Re: The real twin paradox.
Dirk Van de moortel
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:06b84031-18aa-4644...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this
> expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in
> opposite directions.
>
> Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric,
> they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth.
>
> In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each
> other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that
> their clocks tell the same time.
>
> Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's
> clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow
> for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast.
No, special relativity says much more precise than that
"moving clocks" are running slow.
It says something about intertial observers who measure
times between ticks on remote, moving clocks.
When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure
this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock
is "running slower".
While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each
tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
with a smaller time value.
While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each
tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
with a smaller time value.
After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each
tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
with a larger time value.
After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each
tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
with a larger time value.
>
> The paradox is that special relativity says that a twin will never see
> the other twin's clock catch up, but the clocks must show the same
> time at the end of the experiment because of symmetry.
When they finally meet, for both clocks, this larger time reading of
the simultaneous events on the other clock is compensated by the
"more slowly running time" on that clock such that they read the
same time when they are reunited.
Dirk Vdm
[copy and follow-up to sci.physics.relativity]
colp
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this
> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in
> > opposite directions.
>
> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric,
> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth.
>
> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each
> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that
> > their clocks tell the same time.
>
> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's
> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow
> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast.
>
> No, special relativity says much more precise than that
> "moving clocks" are running slow.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my description,
but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong.
>
> It says something about intertial observers who measure
> times between ticks on remote, moving clocks.
>
> When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure
> this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock
> is "running slower".
> While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each
> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
> with a smaller time value.
> While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each
> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
> with a smaller time value.
Yes, that is the standard theory.
>
> After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
> another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each
> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
> with a larger time value.
> After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
> another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each
> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
> with a larger time value.
Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time
value.
This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative
velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks
separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time
dilation.
Josef Matz
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:tWT0j.217820$gM5.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Hello Dirk
If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the
symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be
compensated somehow you have solved the paradox !
Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ?
And please: SR says that both clocks go physically physically different
(slower) than the other.
Josef
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Blah Balh Blah
You are not even able to solve an elementary problem
about a relativistic rocket!
Marcel Luttgens
Sue...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb
> im Newsbeitragnews:tWT0j.217820$gM5.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> > "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
You have to use a light-clock moving in stationary
media to get the *physical* behavior because
light does not move inertially.
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/st9.jpg
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
If you want to relate the light-clock's rate to
inertial frames or kinetic energy,
mass/energy equivalence is used to
couple to an inertial field or pseudo-ether.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
What the travelers see each other's light-clocks
or normal clock doing is irrelevant. They all have to agree
on the total number of ticks at experiment's conclusion
and normal clocks that are not responsive to motion
through a dielectic shouldn't change rate.
Sue...
>
> Josef
>
>
>
bz
news:a99fa604-6121-47d8...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> normal clocks that are not responsive to motion
> through a dielectric shouldn't change rate.
I tried to buy a 'normal clock' at the clock store but they told me they
are no longer made. They used to be made in Newton's days, but now
EVERYTHING that is made of charged particles responds to motion through
space, which is a dielectric medium. Maxwell managed to change the laws of
physics with his equations.
And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
So, let me borrow your 'normal clock' pleeeeze. I will gladly return it
just as soon as my twin brings it back from his trip to the Andromeda
Galaxy.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
colp
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this
> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in
> > opposite directions.
>
> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric,
> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth.
>
> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each
> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that
> > their clocks tell the same time.
>
> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's
> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow
> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast.
>
> No, special relativity says much more precise than that
> "moving clocks" are running slow.
The fact that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms are more precise that
my description does not make my description incorrect.
>
> It says something about intertial observers who measure
> times between ticks on remote, moving clocks.
>
> When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure
> this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock
> is "running slower".
> While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each
> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
> with a smaller time value.
> While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each
> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
> with a smaller time value.
O.K. That's the standard theory.
>
> After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
> another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each
> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
> with a larger time value.
> After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
> another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each
> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
> with a larger time value.
Wrong. The fact that the clocks now approach each other does not
change the fact that time dilation is still observed. This is because
the term for relative velocity is squared, making the relative
direction unimportant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
The only compensation for the time dilation occurs in the non-inertial
frames, but the paradox will still occur for sufficiently long
durations of the inertial frames.
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:a99fa604-6121-47d8...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > normal clocks that are not responsive to motion
> > through a dielectric shouldn't change rate.
>
> I tried to buy a 'normal clock' at the clock store but they told me they
> are no longer made. They used to be made in Newton's days, but now
> EVERYTHING that is made of charged particles responds to motion through
> space, which is a dielectric medium. Maxwell managed to change the laws of
> physics with his equations.
