Twin paradox chancy

@Krumple,

Quote:

No matter what time of day, morning, noon, night, no matter what time of year, all irrelevant. If you tilt Cern at 73° (to its verticle) it will point in the direction of the great attractor at all times of the day or year.

OK

Quote:

. Of course it would not stay lined up with Virgo.

Interesting.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
No matter what time of day, morning, noon, night, no matter what time of year, all irrelevant. If you tilt Cern at 73° (to its verticle) it will point in the direction of the great attractor at all times of the day or year.

OK

Quote:
. Of course it would not stay lined up with Virgo.

Interesting.

If you had a telescope programmed to point only at Virgo at different times of the day it would spin and even point slightly at the ground. But I bet you already knew that.

However if you turned the telescope into a disk, its edge would always align with Virgo at 73° off vertical.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

However if you turned the telescope into a disk, its edge would always align with Virgo at 73° off vertical.

Yeah, right, even if it was rotating in a clockwise direction, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:

However if you turned the telescope into a disk, its edge would always align with Virgo at 73° off vertical.

Yeah, right, even if it was rotating in a clockwise direction, eh?

The reason I know this is because it came up during a physics live stream event on twitch. When some asked if the momentum of the Earth could propel particles at Cern faster than light.

There was a chat room during the stream where we did the math and one guy graphed out all the angles that could impact particle momentum but that would involve changing the Earths tilt or the solar systems tilt. But it turns out 73° would align Cern where the particle would show increase and decrease momentum at different points of its trip.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

When some asked if the momentum of the Earth could propel particles at Cern faster than light.

Well, I can't say anything about what some guy in some chat room said about some graphs. I haven't seen any of it.

But I certainly suspect that he was talking about how the speed would be measured from the earth's frame of reference.

That aint even the question here. I'm talking about the speed which would be measured from the CMB's frame of reference.

The CMB is isotropic--the same in all directions. No question of "angles," or anything of the kind ever arises.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

When some asked if the momentum of the Earth could propel particles at Cern faster than light.

Well, I can't say anything about what some guy in some chat room said about some graphs. I haven't seen any of it.

But I certainly suspect that he was talking about how the speed would be measured from the earth's frame of reference.

That aint even the question here. I'm talking about the speed which would be measured from the CMB's frame of reference.

The CMB is isotropic--the same in all directions. No question of "angles," or anything of the kind ever arises.

It doesn't matter which frame its measured in.

If you were traveling near the speed of light 99% of C, next to a beam of light next to you traveling in same direction parallel to yours, you wouldn't see the beam slowly pulling away at an additional 1% velocity. You would see the beam behave exactly the same as if you were stationary with no velocity.

Its because time is different in each frame to sort out that nothing can add to C.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If you were traveling near the speed of light 99% of C, next to a beam of light next to you traveling in same direction parallel to yours, you wouldn't see the beam slowly pulling away at an additional 1% velocity. You would see the beam behave exactly the same as if you were stationary with no velocity.

Its because time is different in each frame to sort out that nothing can add to C.

OK, Krumps, it's now quite clear that you really didn't understand a word I was saying about Smoot and the CMB.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
If you were traveling near the speed of light 99% of C, next to a beam of light next to you traveling in same direction parallel to yours, you wouldn't see the beam slowly pulling away at an additional 1% velocity. You would see the beam behave exactly the same as if you were stationary with no velocity.

Its because time is different in each frame to sort out that nothing can add to C.

OK, Krumps, it's now quite clear that you really didn't understand a word I was saying about Smoot and the CMB.

Yeah, you are under the impression that particles being tested on at Cern can be impacted by the Earths movement through space.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Yeah, you are under the impression that particles being tested on at Cern can be impacted by the Earths movement through space.

"Impacted!?" Fraid not. Like I said.....

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Yeah, you are under the impression that particles being tested on at Cern can be impacted by the Earths movement through space.

"Impacted!?" Fraid not. Like I said.....

Bullshit.

layman wrote:

We have, in our particle accelerating labs, accelerated particles to speeds of 99.9999999988% C. So, when travelling in the same direction as the earth's motion (in the direction of Virgo) they are exceeding the speed of light relative to the CMB.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

..relative to the CMB.

