esbo

OK this is question I don't seem to be able to get and answer to.

1. Initially all triplets (A B and C all 5 year olds) are at rest on earth.

2. Triplet C accelerates off to 99% the speed of light and remains at that speed for 50 years (as measured by Triplet A who remain on earth) before returning to earth.

3 Triplet B also accelerates off to the 99% the speed of light but only remains at that speed for 10 seconds (as measured by twin A who remain on earth) before returning to earth.

4. Triplet A remains on earth.

Now can we have the ages of the triplets, you can give numerical ages if you like.

Best of luck!!!

First correct answer wins a Nocigar prize for physics!!

Hopefully I have phrased the question to exclude "cop-out" answers which fail to answer the question but I am aware there are plenty of "cop-out" answer specialists in relativity!!

I woudl say triplet A is almost certainly 55, twin B must be nearly 55 (within a day) and twin C is still close to age 5 (less than 7 years old).

Just improve the question assume that triplet B and C set off together but that triplet B decides such high speeds are too dangerous and returns to earth after travelling with C for just 10 seconds (as measured by A).

Actually after I posted I google the triplets paradox and found this

http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/about/

Not sure it it is relevant as I have not read it ll yet!!

I expect it is similar in the answers it seeks.

Except that English, or any other language is imprecise and unwieldy.

 

Math is the language of physics, and is precise. .

It is precise enough to answer my question(s)

As you see above there is an unanswered question, maybe you can answer that? Use maths if you must

but it really should not be necessary,

 

 

 

Mathematics is just simply a language to express physical ideas in concise form. You learn maths just as you learn any other foreign language. Dealing with physics and refusing to use maths is like living in China and refusing to use Mandarin; not only are you going to make your own life extremely difficult ( trust me, I've been there ), but you will also forego any chance of ever really understanding or appreciating what it really is you are dealing with. That is a simple truth of life. In this example, everything that has been so verbously elaborated on over the course of 18 pages can be mathematically expressed in just a handful of lines - if everyone here spoke the language of maths to the same standard, we would not have had to engage in this lengthy discussion. It is very easy to show mathematically that the proper times of the two twins cannot agree in this scenario, and more crucially also precisely why that is. Doing the same verbally on the other hand takes literally a wall of text to do it right; everyone needs to decide for him/herself which one they prefer.

I know what maths is, it is just a code for expressing ideas which can be expressed in English.

Maths is a description of the real world in a coded form, I just want the description not the code thanks.

I don;'t want to learn a new language, most of us here speak ENGLISH so no need to put it in code we can cut the middleman out.

If you were in china woudl you talk to you English friends in Chinese?

I expect you would!!!!!!

News to me. Can you specify exactly what those "forces acting on him from escaping twin" would be, both qualitatively and quantitively.

I was once present at the launch of a rocket carrying a satellite - what forces from the escaping rocket was I supposed to be feeling ? Please be very exact here, and provide a textbook reference to the force you are proposing.

Strictly speaking the escaping twin would have a gravitation effect on the other twin.

IN your example as the rocket moved away it's gravitation pull on you woudl have progressively decreased

however you probably would not have noticed.

It changes the arc length of the worldline connecting the same two events in space-time.

In other words - the proper times as measured by the two twins will no longer agree, which is precisely what we wanted to explain in the first place.

 

 

Too imprecise. The basic proposition is that both twins start off at rest in the same frame of reference, with synchronized clocks; one twin remains at rest, whereas the other twin makes a round trip of arbitrary distance and duration, and then returns to the stationary twin. In the end both twins are once again together at rest within the same frame. They then compare their clocks which each of them has been carrying, and find that the readings don't agree.

I was just trying to be brief, we all under stand that bit we don;t really need it spelt out.

What we need spelt out is the bit people do not understand but of course this is the bit which is glossed over with an inadequate explanation.

Yes. Because you didn't understand the answer doesn't mean the answer wasn't given. It means you didn't understand it.

