"Shubee" <e.Shubee***gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49f2112c-1897-4c81-bbea-6fbd807e984d***26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> Shubert is correct in stating Einstein's attempt to use
>> acceleration to resolve the twin's paradox is absurd.
>
> The reason Einstein's approach demonstrates incompetence is that
> accelerating from one inertial frame to another can be thought of as
> an instantaneous process or something that only takes a negligible
> amount of time when compared to the entire trip.

Einstein didn't base his arguement on any instantaneous proccess. There is
no reason to assume that Einstein was referring to anything other than
continuous velocity and acceleration. In fact its possible to analyize the
so-called "Grandfather Paradox" using anything that is accelerating at all.

And, in general, accelerating from one inertial frame to another cannot be
thought of as an instantaneous process. If you believe otherwise then please
provide a proof. Thank you.

Pete

"Shubee" <e.Shubee***gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51f3aac3-5d99-413c-be6d-e4f20d757fc4***o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 11:02 am, "Pmb" <some...***someplace.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > The reason Einstein's approach demonstrates incompetence is that
>> > accelerating from one inertial frame to another can be thought of as
>> > an instantaneous process or something that only takes a negligible
>> > amount of time when compared to the entire trip.
>>
>> Einstein didn't base his arguement on any instantaneous proccess.
>
> I didn't say that he did.

I didn't say that you said that either. I said that your assertion about
accelerating frames is not one which Einstein used. And for that reason
there is no mreason to assume Einstein's approach was incompetant. In fact
the idea about using instantaneously accelerating frames is not even a
problem so if he did use it then it wouldn't really be a problem.

>> There is no reason to assume that Einstein was referring to anything
>> other than continuous velocity and acceleration.
>
> And there is no reason to believe that the confused Einstein resolved
> the twin paradox.

Einstein wasn't confused and he did resolve the so-called paradox. In fact
the twin paradox is only a paradox in the sense that it only seems to be
self-contradictory. Have you ever looked up the definition of the term
"paradox" as it applies to relativity? See -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox. It is definition 2a that
applies to its use in relativity.

Paradox - 2a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to
common sense and yet is perhaps true.

There is nothing contradictory about the Gradfather paradox. And there is
every reason to believe that Einstein did resolve the problem since there
was no problem to begin with.

>> In fact its possible to analyize the so-called "Grandfather Paradox"
>> using anything that is accelerating at all.
>
> The grandfather paradox is a paradox of time travel. What does that
> have to do with acceleration?

Have you studied the grandfather paradox in detail? If so then you know that
the key idea here is that one observer moves in a worldline that is not a
geodesic while the other observer does move on a geodesic. An observer who
does not move on a geodesic is an accelerating observer.

>> And, in general, accelerating from one inertial frame to another cannot
>> be
>> thought of as an instantaneous process. If you believe otherwise then
>> please
>> provide a proof. Thank you.
>
> The qualifier "in general" is correct. However, it's easy to
> conceptualize instantaneous velocity jumping from one inertial
> reference frame to another.

And according to you the use of them in the grandfather paradox demonstrates
incompetence so why did you bring them up? And such and such "velocity
jumping" is indeed non-physical.

> And this assumption is free of
> contradictions. I was merely emphasizing Einstein's gross incompetence
> and glaring obfuscation, which was meant to hide his inability to
> resolve the twin paradox simply and easily.

You are claiming that Einstein was incompetant and yet you have yet to
demonstrate it. All you've done is say that something Einstein never did was
something that showed incompetence and therefore Einstein must be
incompetent. You also claim that Einstein didn't resolve the twin paradox
when he actually did. In fact there is no true paradox in the sense that
nothing here is self-contradictory. The sole reason its called a paradox is
because to the untrained it *appears* self contraditory. It really isn't.

Pete

"Shubee" <e.Shubee***gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cb0b6d4-f626-41c0-bdfb-457c41e3ba1b***s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 3:27 pm, "Pmb" <some...***someplace.com> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:51f3aac3-5d99-413c-be6d-e4f20d757fc4***o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 24, 11:02 am, "Pmb" <some...***someplace.com> wrote:
>> >> "Shubee" <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> > The reason Einstein's approach demonstrates incompetence is that
>> >> > accelerating from one inertial frame to another can be thought of as
>> >> > an instantaneous process or something that only takes a negligible
>> >> > amount of time when compared to the entire trip.
>>
>> >> Einstein didn't base his arguement on any instantaneous proccess.
>>
>> > I didn't say that he did.
>>
>> I didn't say that you said that either.
>
> So how should I have interpreted your completely irrelevant
> statement?

irrelevant huh? Okay. I can see that this conversation should come to an
end.

On Jul 23, 8:12***am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...***ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Shubee <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> *** e154c28b-daca-4170-bed2-f3d61980d...***z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
> >> which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
> >> are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
> >> 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>
> >>http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> >> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> >> Unnikrishnan
>
> > Pentcho,
>
> > I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
> > silly and incompetent.
>
> > Shubee
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
>
> If only Poncho would engage in a conversation with you.
> *That* would be interesting.
> Come on Pispo, go for it!
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Acceleration decelerates time.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 23, 8:12***am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...***ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Shubee <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> *** e154c28b-daca-4170-bed2-f3d61980d...***z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
> >> which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
> >> are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
> >> 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>
> >>http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> >> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> >> Unnikrishnan
>
> > Pentcho,
>
> > I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
> > silly and incompetent.
>
> > Shubee
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
>
> If only Poncho would engage in a conversation with you.
> *That* would be interesting.
> Come on Pispo, go for it!
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Acceleration decelerates time.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jul 23, 8:12***am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...***ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Shubee <e.Shu...***gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> *** e154c28b-daca-4170-bed2-f3d61980d...***z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 10:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the twin paradox
> >> which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and clever,
> >> are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
> >> 1918 very silly paper do exist:
>
> >>http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
> >> "On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
> >> Unnikrishnan
>
> > Pentcho,
>
> > I freely admit that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox was
> > silly and incompetent.
>
> > Shubee
> >http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
>
> If only Poncho would engage in a conversation with you.
> *That* would be interesting.
> Come on Pispo, go for it!
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Acceleration decelerates time.

Mitch Raemsch