That has nothing to do with any kinda "impact." Like I said...

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
..relative to the CMB.

That has nothing to do with any kinda "impact." Like I said...

The word impact in my use is in context to you using the word "exceeding".

As if the motion of the earth in any way affects the motion of the particle at Cern. Hence the word, impact.

How far are you going to walk backwards?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Forget it Krumps.

It's obvious that you have no clue about the ramifications that using the CMB as a preferred frame implies or entails.

We've had "discussions" in the past. I'm not trying to insult you, but I come away with the impression that you are prone to repeat (or attempt to repeat) what you've been told without ever giving much independent thought to what you're absorbing from others.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Forget it Krumps.

It's obvious that you have no clue about the ramifications that using the CMB as a preferred frame implies or entails.

We've had "discussions" in the past. I'm not trying to insult you, but I come away with the impression that you are prone to repeat (or attempt to repeat) what you've been told without ever giving much independent thought to what you're absorbing from others.

Lol. Yeah you are the unique genius who spits out so many ideas never before thought.

Like I said before, put a way your ego. Or did I just quote some book just now?

So no one ever disproves you using their own line of reasoning, only someone else's. Well if I am using some one else's words to disprove your hypothesis doesn't that mean I know how to internalize and use them when necessary. Or maybe that line of reasoning is someone else's as well.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

I'm not claiming to have any kind of "special" knowledge, or to have "invented" anything. I'm simply noting what an esteemed nobel prize winner (and virtually every other modern physicist) claims. Guess what? It aint what Al claimed.

However, I do understand the fundamental differences between theories of relative motion positing absolute simultaneity versus those positing relative simultaneity.

That too can be, and has been, explained by any theoretical physicist worth his salt. But merely "reading" the words they write is not much value if you don't take the time to pose, for yourself, and find answers to, the questions raised by the issues presented.

Standard issue physics textbooks don't deal with those questions. They just spoon-feed you whatever conclusions have been accepted and taught for generations immemorial, for the most part.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Or did I just quote some book just now?

Well, since you asked...

You made some (ultimately irrelevant) claims about angles, directions to which a moving object will ALWAYS point, etc. that were virtually self-refuting upon any reflection.

Turns out, your were relying on, and trying to repeat (in an inappropriate context) what you read some guy say in a chatroom once, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Or did I just quote some book just now?

Well, since you asked...

You made some (ultimately irrelevant) claims about angles, directions to which a moving object will ALWAYS point, etc. that were virtually self-refuting upon any reflection.

Turns out, your were relying on, and trying to repeat (in an inappropriate context) what you read some guy say in a chatroom once, ya know?

Ahh I see your reading comprehension is subpar. I was part of the group who did the math. The only thing I said was the continued discussion after the twitch show where one person graphed it out. I was not repeating anything I wasn't actually taking part in. I worked on the math.

Just like I pointed out the angle of the solar system relative to the galactic plane which you did not know.

Also the path toward the great attractor isn't a straight path. Its curved.

You don't understand the importance of the axises involved in your hypothesis.

Maybe geometry and physics isn't something you are capable of understanding?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Spare me your attempts at condescension, Krumps.

You can do math until the cows come home, but it worthless if you don't even understand the question asked or the nature of the problem to be solved.

0 Replies

@layman,

Tell me, Krumps, do you concede these things, or not:

1. We, at any fixed point on earth (and on all parts of earth--poles, equator, any longitude or latitude) are always either moving closer to, or farther from, the sun due to daily rotation?

2. We, at any fixed point on earth (and on all parts of earth--poles, equator, any longitude or latitude) are always either moving closer to, or farther from, any given constellation in the fixed stars due to our annual orbit about the sun?

Edit: I'll include one exception (correction) here. In #1, I would exclude the literal poles, although, given the tilt of the axis relative to the sun, considered in conjunction with our movement around the sun, even the poles would, over the course of a day, get closer to, or further from, the sun.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

So does anyone anywhere till believe the TwiPar's really been resolved

0 Replies

Twin paradox chancy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know