Twin paradox "resolution" article

Hi Jan, I like your model but it has too many gadets that confuse me. Can you simpify and get rid of the non essential devices? thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jan]: Does a laser pulse from a horizontal moving laser, with respect to some "fixed" frame, get a horizontal velocity component with respect to that frame?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes.

I've written an article about length contraction is SR and LR for the next issue of the <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>, inspired by this discussion. Hopefully, it will clear up some of these matters. It is out for review now. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[TVF]: Yes.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So if I'm getting it correctly, the following could be observed. Consider a laser mounted horizontally to the edge of a table. In addition, we mount a mirror in the middle of the table, such that when a laser puls hits the mirror, we will see a red spot on the ceiling. We start moving the mirror with uniform velocity away from the laser, and as a result, the laser pulse bounces of the mirror with a horizontal velocity component. So light is considered to be a particle in this case? We could replace the laser pulse with a rubber ball and get the same effect, that is, the motion of light is clearly affected by the motion of the emitter with respect to some frame. Has this effect been measured?

No experiment has ever been devised that can detect a difference between "motion" and "non-motion". That is why all motion is considered relative. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Or do you think all mainstream scientists are irrational and accept contradictions?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

According to the widely accepted geometrical interpretation of GR a black hole contains a singularity.

As I understand it, a singularity is a theorectical point of zero size which contains the entire mass of the precurser star. That meens it has infinite density.

If one believes that matter is wave-like on the smallest scale, how can something of zero, point like, size contain any matter at all, let alone an infinite density of matter??

IMHO that is a glaring contradiction that is accepted by nearly all mainstream scientists and cannot be challenged without risking a visit from the intellectual thought police to cut off a persons......

Funding!

Although this topic seems to have lost interest, I was wondering where I can find the paper being disputed? Also I thought I saw mentioned that this was explained in a Meta Reasearch Bulletin. Is this available?

My view on this twins paradox is that you need to define what you mean by time or aging. It seems to me that the only thing that is justified is the claim that a moving clock runs slow. That seems to a problem with the functioning of the clock. I cant make sense out of the idea that the travelling twin ages more slowly. Just because his clock runs slow? My idea is to sell slow clocks to women and make big bucks telling them that with this clock they dont age fast but remain young forever. I expect to make a lot of money with this broken clock.