 

When you have two inertial frames in relative motion, each will see the other's clock as running slow. When the two frames are brought back together, and the clocks compared, the clock which will show the effect of time dilation (i.e. the slower clock) will be the one which underwent acceleration (to bring the two frames back together, at least one of them must be accelerated).

 

That's as simple as it can be explained. If you've seen that answer a lot, and don't understand it, the problem is not with the answer.

OK so lets say both twins experience acceleration.

So this is what happens.

Initial both at rest, twin A is accelerated to 99% the speed of light for 50 years and then returns back to where he started.

The same is done to twin B be he only spends 10 seconds at 90% of the speed of light.

What are their respective ages (approximately)

They have both experienced the same acceleration thus that effect will cancel out.

Wherever the twins are at a place where they can agree on their relative aging, if they've followed a symmetrical path---ie. the twins are interchangeable---they'd have to age the same amount. Symmetry must be broken to have an agreed-upon different aging.

 

Breaking symmetry alone doesn't lead to different aging. You can set it up so that the twins follow very different non-inertial paths configured so that they end up aging the same amount when they reunite.

 

Two ways to think about how the broken symmetry or acceleration makes a difference:

1. It forces different path lengths for the twins. On spacetime diagrams, the inertial twin will be a straight line and the shortest spatial distance, corresponding to the largest proper time (greatest aging) of any path between the events in flat spacetime.

2. The accelerating twin does not use just one inertial reference frame. A naive application of time dilation works for an inertial observer. Switching frames means dealing with relative simultaneity (with standard simultaneity defined with Einstein clock synchronization).

Again you gloss over the tricky bit.

You have not given a space time diagram or explained what it is .

I don't believe the accelerating twin remain in the same inertial frame in the first place so restating the obvious is not much help.

I gave an example where both twin accelerate but remain at a high speed for different lengths of time.

Perhaps you could use that example to describe the ageing process of each twin.

Now that would be helpful.

Acceleration itself does not have an effect on relative time dilation, that's solely due to the relative velocities. What it does do is break the symmetry between the inertial frames.

That is kind of typical of a lot of answer I see.

It says something which may well be true, it might even be untrue, but as it does not actually answer the question it is neither here not

there really.

Do you seriously believe you answer the question?

Precisely what effect does breaking the symmetry have?

Unfortunately is seems just like so many answers I have seen, ie it does not really answer anything in a meaningful way, but thanks for trying.

Sorry if that sounds slightly rude, but I am just being honest.

Hi all!!

Glad I found this thread because I was going to start a thread on this subject, however I see there is already one going on

so I will use this one!!

Forgive me for not reading all 18 pages now I do not have time but I will read them later.

I will just throw my tuppence ha'penny worth in though!!

1. Firstly the basic proposition goes one twin (B) remains young because he is travelling very fast and the other (A) is at rest (on earth or whatever).

2. Then someone says "but from the perspective of the the fast twin (B) the twin (A) back on earth is moving fast so twin (A) should be younger.

3. So the problem is that contradiction both cannot be the youngest

4. I have seen acceleration put forward as the explanation (with out and explanation of exactly how that works). Other sources it is not acceleration but hen don't seem to give an explanation of the solution (many just into a pile of dense maths at this point). I don't think we need maths here, we are not looking for a numerical answer rather a logical one.

5. If acceleration is the solution then it seems to me there is a limit to the age difference that can arise because you can only accelerate to the (near) speed of light and back, so that would seem to put a cap on the age difference.

6. Once you get to near the speed of light you can effectively spend millions of years flying about at that speed and that would seem to make any

acceleration effects very small indeed effectively zero in comparison.

7.So you seem to have the situation where an age difference of millions of years should be able to arise according to standard theory of fast moving objects. But then that leads to the contradiction mentioned in point 2.

So can someone explain this to me, in simple language, I do not believe maths is needed for the explanation and will pretty much regard mathematical answers as a failure to give the required answer.

