relative time/space between two reference frames. Unless you meet/see the quasar you are none the wiser.MacM said:I hope all the readers are pickiung up on this claim. Relativity has no affect unless you specifiy a frame.
Stop lying. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling you a liar and not a dumbass.
In what reference frame? In the labs? No... nothing extra at all.
Don't be a liar AND a dumbass.
Persol said:
You have to be kidding. You cannot be this niave. You actually believe something that is claimed to have a physical affect only has that affect if we first address it?
No lies from me but your post is making it clear just who the dumbass is.
What about calling the Quasar ejecta the coil and acclerator the frame in a lab and you and your car a particle do you not grasp. It is all about relative velocity.
Either a particle vs the accelerator accelerting it or you and your car vs the Quasar ejecta. They are one and the same in terms of relative velocity.
You are making it clear you are both a liar and a dumbass.
that's not what I said dumbass. Please tell me how you can observe the effects of relativity without using at least two frames of reference?
My god man. Have you EVER looked beyond this forum in an attempt to educate yourself about relativity? I could care less if the entire universe is flying towards your planet .9999^99999 c. Within your reference frame you can tell no difference. Any object you are observing/interacting with is relative to your reference frame (AKA: your planet) and not the rest of the universe. You will not see the car require more energy because you are observing it from your reference frame, not from the thing approaching at near the speed of light. As you said 'it is all about relative velocity'.
Either show us where your claims are based on relativty, or admit that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. JamesR already pointed out your F=ma problem, and your failure to grasp the meaning of 'relative' is stupifying.
We've almost reached 1000 posts to this thread... and still haven't progressed beyond the conclusions reached in the first 50.
We're longer than Paul Dixon's thread!
We're catching up to [thread=7037]On the CD Player (Turntable) Today[/thread] and the current [thread=33826]Scivillage[/post] thread!
But we're still well behind [thread=11294]God Does Exist[/thread], [thread=5313]A Riddle[/thread], [thread=5756]The Picture Thread[/thread], and [thread=11367]3 Word Story[/thread].
Are there any other 1000+ post threads I've missed?
We're longer than Paul Dixon's thread!
We're catching up to [thread=7037]On the CD Player (Turntable) Today[/thread] and the current [thread=33826]Scivillage[/post] thread!
But we're still well behind [thread=11294]God Does Exist[/thread], [thread=5313]A Riddle[/thread], [thread=5756]The Picture Thread[/thread], and [thread=11367]3 Word Story[/thread].
Are there any other 1000+ post threads I've missed?
Persol said:
Well, since you like to call names let me recipocate. Look dumbass, if you have a relative velocity to someting moivng 0.95c it takes more energy eo accelerate. If in one direction your local F = ma takes 1 Hp but in another ti took 10 Hp then we could say, "Gee, it must be that damn Quasar ejecta." But since we don't it is time to reassess our toughts about the true meaning of Reltivity.
It would be nice if you actually said something useful and on topic. Frankly inspite of all the hyperbole going around here I hold my own quite well against your knowledge.
False, Blind, Blind, Blind as a bat. Shsssh. :bugeye: Your precious earth is an arbitrary referance, it might as well be the Quasar material, another galaxy, etc.
Now, now don't get testy just because you have no answer. I seem to have a far better grip on reality than ourself. Perhaps you should back off and go into a corner and think before opening your mouth again.
I have no F = ma problem. He tried to create one but it is a moot point. I have no failure. You sir do. Let me suggest you back off and think before you speak. You are looking down right stupid.
Last edited:
- Status