The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the basis of the twin paradox and general relativity?  (Read 4512 times)

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I don't believe anybody could be that stupid. Why are you harassing me?

Harassing you?  No.  You asked me a direct question did you not?  Cause it certainly seemed like it was referencing my post!  And all I did was answer you logically.  Try not to take things so personally. 

If you have issues with the context of my reply, however, I'd be interested in seeing what those issues are.  Please reply to content, not the poster.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2016 22:38:08 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline granpa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Ignoring him should be sufficient
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Ignoring him should be sufficient

Not really!
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I just reread my 'harassing' reply to your direct question.  It is logical and sound.  It wages no attack nor is personal in nature.  Instead, it was a direct response to your direct question towards me asking how I could think you were referencing appearance.

I then factually show exactly why, since you specifically mentioned appearance in the graphic, that the graphic itself displays appearance, that you use terms like point of view that also infer appearance, and because though you in multiple ways referenced appearance in the detail of your graphic, not once did you mention calculations or relativity.  Thereby deeming the graphic to be fatally flawed, and I therefore recommend that you scrap it and redo it.

Nothing was exaggerated, everything was logical, everything was backed by fact, and the recommendation was a sound one.  So I ask you, which parts of my reply do you actually disagree with?  Instead of devolving this thread into childish nonsense maybe you would like to address the facts and logic presented to you?  Cause you asked a question, and I gave you an answer to it, that was supported by fact.  That's exactly how discussion is supposed to work.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
"......
Is suspect there are quite a few viewers of this forum who are unfamiliar with ST diagrams. This description of the twin scenario give a good description http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf in Fig1.
There are other good explanations on the net, I think you just have to accept that some people are better at explaining things.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
"......
Is suspect there are quite a few viewers of this forum who are unfamiliar with ST diagrams. This description of the twin scenario give a good description http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf in Fig1.
There are other good explanations on the net, I think you just have to accept that some people are better at explaining things.
I appreciate your link. . Just not sure I quite understand your advice.

I understand well that some are better than others at explaining things.  I guess I'm just of the mind that someone who is not very good at it probably shouldn't make misleading graphics and try to pass them off on the Web as if they're an authority on the subject. . I think when it comes to certain things accuracy matters. And I believe that graphic could give a layman the wrong impression of the issue, and they could walk away thinking that time dilation would somehow allow some of the clocks to go backwards.  And then those people would think they just learned something, and go on to repeat it because they would feel they had learned it from an authority on the subject, especially cause to them the graphic had looked official, and this is how misinformation is spread. I'm of the mind that accuracy matters in science.  There is too much spread of misinformation.  So I just believe that those who are not good at explaining, should make it clear they are not, and leave the official looking graphics up to those who can. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums