swansont

Because to do so spontaneously would reduce the entropy of a system. You can do it — we have refrigerators and air conditioners — but you have to do work and reject heat elsewhere.

So your video of all the tests you run show the atomic spectrum tests, which depend on the fine structure constant (proportional to c), work normally, showing no change in spectrum. And also your nuclear generator, which depends on c^2, has generated the expected amount of power.

Also look at the Helmholtz and Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_free_energy You can cool atoms with a laser because the laser light is a very low entropy entropy system.

The acceleration isn't the same, though, since it's in the opposite direction. And once it has stopped (so that each is now in an inertial frame), they are in different frames. So even if somehow no net dilation were to occur from the acceleration, or you synchronized after it was done, you have two people moving at some v with respect to each other. They will each observe dilation in the other's clock.

The index, and thus propagation speed, depends on the wavelength (and frequency). For copper, the generally quoted value is about 225,000 km/s, or often rounded to 2/3 c, for RF, which probably also applies to electric current flow.

Statistics are most certainly part of science. Misuse of statistics, on the other hand, is a part of politics.

Keep in mind that someone at rest in a gravitational field is considered to be in an accelerating reference frame; it's indistinguishable from accelerating at g somewhere far from a gravitational field. Someone in freefall is not.

"Frames" is the crux of the argument here. By avoiding it you are sweeping all of the details under the rug.

At some point the material will simply not hold together. One consequence of SR is that there cannot be any infinitely rigid materials. Before the tip of whatever you've extended can reach c, it would bend or some part would break off and proceed in a straight line at v < c.

I haven't gone through the particulars, but it should happen at the last acceleration. While they are in different inertial frames, they should not agree. Note that there are three different scenarios now being discussed in the thread. This is referring to both twins accelerating, and then moving apart and then returning.

"How the world works" and "How the world behaves" are not equivalent statements. Scientific models/theories describe the latter, but do not guarantee the former. However, they do include math and the ability to test them by making predictions.

Right. Clocks will generally only agree when they are in the same frame.

They would see dilation, as they are in different inertial frames during the travel, but their clocks would agree when they returned. If there was a third observer at the origin of the trip, he would see a different dilation, and his clock would not agree.

By definition the reactor is critical; one fission results in, on average, one neutron that induces another fission. The effective neutron multiplication factor is 1. The control rods are one aspect of control, but many plants are also affected by the water temperature, as this affects the efficiency of the moderation (thermalization) process. What really allows control of the reactor, though, is delayed neutrons. A fast neutron from fission doesn't take very long to thermalize and induce another fission — a few tens of microseconds. With that kind of feedback time, there is no way one could control the reactions quickly enough to prevent a runaway reaction. But there are two classes of neutrons produced: prompt neutrons, from the fission itself, and delayed neutrons, which come from beta decays of the fission products. (Some daughters are so neutron-rich that after beta-minus decaying they eject a neutron). The delayed neutron fraction is smaller than 1%. As long as the fractional change in the fission rate is smaller than the delayed neutron fraction, the average cycle time is a reasonable fraction of a second. But if the change in fission rate is greater, one can become (super)critical from the prompt neutrons alone, and the cycle time shortens to that tens of microseconds, and you have problems. (Chernobyl, or SL-1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical

You'd still have to explain why all of the clocks (they used four for each trip) that went one direction behaved differently when they went in the other. The vibrations, etc. would look the same, independent of the direction of travel. And it's not like it was just this one experiment. Any satellite with clocks on board, including GPS, demonstrate this behavior. GPS wouldn't come anywhere close to working if the corrections made for relativity were wrong.

You can always tell who is in an accelerating frame. That's not relative.

You keep moving the goalposts. A few posts back you said you have evidence of your measurements — e.g. the videotape that lasts a year. Now you say that everything is unknown. And that still doesn't address the original mistakes in the first post, which messed up the frames of reference. No matter. Under the condition that I don't know what happened, I conclude that your clock ran slow compared to mine. There is absolutely no other conclusion that can be drawn, since I have no more information. Under the condition that I have complete access to your records, I will find anomalies in the data where you accelerated. It's not like any of this is secret. There are many valid explanations of the twin paradox on the net, and they all point out it's what happens during the change from one inertial frame to the other that accounted for the time change. You can't state that you did measurements of measuring c to be the correct value, because it's flat-out wrong. You will not, in general, get the right value in an accelerating frame.

Time is relative. Its rate depends on your coordinate system, and things that you think are simultaneous will not be seen as such in other frames.

Generally they won't work as well — optics are built with a specific wavelength range in mind. You will tend to get chromatic aberration, because the index is wavelength dependent. There may also be a coating on the lens that is matched to some wavelength range, and the absorption by the lens material may be a factor. So IR optics won't work as well in the visible, and vice-versa. It's difficult to get optics that work in the deep UV.

If you have accelerated, there will be evidence of it. Claiming otherwise is a violation.

The acceleration of a body depends on the forces exerted on that body. The reaction force acts on a different object, i.e. it is exerted by the body. So a body that feels a force F on it will accelerate, even thought is exerts a force -F. Fon = -Fby is Newton's third law, but Fby should never show up in the free body diagram.

No, they aren't the same age when the twins are reunited. The apparent paradox is how they can both see the other's clock running slow, and the answer, as you correctly point out, is that there is a change from one inertial frame to another (an acceleration, in this case). That's where all of the breaking of the symmetry takes place. But the returning twin would indeed be younger.

a) define "sensible" If it's "the quality of being irritated by SR" then it's a tautology. Which leads us to ... b) so what? Nature is under no restriction to operate in a way that does not irritate your sensibilities Upon any kind of close examination, one will find that the so-called paradoxes of SR are only apparent paradoxes. They are cleared up by properly applying the theory, or recognizing that it doesn't apply (e.g. because one has not fulfilled the restriction of only applying it in inertial frames or one has not properly accounted for the effects of non-inertial frames) I kinda stopped reading after that, but I did notice the complete lack of math. Which leads me to suspect that you aren't claiming that SR gives you wrong answers, just that it doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Am I wrong?

Approximately that of water (1g/cm^3, with adjustments for temperature and salinity). It can vary with how much air they have in their lungs, but if the bouyancy differed too much from water it would require excessive effort to either submerge or surface.

And let's say I have a perpetual motion machine. Once you postulate something that violates the laws of physics, you can conclude anything you want. But it has no validity. I will have evidence of acceleration, because acceleration is not relative. At some point you will transition into a non-inertial reference frame, and your measurements will change.