Friday conumdrum with DDD - The twin paradox, help!

MonkeyMonster

fizzy tails still beat colin the caterpillars....

a brillaint post but sweets are tastier

PBo

just had two mega replies not post.

exhausted now, so going for quick answer

antonordy:

I can't send a twin to space and back at 0.8c for 10 years to "prove" he'll age differently from his twin.

But experiments using atomic clocks have demonstrated time dilation.

The one traveling fast didn't go "wonky" - it's not got a spring that bent a bit at high speed. 1 second is defined as a very precise number of gazillion of vibrations of an atom. So to each twin, in his own frame, 1 second is a gazillion vibrations, and it is these that have been demonstrated to be different wrt each other.

These atomic vibrations are at the core of how our universe works - and ultimately impact things like speed of chemical reactions. Biological processes are just chemical reactions, and will be ultimately regulated by the same atomic vibrations. Therefore his heart still beats at 60 seconds a minute (not 90) - because both the chemical reactions involved and the clock regulating it are both in effect regulated by or measured to the same standard - atomic vibrations.

So if you accept that experiments show atomic clocks exhibit time dilation, what rationally stops you accepting the same for biological entities?

sketchley

Boy Lard wrote:

It is also my belief, and I know this is taking a pretty big leap of faith (no pun intended), but I think that the first and, as we now know, worst guess at explaining how and why things in the natural world were happening, was to suggest it was all made to happen by God. I am not suggesting that religion is wrong, it's just no longer the 'best guess' that we have.

This is a worse guess

" Viltvodle VI is the home world of the small, blue, fifty-armed Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of what they refer to as "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief." This is their cosmology's version of the end of the Universe, and can be explained by the fact that they believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure."

And I'm happy to suggest that based on the available evidence that relgion is wrong.

Will Snow

Science is only ever the best guess we have to explain how or why something happened at any one given point in time based on the amount of information that is available to corroborate the theory.

Very much agreed.

However these effects have been directly observed. Time dilation isnt a theory, its an observable fact. I would agree that the mechanism that we have to explain it (Relativity) is a theory, therefore your point is correct with regards to that.

@PBo, yes. Just yes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Will Snow wrote:

is it like this all the time in the commuting section?

Actually, no, it's not usually this squirrel-sh!t-nutty, it must be said.

Perhaps the part timers are having an end of summer knees up...

cjcp

This is a bit like the Fiery Yellow Ball thread last year.

Will Snow

Greg66 wrote:

Actually, no, it's not usually this squirrel-sh!t-nutty, it must be said.

Perhaps the part timers are having an end of summer knees up...

Im starting to wish id just left it!!

jonginge

cjcp wrote:

This is a bit like the Fiery Yellow Ball thread last year.

That's no fiery ball! It's dung pushed by a celestial scarab-beetle. Sheesh! Some people!

jonginge

Will Snow wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Actually, no, it's not usually this squirrel-sh!t-nutty, it must be said.

Perhaps the part timers are having an end of summer knees up...

Im starting to wish id just left it!!

There's a quote I like:
"Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Will Snow

JonGinge wrote:

Im starting to wish id just left it!!

There's a quote I like:
"Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"[/quote]

Haha I like that alot

rjsterry

Will Snow wrote:

Science is only ever the best guess we have to explain how or why something happened at any one given point in time based on the amount of information that is available to corroborate the theory.

Very much agreed.

However these effects have been directly observed. Time dilation isnt a theory, its an observable fact. I would agree that the mechanism that we have to explain it (Relativity) is a theory, therefore your point is correct with regards to that.

Well, to be pedantic, it still is a theory, which appears to correlate with observations, but there may be other related phenomena, that we may not have observed, that may require a modification, or even complete revision of the theory.

Will Snow

rjsterry wrote:

Well, to be pedantic, it still is a theory, which appears to correlate with observations, but there may be other related phenomena, that we may not have observed, that may require a modification, or even complete revision of the theory.

Hmmmm... okay I will give you that

rjsterry

It grates to say so, but the creationists are right about one thing: Darwinian evolution is 'just' a theory, but one that fits the observable evidence much better than theirs.

Will Snow

A scientists favourite phrase should be I dont know, thats what (normally) separates them from the religious types (who claim to have answers for everything - namely god)

UndercoverElephant

Will Snow wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Well, to be pedantic, it still is a theory, which appears to correlate with observations, but there may be other related phenomena, that we may not have observed, that may require a modification, or even complete revision of the theory.