Did you try to buy a light-clock specifically designed to
respond to motion through media? If the clock store had one
I think you would find most of the clocks you have are
"normal" when you blow hydrogen gas at a significant fraction
of c toward or past their cases.
The gas moving between the light-clock's mirrors will cause it
to slow however.
>
> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
>
> So, let me borrow your 'normal clock' pleeeeze. I will gladly return it
> just as soon as my twin brings it back from his trip to the Andromeda
> Galaxy.
"normal" clocks are usually inertial mechanisms. Are you disputing
this statement with your suggestion that a light-clock should behave
the same way as an inertial clock ?
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
If you can, then you will be demonstrating that
General Relativity is unnecessay and you'll have
some evidence of an inertial ether to support your
argument.
>
> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
>
> So, let me borrow your 'normal clock' pleeeeze. I will gladly return it
> just as soon as my twin brings it back from his trip to the Andromeda
> Galaxy.
I'll trade you a normal clock for a light-clock.
You might get a good deal on this one but you'll
have to supply your own launch vehicle and figure out
how to expose it to moving ism.
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/sumo.html
Sue...
>
> --
> bz
>
bz
news:45e50819-65f6-46a3...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
I think you forgot that the observation of the others clock must take
place via some signal that travels at c. Perhaps each clock digitally
encodes the date and time and transmits it by radio, every second. This is
cheaper than having an infinite set of observers for each inertial frame
of reference so that the clocks can be checked by a nearby observer
co-moving with the other ships frame of reference.
In any case, While traveling away from each other the signals from the
other ship are Doppler shifted downward in frequency and the time hacks
come further apart than once per second. When traveling toward each other,
the signal from the other ship is doppler shifted upward in frequency and
the time ticks arrive faster than once per second.
Once you correct for doppler shift (you do know the other ships tranmit
frequency), you can correct the times and know that the other ships clock
is ticking at the same rate as yours.
colp
I didn't forget. The issue isn't critical in regard to the paradox,
that's all.
> Perhaps each clock digitally
> encodes the date and time and transmits it by radio, every second. This is
> cheaper than having an infinite set of observers for each inertial frame
> of reference so that the clocks can be checked by a nearby observer
> co-moving with the other ships frame of reference.
O.K.
>
> In any case, While traveling away from each other the signals from the
> other ship are Doppler shifted downward in frequency and the time hacks
> come further apart than once per second. When traveling toward each other,
> the signal from the other ship is doppler shifted upward in frequency and
> the time ticks arrive faster than once per second.
Technically I think it's called red & blue shift rather than doppler,
which
refers to sound rather electromatic radiation.
>
> Once you correct for doppler shift (you do know the other ships tranmit
> frequency), you can correct the times and know that the other ships clock
> is ticking at the same rate as yours.
Redshift/blueshift shift would be a real issue, but it is a different
one to
Lorentz-Fitzgerald time dilation. Redshift/blueshift is proportional
to
relative velocity, but time dilation has a non-linear relationship to
the
absolute value of the relative velocity.
colp
bz
news:1a3bb0bf-fe3f-4080...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> I didn't forget. The issue isn't critical in regard to the paradox,
> that's all.
>
>> Perhaps each clock digitally
>> encodes the date and time and transmits it by radio, every second. This
>> is cheaper than having an infinite set of observers for each inertial
>> frame of reference so that the clocks can be checked by a nearby
>> observer co-moving with the other ships frame of reference.
>
> O.K.
>
>>
>> In any case, While traveling away from each other the signals from the
>> other ship are Doppler shifted downward in frequency and the time hacks
>> come further apart than once per second. When traveling toward each
>> other, the signal from the other ship is Doppler shifted upward in
>> frequency and the time ticks arrive faster than once per second.
>
> Technically I think it's called red & blue shift rather than Doppler,
> which
> refers to sound rather electromatic radiation.
Tell that to the traffic cop that gave me a ticket.
He clocked me using a Doppler radar. :)
Actually, the term is freely used to describe the effect.
There are TWO different Doppler shifts. Actually three.
1) classical Doppler shift (newtonian physics)
2) relativistic Doppler shift
3) transverse Doppler shift
....
>
> Redshift/blueshift shift would be a real issue, but it is a different
> one to
> Lorentz-Fitzgerald time dilation. Redshift/blueshift is proportional
> to
> relative velocity, but time dilation has a non-linear relationship to
> the
> absolute value of the relative velocity.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
If I remember correctly, the relativistic Doppler shift takes into account
the classical Doppler shift AND the time dilation.
In classical Doppler, the shift drops to zero when the path of the wave is
perpendicular to the direction of travel. The transverse Doppler effect is
NOT zero at that point due to relativisitic effects.
bz
news:75645b9d-5e0d-4d6d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 21, 1:29 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> innews:a99fa604-6121-47d8...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > normal clocks that are not responsive to motion
>> > through a dielectric shouldn't change rate.
