NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/physics/12034

Text File | 1992-07-30 | 3.6 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Twins Paradox Resolved
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:38:31 GMT
Lines: 78

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Van Flandern)
writes:
>
> Earlier, I wrote:
>
>>> As for logical problems, one must give up totally on the concept of
>>> distant simultaneity; and one must accept that *apparent* aging depends
>>> upon direction of travel, approach or receding.  There is a way to avoid
>>> both of these considerable logical compromises.  But I do not argue that
>>> they cannot be possible, only that one must make a sacrifice
>>> (unnecessarily, it turns out) of "common sense" to accept this
>>> interpretation of the experimental data.
>
> and [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) replied:
>
>> I can only quote from _Through the Looking Glass_:
>>  "I can't believe that!" said Alice.
>>  "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone.
>>  "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed.
>>  "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
>>  "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.  "When I was
>>  your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.  Why, sometimes I've
>>  believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..."
>
>      Cute,

Charlie Dodgson, not me.

> but your point was lost.  What is it that you find impossible to
> believe?
>      a) SR
>      b) the need to give up on distant simultaneity
>      c) that apparent aging depends upon direction of travel
>      d) that other interpretations consistent with the experimental evidence
> are also possible
>      e) something else

Earlier in my life, a&b, now c&d, in the future maybe e.
I have learned to believe in a&b, but doubt I can
achieve c&d.  I have my own pet candidates for e.

Another quote from Charlie:

 "You are old, Father William," the young man said,
 "And your hair has become very white;
   And yet you incessantly stand on your head
   Do you think, at your age, it is right?"

 "In my youth," Father William replied to his son,
 "I feared it might injure the brain;
   But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
   Why, I do it again and again."

While my hair isn't quite white yet, in earlier days I learned
to believe in the apparent impossibilities of relativity,
quantum mechanics, the mathematics of infinity, and even cosmology
(first Steady States's "As it was in the beginning it is now and
every shall be, world without end, Amen", and then the Big Bang's
flat denial of the question). Hence I learned to believe in the
impossible a and b,

These impossible beliefs are supported by mathematical reasoning
from simple premises.  Further, consequences of the impossibilities
are observed in nature. It would take a lot for me to believe
in the impossibilities of your c and d.

Actually, if you accept Maxwell's electrodynamics (tested
millions of times/second in your computer), and the principle
of independence of physical law on relative motion, then I
believe Einstein's relativity theory, standard interpretations
and all, is a logical necessity.

Maybe John Baez can comment more authoritatively.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]