Thanks a bunch, look forward to being educated but kind of doubt I will be.

I will now have a wade through the thread to see if I can find anything helpful (I'm not too optimistic given there are so many mathematical posts at this stage!!)

You're shifting the goalposts. You originally said that scientist are less respected that sportsmen or singers. Now its astronauts and vets ( who are arguably scientists themselves)?

 

 

This is a non sequitur.

 

In order to use the tool of science you need an understanding of how it works. E.g a pilot needs to understand Bernoulli's principle to understand how to fly a plane.

 

Just because someone without access to modern medicine doesn't get medical treatment does not make modern medical treatment ineffective.

 

It's an illogical premise.

If you don't get the treatment it is very ineffective, in fact you might as well have not had the treatment at all!!

Not sure what the grammatical term for this!

So tell me, how does one go about using a tool effectively with no understanding of how the tool functions?

 

Also:

 

 

 

False. In the US the top ten most admired professions are

1. Firefighter

2. Doctor

3. Nurse

4. Scientist

5. Teacher

6. Military officer

7. Police officer

8. Clergyman

9. Farmer

10. Engineer

 

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/28/leadership-careers-jobs-cx_tvr_0728admired.html

In kids choice for careers scientist came 18th well behind vet and astronaut

http://shareranks.com/4780,Most-Popular-Careers-Children-Want-when-they-Grow-Up

The point about how a tool is used is that it does not matter who well of badly you use the tool is it is used to

create inequality.

The wealth created by scientific developments tend to remain in the hands of the few not the many.

For example in the USA there may be great advances in medicine by a large section of society have no

access to it because they cannot afford health care and drugs.

Science i irrelevance, it is the application of science that matters.

It is just a tool in that respect, it depends whether the tool is used to provide for you or kill you.

Can you present an argument to support your stance?

Well yes lots of arguments really.

1. For a start most people are useless at science.

2. Even if you are good at it there are very few job and thee jobs there are are low paid and insecure.

3. there is far more respect for footballers, singers and actor than scientists.

4. Science does not benefit most people in fact for many it makes their lives worse, ie it takes away their jobs.

5. Much of 'science' is more political, ie global warming which is made such a fuss of is not a problem at all, it is more a religion than science.

i) First point is we will not stop global warming until we have ran out of fossil fuel.

ii) The effect of warming are good not bad (or at least not proven to be bad) ie there is more good than bad.

iii) The only positive of it is it helps preserve fossil fuel, fossil fuel running out is a real and far far far mroe serious problem.

6, Science is of interest for those who want to know answers though.

7 The bigger problem we face are more social and political

8 What is important to people is getting a job, few employers want scientists.

Science is essential to democracy. A democracy needs a well educated mass to make all the decisions citizens of democracy must make, from decisions about the environment to decisions about justice. These decisions should not be based on ignorance and superstition.

The average IQ of a democracy is 100, ie not very high.

The vote of an idiot is worth as much as the vote of genius.

Votes are usually cast based not on science but on the propaganda of those who control the media.

Few countries are true democracy's anyway, the banks run the world whoever you vote for.

Video proving the Russian Meteor and DA14 are connected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkLEVzDWmlY

Certainly interesting viewing !

 

Has anybody yet confirmed or disproved a link between the Russian Exploding meteor and the passing asteroid skimming the upper satellite orbits. It otherwise seems remarkably coincidental !

Yes me!!!

I am uploading a video to youtube to explain it, gonna take another 70 minutes, huge file 1 GB for 3 mins of video lol.

Never made a video to upload before so I have a lot to learn there.

I believe I have proved it could be linked..

Will post a link when it is ready.

Interesting we get two meteors so close together both rare events.

I see the scientists say the events are unrelated, although one Russia one said they could be related.

Occums Razor (simplest ttheory) says they are related.