Hmmmm... okay I will give you that

This twin theory thing is utter cack. I know that every time I've been on a transatlantic flight, I arrive at the other end feeling markedly older than I would have if I hadn't been on the flight. If the flight was ten years in duration, I'd be completely gubbed.

I need a job where they spring for business class.

PBo

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Well, to be pedantic, it still is a theory, which appears to correlate with observations, but there may be other related phenomena, that we may not have observed, that may require a modification, or even complete revision of the theory.

Hmmmm... okay I will give you that

This twin theory thing is utter cack. I know that every time I've been on a transatlantic flight, I arrive at the other end feeling markedly older than I would have if I hadn't been on the flight. If the flight was ten years in duration, I'd be completely gubbed.

I need a job where they spring for business class.

bugg3r. If you were on the flight, you should have ended up younger than if not! Relativity disproved, laws of physics trashed.....

Thats it CERN, shut down the hadron collider, lets just jack it all in........

UC, the man who destroyed physics.....

....hold on.......elephant?.....do you carry some god on your back?????

I call vested interest!!!!!

No way this'll get past peer review.......

Kieran_Burns

Will Snow wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Im starting to wish id just left it!!

There's a quote I like:
"Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I prefer "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

tailwindhome

Are science and religion not observing the same 'world' but asking fundamentally different questions.

Science asks "How does it work?"

Religion asks "What does it mean?"

One does not necessarily disprove the other.

tailwindhome

TailWindHome wrote:

That passed the time.

It would passed anyway.



No one sat A level English?

Will Snow

TailWindHome wrote:

Are science and religion not observing the same 'world' but asking fundamentally different questions.

Science asks "How does it work?"

Religion asks "What does it mean?"

One does not necessarily disprove the other.

good point, well made

Boy Lard

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

I prefer "never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

That in itself is dependant on the frame of reference, just like relativity.

PBo

Will Snow wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Are science and religion not observing the same 'world' but asking fundamentally different questions.

Science asks "How does it work?"

Religion asks "What does it mean?"

One does not necessarily disprove the other.

good point, well made

unless you are talking to creationists......

Kieran_Burns

PBo wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Are science and religion not observing the same 'world' but asking fundamentally different questions.

Science asks "How does it work?"

Religion asks "What does it mean?"

One does not necessarily disprove the other.

good point, well made

unless you are talking to creationists......

if you're mad enough to talk to creationists: I refer you to my previous post.

PBo

Kieran_Burns wrote:

PBo wrote:

Will Snow wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Are science and religion not observing the same 'world' but asking fundamentally different questions.

Science asks "How does it work?"

Religion asks "What does it mean?"

One does not necessarily disprove the other.

good point, well made

unless you are talking to creationists......

if you're mad enough to talk to creationists: I refer you to my previous post.

I'm not fussy - as evidenced by talking to you right now!

antontordy

As clock slow down near the speed of light, the human body should slow down accordingly and everying will be in slow motion during the flight irrespective of time frames. The big question is whether the human body can survive such a flight. I don't think it can, so the astronaught twin on arrival back to Earth would not be younger - he'd be dead!

Will Snow

antontordy wrote:

As clock slow down near the speed of light, the human body should slow down accordingly and everying will be in slow motion during the flight irrespective of time frames. The big question is whether the human body can survive such a flight. I don't think it can, so the astronaught twin on arrival back to Earth would not be younger - he'd be dead!

...i cant believe im doing this, but why couldnt he survive? Assuming he accelerated slowly enough (or used the classic star trek inertial dampers). Are you one of the people who believed the human body couldnt go faster than 30mph, and therefore wouldnt use the train?

antontordy

As the heart and general metabolism slows down the astonaught twin will get light-headded, then giddy, then he would black out as not enough blood and oxygen gets to his brain. He would die soon afterwards. I don't watch star trek.

Will Snow

antontordy wrote:

As the heart and general metabolism slows down the astonaught twin will get light-headded, then giddy, then he would black out as not enough blood and oxygen gets to his brain. He would die soon afterwards. I don't watch star trek.

READ


ALL


THE


OTHER


POSTS


I shall refrain from causing you names at this point

antontordy

I have read them. I am in serious discussion. I stand by what I say.

Will Snow

Oh I take it back then, you are either really stupid or a troll. Good day.