0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

By memorizing mathematical operations like square root, exponentiation, integration, etc. Then apply them to some natural numbers to get those irrational number algorithmically.

I mentioned speed instead of velocity.

Alancalverd said: how do we "understand" 1.414213......, 3.141459..... 2.71828..... or any other irrational number? Hamdani replied: By memorizing mathematical operations like square root, exponentiation, integration, etc....

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2024 02:07:37I'll let competing ideas compete, and let the best idea win. They don't have to be perfect, but I'll stick to the best one for the time being.Great. What is the best one?

I'll let competing ideas compete, and let the best idea win. They don't have to be perfect, but I'll stick to the best one for the time being.

We will finally resolve the twin's paradox with complete intuition!Chapter: 00:00 Intro00:45 Why you don't understand Twin's paradox1:28 Einstein's clock synchronisation 2:30 What do the brothers see? 3:14 What does the sister see? 4:46 The first half of twin's paradox5:30 The relativity of simultaneity7:53 Relativity of simultaneity equation10:47 Resolving the first half of twin's paradox12:20 It's NOT the acceleration!14:24 Who is accelerating? 16:38 Resolving twin's paradox (What the brothers see)17:12 Resolving twin's paradox (What the sister sees)19:31 Summary

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2024 13:19:40By memorizing mathematical operations like square root, exponentiation, integration, etc. Then apply them to some natural numbers to get those irrational number algorithmically.I said "understand", not "calculate".

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2024 13:14:44I mentioned speed instead of velocity.And there's your misunderstanding. To go there at speed a and return at speed a, your velocity has changed by -2Awhere A is a vector of magnitude a and direction "from here to there", so you have accelerated.

So just memorising some information is sometimes an acceptable way to understand?

You may have taken a single abstract object (irrational numbers) and replaced it with more concepts than if you had just not tried to understand it in this way.

Quote from: Origin on 16/01/2024 13:24:58Great. What is the best one?The one which can give consistent answers for original twin paradox, the twins travelling in opposite direction, and also twin that changes frame of reference several times.

Great. What is the best one?

It's yet to be demonstrated here.

This guy here thinks he has resolved the twin's paradox with complete intuition.

Understanding only needs you to know how to get the final result, without having to produce the exact final result. If you don't know ho to get it, it means you haven't understood it.

Quote from: alancalverd on 16/01/2024 17:47:17Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2024 13:14:44I mentioned speed instead of velocity.And there's your misunderstanding. To go there at speed a and return at speed a, your velocity has changed by -2A where A is a vector of magnitude a and direction "from here to there", so you have accelerated.Does time dilation depend on velocity?

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2024 13:14:44I mentioned speed instead of velocity.And there's your misunderstanding. To go there at speed a and return at speed a, your velocity has changed by -2A where A is a vector of magnitude a and direction "from here to there", so you have accelerated.

What matters is that the speed in that frame is constant.

The one which can give consistent answers for original twin paradox, the twins travelling in opposite direction, and also twin that changes frame of reference several times. It's yet to be demonstrated here.

Many valid explanations have been posted, and they all give the same results. Your claim here is not substantiated. You need to show that the method posted yields inconsistent results, and you've not done that. You don't even try.Apparently no explanation, however correct, will satisfy you. You will continue to not learn it, and post all these denialist claims.

Many valid explanations have been posted, and they all give the same results. Your claim here is not substantiated. You need to show that the method posted yields inconsistent results, and you've not done that. You don't even try.

Apparently no explanation, however correct, will satisfy you. You will continue to not learn it, and post all these denialist claims.

I didn't see him use 'complete intuition' anywhere, but I didn't watch it all. He does leave out some critical frame references, especially when discussing the sync convention, so I find the video likely to confuse someone trying to learn.If the video says that the key is relativity of simultaneity, that's often true, and is very much key in resolving the way he first describes the paradox. Almost all novices tend to discount RoS. On the other hand, neither of two of the explanations I gave (the interval one that works in the most general case, and the single-frame one that is simplest) needed to reference relativity of simultaneity.

Agree. Apparently nothing we post can actually make you understand this simplest of relativity illustrations.

If the video says that the key is relativity of simultaneity, that's often true, and is very much key in resolving the way he first describes the paradox. Almost all novices tend to discount RoS. On the other hand, neither of two of the explanations I gave (the interval one that works in the most general case, and the single-frame one that is simplest) needed to reference relativity of simultaneity.

In SR, it depends on speed. You're correct here. It's about speed, not velocity.So in your twin going out halfway and back, twice, both travelers have the same speed relative to Earth at all times and thus arrive together back at Earth the same age as each other. All the velocity changes don't matter. What matters is that the speed in that frame is constant.Note that this is using the 'easy method' I mentioned above.

Quote from: Halc on 17/01/2024 12:19:26What matters is that the speed in that frame is constant.But it isn't. At some point you have to slow down, stop, turn round, and accelerate again.

However I see Halc already did

Especially the bolded part - you never accept any answer, it is very frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone like that.