The reason the scientist suggested they were unrelated is one hit on the other side from which the bigger

one came from. However they didn't pick up the small one untill it was seen visualy and I have some calculation

which show it could easliiy have came from the same side and complete a near half orbit before impacting.

You certainly could not rule it out anyway, the initilal trajectory matter a bit but we will never really know that

as it was not picked up untill late.

So seems to me the are part of the same 'event', and it seems to me there could well be more smaller meterors

in the 'series' indeed possibly bigger ones further away!!

No, you made (or implied) a simplistic claim that the increase in production was the result of increasing temperatures, on the basis of a graph that showed an increasing trend. There was no effort to compare this to the temperature, nor any effort to account for the other variables that production depends on. The bottom line is that you can't validly draw the conclusion you drew. It's crappy science.

 

Further, an increase in yield does not negate the possibility that damage has been done, because damage does not equate to reduction. For example, if agricultural advances should have yielded a 25% increase in yield but we only saw 15%, then there was "damage" in the form of a missing 10% improvement. You have not cleared the bar of the level of proof you need to support your claim.

 

The question of whether someone else has met their burden of proof for their claim is a separate question. It does not absolve you of your obligation.

 

 

Also, smarmy responses are not a substitute for evidence.

No lets get the fact straight, My opponents made the claim tha rice yields declined with temperature based upon some rather dubious 'research'.

 

We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1992 to 2003

These were based on experiment of rice grown in one field in one location!!!

Absolute rubbish!! They noticed a drop in yield as night time temperature rose ( there seem to be some particular mentionof night time temperature for

some reason) it's a very complex article making it hard to read and easy for them to hide the truth.

For example easy to miss where they say.

 

Furthermore, the occurrence of typhoons in the wet season caused crop

lodging in some years, which could weaken the relationship between yield and climatic parameters.

So the decline could have been due to typhoons or indeed any number of other varibles, ie bad farming

failing to rotate crops, disease pests and ll sorts of other things, (including down right cheating).

And of course a different strain of rice igh have grown better and had the grown the rice in a cooler place the temperature

increase might have shown an increase in rice yields. Indeed there are a lot of place where the increase in temp would

have made it posible to grow rice where it was previously to cold to grow rice.

Hence the whole experiment is in layman's terms "total bollocks".

One wonder why they were even allowed to was money on such a uselee experiment. Surely anyone with half a brain

(and I expect you have at least half a brain) could have see the experimet was a waste of time.

I mean did they try growing rich in areas nearer to the artic, if they had they would have seen an increase

in yields, expecially where the ground changed form frozen solid to a temperature above zero where things can grow.

THe whole thing is laughable, there is no exidence of anything in the experiment save that those running the experiment were either

retarded or deliberatelyl seting out to decieve.

Perhaps they should hve tried growing palm oil instead

Not much evidence of a decline there!!!

 

 

 

You might as well argue that malaria is not harmful to black people – you can find all kinds of graphs

showing how increased incidence of those two diseases accompanies – even leads- large increases in the populations of black people, consistently all over the planet.

 

Actually, your argument is even worse: the threat of global warming is largely a future threat, and even if the effects of the current warming were beneficial to rice in the short run, the longer term risks of major disasters such as widespread delta salination from rising sea levels remain. Those are the main issue, here - we are worried about what we can see coming, recognize as ever more likely possiblities.

 

 

That is false. The global warming people mention the increases in ice cover in some places near and on Antarctica all the time – they are the ones measuring the ice cover, talking about it,

publishing the data, taking it seriously. That’s the only reason you ever heard about it.

 

 

 

Yes you can find all sort fo graphs

Lots of graphs, but what to they show?

THe show global warming is not a problem, we are producing food at an every increasing rate hence there is no problem for mankind

from global warming. It is not wonder we have a problem with obesity.

Perhaps is warming reduced the food supply we would have a healthier population?

So as you can see all the evidence for the 'problem' of GW is bullshit, it is not a problem.

Indeed all our fossil fuels come from times when it was much warmer.

I do not even know why I am wasting my time proving the blatently obvious.

Do you also think leprechauns are real?

Well as there is no evidence for them I expect the global warming alarmists do.

Scientific advances in agriculture....

But that is not good enough, the global warming alarmists have to show global warming is doing some kind of real

measureable damage that matters, problem is for them is they can't because food yields of all kinds have increased

during the warmingperiod. They have more than trebled depite the 'harmful effects' of global warming.

That is why they have to cherry pick statistics and leave out the vast majority of the statistical information.

That is why the are always banging on about the north pole which is melting a little but never mention the

increase in ice around the south pole. That is also why they never mention the great benefit of frozen land ie

that tyou can live there and grow food there, No they never mention that. I wonder why???

 

... More people growing it... More rainfall in rice growing lands... etc etc etc

 

My point was that there ARE downsides to a warming planet contrary to your assertion otherwise, and the links I shared supported that claim more than adequately. I suspect your next assertion will be that global warming is a lie because it's snowing right now in the northeastern US.

But your links do not support your claim, one of your links mentions rice yields declinging as the temerpateure rises

howver the actually evidence shows rice yields have sky rocketed.

That is the problem iwth your links, they are wrong because they are based on false and biased analysis so why should I waste time

unraveling the twisted lies when I have already exposed one massive lie?

And of couse the opposite of what you claim is true, it is he global warming alarmist who chery pick days and study the melting

north pole pole and ignore the freezing south pole. The same people who concentrate on the decline of the polar bear

but ignore the *massive* increase in the fih population and the increase in the number of brown bears who do not like

ice.

It's all bullshit, selective manipulation of the truth to present a lie as the truth.

Light does not have mass but it's energy can be converted to mass.

Science education is not very important for most people.

No your results are highly relevant you have proven that you have failed to produce a fur subsitute, so worthwhile research, you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you failed in your objective.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance of the topic is not really relevant, though, now is it?

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

 

 

Detailed lists of pros and cons of warming available at each link above.

 

 

 

Unfortunately the links you provide are inadaquate to prove your point.

For example one point to some over deatailed and confusing waffle about reduced rice yields

Howver the actually evidence show rice production increases with temperature.

Which is why they try and replace the real evidence with over complicated waffle and misleading statement and down right lies.

If what they were climing were true this graph would be goig from top left to bottom right, however unfortunately for the

global warming decievers and liars it is going fromo botttom left to top right, destroying their false claims totally.

Soperhaps one of the global warming scare mongers can tell me why this graph is going in the wrong direction?

I am a it's not an issueist so to speak.

The main points are.

1. We will not avoid burning all the fossil fuel anyway merely delay it.

2. There is no evidence warming is bad overall infact all I can see are positive aspects.

So CO2 is a none issue, you wll be <insert expletive here>ing glad of the warmth the CO2 provides when all the fossil fuel runs out!!

He says we don't know which God butt hat does not matter, there is only one God the God of the Jews the Christians the Muslims etc,,

That is basically your one God.

The bottom line is basically the same in all religions.

99% or religions have Christian values.

And even if you had to pick the right one, you can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket.

With out a ticket you are doomed to hell!!

The is just one of those know it al who knows sod all.

depends how much work you use and energy you put in.

Yes it is like that. He says he will discuss anything and then he says he won't, he is frigging joke.

That is known as Pascal's wager. The argument runs as follows:

 

http://www.infidels....eism/wager.html

 

 

 

 

It's rather silly, as is made obvious when you try to extend it to ANY other topic, or even put forth a remedial review of the logic involved.

 

what a load of rubbish the man is an idiot, he says he will "have any conversation" - except for the key one, the one

he has no answer to.

It like me saying I will meet you anywhere for a fight, any you say OK next Thursday at McDonalds, and I go "Oh sorry I can't make

that, I have a squash court booked!!!".

The man is an utter idiot, him and his male 'friend'