>>
>> I tried to buy a 'normal clock' at the clock store but they told me
>> they are no longer made. They used to be made in Newton's days, but now
>> EVERYTHING that is made of charged particles responds to motion through
>> space, which is a dielectric medium. Maxwell managed to change the laws
>> of physics with his equations.
>
> Did you try to buy a light-clock specifically designed to
> respond to motion through media?
No, I wanted a 'normal clock', one that ran at the same rate, no matter
what its speed was.
> If the clock store had one
> I think you would find most of the clocks you have are
> "normal" when you blow hydrogen gas at a significant fraction
> of c toward or past their cases.
But I am not blowing hydrogen past the case, the case is moving THROUGH the
hydrogen.
But it doesn't. In your case, the clock having hydrogen blown by it and my
clock are at rest wrt each other.
In the second case, the test clock moves through the hydrogen which is at
rest wrt my clock.
In the second case, the test clock loses ticks (when it gets back from its
trip it has accumulated less ticks than my stay at home clock).
It does this no matter HOW big or well made the case is. Electrostatic
shielding and magnetic shielding doesn't make any difference.
>
> The gas moving between the light-clock's mirrors will cause it
> to slow however.
Not a light clock. Not a heavy clock. A special ultra stable quartz crystal
clock, temperature stabilized.
It uses three crystals, each perpendicular to the others.
But it still isn't a 'Sue normal clock' because it loses ticks.
>
>>
>> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
>>
>> So, let me borrow your 'normal clock' pleeeeze. I will gladly return it
>> just as soon as my twin brings it back from his trip to the Andromeda
>> Galaxy.
>
> "normal" clocks are usually inertial mechanisms. Are you disputing
> this statement with your suggestion that a light-clock should behave
> the same way as an inertial clock ?
I am not talking about light clocks at all.
I still don't know about them. KS keeps telling me that the first photons
miss the mirrors.
KS, HW and Sue keep telling me that "normal clocks" don't lose ticks, no
matter how far and fast they go.
I don't know who to believe, KS, HW and Sue or the evidence.
Maybe the contradiction between the evidence and what KS and Sue say is
only apparent.
I am talking about 'normal clocks' such as a quartz crystal clock.
Do you agree that that is an inertial clock?
>
>
> <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> but no transformation mixes them with the
> gravitational field. >>
> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
>
>
> If you can, then you will be demonstrating that
> General Relativity is unnecessay and you'll have
> some evidence of an inertial ether to support your
> argument.
I would love to see data that falsifies GR, but I don't expect to see it
soon or here.
But that is not my goal at the moment.
My goal is to find a "normal clock" that will be unaffected by traveling at
relativistic velocities wrt a stay-at-home test clock.
Tell me where I can find one, pleeeese.
>> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
>>
>> So, let me borrow your 'normal clock' pleeeeze. I will gladly return it
>> just as soon as my twin brings it back from his trip to the Andromeda
>> Galaxy.
>
> I'll trade you a normal clock for a light-clock.
Oh, light clocks are not difficult to build.
You can take a fiber optic transceiver and a mirror and a bit of
electronics.
Do a little optical impedance matching to free space and set up your mirror
at a convenient distance.
Set the electronics so that every time a tick is received, a new tick is
launched.
Press the little 'starter' button.
You have a light clock.
Any high school kid can build one.
The real trick is to build a 'normal clock' that ACTS like sue says a
'normal clock' should act.
> You might get a good deal on this one but you'll
> have to supply your own launch vehicle and figure out
> how to expose it to moving ism.
>
> http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/sumo.html
>
Show me the data. Did it run slow, as predicted by SR and GR or did it
maintain a constant rate as per Sue, KS, HW???
It was supposed to launch in 2006. This is almost 2008. The web page was
last updated in 2004.
Show me the data.
colp
<snip>
> Hello Dirk
>
> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the
> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be
> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox !
>
> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ?
A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well,
since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to
accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve
the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased
arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames.
Cosmik de Bris
General relativity is not required and does not help in this case. It is
possible to set up the "twin" scenario with triplets where no turn
around is required. This involves a third person to carry the clock
reading from the outbound twin back to the earthbound twin.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sue...
[...}
>
> Oh, light clocks are not difficult to build.
> You can take a fiber optic transceiver and a mirror and a bit of
> electronics.
>
> Do a little optical impedance matching to free space and set up your mirror
> at a convenient distance.
> Set the electronics so that every time a tick is received, a new tick is
> launched.
> Press the little 'starter' button.
> You have a light clock.
>
> Any high school kid can build one.
>
> The real trick is to build a 'normal clock' that ACTS like sue says a
> 'normal clock' should act.
Have you read the chapter is SR about Fizeau's experiment?
Do you know how to use vector addiion to compute the
round trip of an aeroplane?
You and Dave still seem unfamilar with this material.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
Do you know how to use it to compute how much a light-clock slows?
Sue...
>
bz
news:7c3700d6-75df-4a6d...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 21, 8:33 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> [...}
>>
>> Oh, light clocks are not difficult to build.
>> You can take a fiber optic transceiver and a mirror and a bit of
>> electronics.
>>
>> Do a little optical impedance matching to free space and set up your
>> mirror at a convenient distance.
>> Set the electronics so that every time a tick is received, a new tick
>> is launched.
>> Press the little 'starter' button.
>> You have a light clock.
>>
>> Any high school kid can build one.
>>
>> The real trick is to build a 'normal clock' that ACTS like sue says a
>> 'normal clock' should act.
>
> Have you read the chapter is SR about Fizeau's experiment?
'the chapter is SR'? perhaps you mean 'in'?
Fizeau measured effects of moving medium on light.
Does the Fizeau Experiment Really Test Special Relativity?
Authors: Clement, Gerard American Journal of Physics, v48 n12 p1059-62
Dec
1980 The motivation and interpretation of the Fizeau experiment are
reviewed, and its status as a test of special relativity is discussed. It
is shown, with the aid of a simplified, purely mechanical model of the
propagation of light in matter, that the experiment actually cannot
discriminate between Galilean and relativistic kinematics. (Author/SK)
The Experiment of Fizeau as a Test of Relativistic Simultaneity
Curt Renshaw -- he thinks Fizeau falsifies SR. He includes Doppler effects
in his calculations in a way that may not be valid.
> Do you know how to use vector addiion to compute the
> round trip of an aeroplane?
yes. I can even use vectors to calculate instantaneous power in a reactive
circuit. I don't need to use imaginary numbers or suppose that the power
is imaginary.
[quote from http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html]
Much more recently, there was some controversy over what happens when the
medium is moving at right angles to the direction of travel of the light.
The result was settled by an experiment carried out here in Aberdeen in
1971, with Prof R.V. Jones building the equipment and with Prof Mike
Player covering the theory. The result vindicated the predictions of
Maxwell’s equations and the predictions of special relativity. [unquote]
>
> You and Dave still seem unfamilar with this material.
>
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> Do you know how to use it to compute how much a light-clock slows?
Light clocks gave Einstein a simple way to derive the Lorentz equations.
You seem to think that ONLY light clocks are effected by relativistic
motion.
The fact remains that ALL of our clocks seem to be 'ab'"normal clocks" by
your definition of normal. All seem to be influenced by relativistic
motion. [quote from http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html]
Rossi & Hall experiment
The original experiment was done by Rossi & Hall in 1941 who measured muon
fluxes not 10 km high but at the top of Mt Washington in New England,
about 2 km high, and at the base of the mountain. The effect is less for a
height difference of only 2 km but for their muon speeds of 0.994c,
relativistically the reduction should have been only a factor of 1.26
whereas without time dilation the reduction would be a factor of 8.5.
Rossi and Hall’s figures were consistent with the relativistic
prediction. The experiment has since been repeated by others with
convincing results. ....
In 1979 Bailey et al at a CERN accelerator reported a similar experiment
with CERN generated muons of speeds 0.9994c, trapped in a particle
accelerator, that were observed in the lab to have 29.3 times the muon
rest lifetime, completely consistent with time dilation. ....
One of the consequential results in relativity is that no bodies can
travel at a faster speed than the speed of light. Nobel prize winner
Sheldon Glashow and collaborator Sidney Coleman showed in 1997 that the
argument could be taken further. The mere existence of very high energy
cosmic ray photons reaching the Earth is strong proof, without any extra
experiment, of the existence of an upper limit of the speed of light c
for material bodies. Their argument is that photons decay by pair
production into electrons and positrons at a rate that can be calculated
from particle physics. If the upper limit to the speed of electrons
differed from c by a small amount, then high-energy photons (~20 Tev)
would decay in nanoseconds and never travel any significant distance from
their point of creation. The detection of these particles on Earth sets a
tight bound of an upper limit to the speed of matter being within
1.5×10-15 of c.
....
Would you bet your life on Special Relativity being true? Anyone who
relies on GPS in bad weather may be doing just that. Probably thousands of
aircraft passengers and crew do so every day. ....
Conclusion
I’m showing as a final slide a table that made an impression on me when I
first saw it many years ago. It lists 13 key experiments that have a
testing relevance to Special Relativity in the columns, and the
predictions of 6 alternative theories to Special Relativity in the rows.
The red boxes mark the places where the experimental results disagree with
the predictions of the theory. Only Special Relativity is in agreement
with all testing experiments. ....
1: Aberration, 2: Fizeau convection coefficient; 3: Michelson-Morley; 4:
Kennedy-Thorndike; 5: Moving sources and mirrors; 6: De Sitter
spectroscopic binaries; 7: Michelson-Morley, using sunlight 8: Variation
of mass with velocity; 9: General Mass-Energy equivalence; 10: Radiation
from moving charges; 11: Muon decay at high velocity; 12: Trouton-Noble;
13: Unipolar induction, using moving magnet. [unquote]
You, on the other hand seem to be a proponent of fringe science theories
such as those at http://www.wbabin.net/physics/light.htm
[quote]
Assigning the properties of superfluid to the physical vacuum allows us to
provide a physical model of the interaction of the photon with the
measurement system (to make more concrete, the physical meaning of the
dynamics "hidden" in the four-dimensional kinematics of special
relativity). Namely, at the interaction between the photon and the
measurement system a precession of the spins of the micro-particles
constituting the superfluid physical vacuum is generated in the vacuum
(the so-called uniformly precessing domain is created). The frequency of
the precession is the frequency of the photon detected by the measurement
system. [unquote]
Maybe L. B. Boldyreva and N. B. Sotina, HW, KS, and Sue are right. Maybe
time IS absolute and independent of motion through space. Maybe the clocks
in the GPS satellites only SEEM to be influenced by relativity. Maybe when
they are brought back to earth the missing ticks will be found to have
accumulated in a little 'tick bucket' and the clocks will be shown to be
the exact same age as their earthbound twins. Maybe the sun rises in the
west and sets in the east.
Show me one clock that doesn't appear to be influenced by relativistic
motion. [besides the pendulum clock which doesn't even run at zero G].
Why do we need to postulate some magical property of space [that we are
unable to observe here] and tie the observed slowing of all kinds of
clocks to the way that magical property interacts with moving matter?
harry
That is indeed irrelevant but you are still mistaken because time dilation
is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames. Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Harald
Sue...
> Much more recently, there was some controversy over what happens when the
> medium is moving at right angles to the direction of travel of the light.
> The result was settled by an experiment carried out here in Aberdeen in
> 1971, with Prof R.V. Jones building the equipment and with Prof Mike
> Player covering the theory. The result vindicated the predictions of
> Maxwell's equations and the predictions of special relativity. [unquote]
>
>
>
> > You and Dave still seem unfamilar with this material.
>
> >http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> > Do you know how to use it to compute how much a light-clock slows?
>
> Light clocks gave Einstein a simple way to derive the Lorentz equations.
> You seem to think that ONLY light clocks are effected by relativistic
> motion.
*Only* light clocks will match the Lornetz transform.
Again: !!!
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
!!!
Light does not move inertially. You have said so
yourself.
[...]
> ....
> Would you bet your life on Special Relativity being true? Anyone who
> relies on GPS in bad weather may be doing just that. Probably thousands of
> aircraft passengers and crew do so every day. ....
> Conclusion
You are not using GR. You are in fact inadvertantly arguing aginst
its most basic assumtions. Inertial couplings can be modeled through
mass energy equivalence when Newton's ether is abandoned.
You keep putting the ether back into the interacton but you are
not insisting on a mass to make the coupling.
From the SUMO link you probably noticed moving mass is
not condidered equivalent to moving light. If you believe
it is then you need to offer your services to develop
long-range atom lasers.
> I'm showing as a final slide a table that made an impression on me when I
> first saw it many years ago. It lists 13 key experiments that have a
> testing relevance to Special Relativity in the columns, and the
> predictions of 6 alternative theories to Special Relativity in the rows.
> The red boxes mark the places where the experimental results disagree with
> the predictions of the theory. Only Special Relativity is in agreement
> with all testing experiments. ....
> 1: Aberration, 2: Fizeau convection coefficient; 3: Michelson-Morley; 4:
> Kennedy-Thorndike; 5: Moving sources and mirrors; 6: De Sitter
> spectroscopic binaries; 7: Michelson-Morley, using sunlight 8: Variation
> of mass with velocity; 9: General Mass-Energy equivalence; 10: Radiation
> from moving charges; 11: Muon decay at high velocity; 12: Trouton-Noble;
> 13: Unipolar induction, using moving magnet. [unquote]
Is special relativity running for public office?
That is no substitute for some evidence that light moves
inertially.
My automoble does not recoil backward when I switch on
the headlamps so I am not hopeful you will find any
evidence.
>
> You, on the other hand seem to be a proponent of fringe science theories
> such as those at
ht tp://ww w.wbabin.net/physics/light.htm
Most of my URL's are to Einstien 1920 paper, his Nobel lecture
Weinberg's articles or Fitzpatrick's lectures. Which are you
calling *fringe science* ?
> [quote]
The article I never offered snipped and it's URL crippled.
If you want to argue about something I offered, I am happy
to do so, but don't ask me to support or refute something
you can only attibute to a Vulcan mind-meld.
...and stop trying to read my mind. It is Written in Swahili.
:o)
> Maybe L. B. Boldyreva and N. B. Sotina, HW, KS, and Sue are right. Maybe
> time IS absolute and independent of motion through space. Maybe the clocks
> in the GPS satellites only SEEM to be influenced by relativity. Maybe when
> they are brought back to earth the missing ticks will be found to have
> accumulated in a little 'tick bucket' and the clocks will be shown to be
> the exact same age as their earthbound twins. Maybe the sun rises in the
> west and sets in the east.
I don't know about L. B. Boldyreva and N. B. Sotina but
Einstein, Hilbert and Noether seemed to think time had to
be as invariant as mass.
<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
If you want to trade energy for time then drive
a faster car to work. The *time* you saved
in transit will appear on you fuel bill.
...and you'll also find that silly plot of
proper-time intervals used as a feeble prop
for the twins myth, actually corresponds to
a real world phenomena instead of absurd
nonsense. It will correspond to the *energy*
exchanged by your automobile.
>
> Show me one clock that doesn't appear to be influenced by relativistic
> motion. [besides the pendulum clock which doesn't even run at zero G].
No... You need to better define terms if you want to prompt
meaningful study of some particular clock design.
*appear* *relativistic*
Also consider the part played by mass, inertia and
oscillator path length for any particular design.
>
> Why do we need to postulate some magical property of space [that we are
> unable to observe here] and tie the observed slowing of all kinds of
> clocks to the way that magical property interacts with moving matter?
We need to do this because we do not have a mechanism for
gravity. When a pushed car pushes back for a period of *time*
we are attributing the effect to a mass elsewhere that the
car cannot communicate with, faster than the speed of light.
<< I shall turn to those problems which are
related to the development which I have
traced. Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Sue...
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
harry
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Regards,
Harald
kenseto
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns99EFC6EC6C39FWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> news:75645b9d-5e0d-4d6d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > "normal" clocks are usually inertial mechanisms. Are you disputing
> > this statement with your suggestion that a light-clock should behave
> > the same way as an inertial clock ?
>
> I am not talking about light clocks at all.
> I still don't know about them. KS keeps telling me that the first photons
> miss the mirrors.
Yes.....due to the absolute motion of the mirror wrt the light ray.
> KS, HW and Sue keep telling me that "normal clocks" don't lose ticks, no
> matter how far and fast they go.
Wong I didn't say that at all. I said that a clock second for a moving clock
contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR
assertion that the rate on the moving clock is running slow compared to the
observer's clock.
> I don't know who to believe, KS, HW and Sue or the evidence.
Believe the evidence.....that a moving clock second contains a larger amount
of absolute time.
>
>
> I would love to see data that falsifies GR, but I don't expect to see it
> soon or here.
> But that is not my goal at the moment.
> My goal is to find a "normal clock" that will be unaffected by traveling
at
> relativistic velocities wrt a stay-at-home test clock.
> Tell me where I can find one, pleeeese.
There is no such clock exist. The rate of a clock is affected by
relativistic velocities.
>
>
> >> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around.
> >>
> Show me the data. Did it run slow, as predicted by SR and GR or did it
> maintain a constant rate as per Sue, KS, HW???
> It was supposed to launch in 2006. This is almost 2008. The web page was
> last updated in 2004.
> Show me the data.
I didn't say that at all. I said that a moving clock running slow because
its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds
to the SR/GR prediction that a moving clock runs slow.
Ken Seto
Dono
> I didn't say that at all. I said that a moving clock running slow because
> its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds
> to the SR/GR prediction that a moving clock runs slow.
>
> Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45e50819-65f6-46a3...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
If you have ever heard of a spacetime diagram, try to draw one
and you'll see. Draw the line of simultaneity on A before the
turnaround and look at Event AB1 this line intersects the worldine
of B. Then draw the line of simultaneity after the turnaround and
mark event AB2 where this line intersects B's worldline. You will
notice that there is a large jump in B's time between events AB1
and AB2. Likewise, draw the line of simultaneity on B before the
turnaround and look at Event BA1 this line intersects the worldine
of A. Then draw the line of simultaneity after the turnaround and
mark event BA2 where this line intersects A's worldline. You will
notice that there is a large jump in A's time between events BA1
and BA2.
Does this help?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Josef Matz" <jose...@arcor.de> wrote in message news:47446186$0$27132$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
See my reply to colp.
Dirk Vdm
colp
wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be
observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of
switching reference frames.
colp
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Josef Matz" <josefm...@arcor.de> wrote in messagenews:47446186$0$27132$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net...
>
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb
> > im Newsbeitragnews:tWT0j.217820$gM5.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an
indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both
clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
Dirk Van de moortel
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I don't understand what you mean with
"The "other there!" response."
I also have not seen
"a request for an argument".
I agree that
"Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run
slower than each other"
But "when the clocks are in the same frame of reference", they
don't move with respect to each other, so they are also not
"observed to run slower than each other".
Have you tried drawing that diagram?
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never
borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second,
that he returned the vase in perfect condition;
and third, that the crack was already present
when he borrowed it."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
Learn what a space-time interval represents:
<< Note: if you know about complex numbers you
will notice that the space part enters as if it
were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the
essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime
geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary
factor i relative to time. >>
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
Did the math quizzlers group trip you up on the
missing dollar paradox again ?
Sue...
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:bb3238a1-8f98-4ce0...@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 5:16 am, Mike Fontenot <mlf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>
>> > [...] Special relativity only covers inertial frames, not the
>> > turnaround.
>>
>> That's a common misconception. Special relativity is perfectly
>> capable of handling all situations involving any kind of motion,
>> provided there are no large masses involved.
>
> Link, please.
For instance
http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/AccelTwinViewpoints.html
etc.
>
>>
>> > What has the separation distance got to do with observed time
>> > variations?
>>
>> My CADO equation (that I described in my previous response) answers
>> that question.
>
> Well your equation can't be based on special relativity then.
> Separation distance is not a factor in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald time
> dilation equation.
It is, when you use special relativity to describe motion as
seen from an accelerating frame, by using the instantaneously
comoving inertial frames. It is complicated, difficult, and pretty
advanced, but it works.
See
http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/AccelTwinViewpoints.html
But having looked at your other contributions, I think you
should first try to understand the basic stuff.
[copy and follow-up to sci.physics.relativity]
Dirk Vdm
Bryan Olson
> [...] I said that a clock second for a moving clock
> contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR
> assertion that the rate on the moving clock is running slow compared to the
> observer's clock.
On the other hand, a second observer, in the frame of the
'moving' clock, sees the first observer's clock running slow.
So what's the deal on this "absolute time"? In one frame,
clock A's second contains "a larger amount of absolute time"
than clock B's second, while in another frame, clock B's
second contains more of this "absolute" time than clock A's.
At best, "absolute" seems a poor word choice.
-Bryan
colp
wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought
experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment
descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this
thread.
Cosmik de Bris
Nothing is ever perfectly symmetrical, how far out of symmetrical does
something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical? Nothing magical
happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it?
colp
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colp" <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 23, 6:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> See my reply to colp.
>
> > The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an
> > indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both
> > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
> > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
> > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
>
> I don't understand what you mean with
> "The "other there!" response."
It is a behaviour which is apparent in some arguments. It involves
making a vague reference to another argument which supposedly supports
the position of the poster.
>
> I also have not seen
> "a request for an argument".
By an argument I mean logical reasoning or statements of fact which
support your position, which is apparently that SR is a workable
theory.
The request was in the context that you snipped:
"Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ?"
>
> I agree that
> "Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run
> slower than each other"
> But "when the clocks are in the same frame of reference", they
> don't move with respect to each other, so they are also not
> "observed to run slower than each other".
Yes. The problem is that the observation of a slow clock is
incompatible with the observation of the clocks telling the same time
when they are in the same frame of reference at the end of the
experiment.
From the frame of referenece of a single twin, the other twin's clock
must be observed to both slow down as prescribed by SR, and then be
observed to speed up again so that the same times are observed at the
end of the experiment.
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms at the heart of SR describe observed
clock slowing, but they do not describe observed clock speedups.
>
> Have you tried drawing that diagram?
There's not much point unless we can both see the diagram and talk
about what it represents. That would involve getting the diagram onto
the internet, which is more work that I am willing to contemplate
right now.
Bryan Olson
> Special relativity says that both
> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
You've gotten several good explanations of where your
reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute
relativity. Lots of people who know lots of math have
gone over the theory. Whether or not it describes how
the universe works, challenging its self-consistency
is futile.
When my own trials of thought experiments yield
conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
is quite a bit more likely than the other.
--
--Bryan
colp
A circle is perfectly symmetrical.
> how far out of symmetrical does
> something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical?
A finite distance.
> Nothing magical
> happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it?
The paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on magic.
The paradox depends of the fact that (according to SR) a twin will
observe the other clock slowing down and never observe it speeding up,
and yet it must tell the same time as his own clock at the end of the
experiment.
Cosmik de Bris
As Dirk has told you, and I have told you in the other newsgroup, you
need to learn some basics.
Sue...
Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
paper which only couples to inertia by mass
energy equivalence.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Then you can debate with yourself whether
'tis more likely Einstein was right in 1905
or in 1920.
Abstract
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
Sue...
>
> --
> --Bryan
colp
> colp wrote:
> > Special relativity says that both
> > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
> > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
> > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
>
> You've gotten several good explanations of where your
> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds.
>
> More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute
> relativity.
Wrong again. A thought experiment which results in a paradox is a form
of a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Bryan Olson
> "harry" cited:
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_intro.html
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought
> experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment
> descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this
> thread.
They explain the point you missed in your analysis: When a twin,
far from his brother, change frames for the return trip, from
his own point of view his brother's clock jumps ahead.
You might start with: http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
In your symmetric set-up, SR predicts the twins will be the same
age upon their return to Earth. The contradictory conclusion was
simply a mistake; you did not take all that relativity predicts
into account. No paradox.
In the Einstein/Langevin thought experiment, SR predicts the
traveler will be younger than his twin brother upon return.
Actual experiments support the theory. It's not really a
paradox, just an astonishing phenomenon.
--
--Bryan
colp
What you and Dirk think I need is irrelevant.
Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>> Special relativity says that both
>>> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
>>> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
>>> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
>> You've gotten several good explanations of where your
>> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
>> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
>
> Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds.
Why ask the questions if you don't want to know the answers?
>> More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute
>> relativity.
>
> Wrong again. A thought experiment which results in a paradox is a form
> of a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Which you cannot get, SR's self-consistency is established
beyond doubt. That much is mathematical, not physical.
--
--Bryan
Bryan Olson
> Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained:
SR predicts the twins will be the same age when they return to
Earth, as does Newtonian mechanics. All experimental evidence
agrees.
The contradictory outcome was colp's own theory. His theory
adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a
ludicrous conclusion.
Paradox explained.
--
--Bryan
Cosmik de Bris
We, Dirk, Bryan, me, are only trying to help you understand, but you
just don't want to know. Your poor understanding is the problem. What
you think are marvelous arguments are naiive. You think we can't answer
your questions and therefore we don't know anything, but your questions
are bordering on silly.
> Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
Because there isn't one.
colp
By paradox I mean a proposition which contains an internal
contradiction.
The proposition is described in the opening post. The contradiction is
that SR says that a twin sees the other clock showing an earlier time
than his clock at the end of the experiment, while symmetry says that
the twin sees both clocks showing the same time.
colp
> colp wrote:
> > Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
>
> The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained:
>
> SR predicts the twins will be the same age when they return to
> Earth, as does Newtonian mechanics. All experimental evidence
> agrees.
O.K.
>
> The contradictory outcome was colp's own theory.
Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of
relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a
logically expected observation.
> His theory
> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a
> ludicrous conclusion.
What effect of SR do you think that I omitted?
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> When my own trials of thought experiments yield
>> conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
>> myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
>> scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
>> more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
>> is quite a bit more likely than the other.
>
> Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
> by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
> paper
I'm not so into the historical minutia.
> which only couples to inertia by mass
> energy equivalence.
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/
> Then you can debate with yourself whether
> 'tis more likely Einstein was right in 1905
> or in 1920.
I like the 1920 work, but reading it in an effort to find
discrepancies with other explanations is unlikely to be
helpful. Try putting aside what you think you know and
reading purely for understanding.
--
--Bryan
Cosmik de Bris
For the symmetrical case which you seem to think is miraculous in some
way, SR says that the clocks will read the same at the end of the
experiment. You say they won't. You are wrong.
colp
> colp wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
> >> colp wrote:
> >>> Special relativity says that both
> >>> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
> >>> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
> >>> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
>
> >> You've gotten several good explanations of where your
> >> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
> >> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
> >
> > Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds.
>
> Why ask the questions if you don't want to know the answers?
Because I'm looking for truthful answers.
>
> >> More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute
> >> relativity.
> >
> > Wrong again. A thought experiment which results in a paradox is a form
> > of a reductio ad absurdum argument.
>
> Which you cannot get, SR's self-consistency is established
> beyond doubt.
Wrong. The contradiction described in the OP proves that it is not
self consistent.
> That much is mathematical, not physical.
The contradiction depends on the nature of a mathematical transform
fundamental to SR.
colp
Like I said, the paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on
magic (or miracles).
> You say they won't.
Wrong. I say that the results are contradictory.
SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of
one of the twins.
colp
> On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> > When my own trials of thought experiments yield
> > conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
> > myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
> > scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
> > more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
> > is quite a bit more likely than the other.
>
> Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
> by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
> paper which only couples to inertia by mass
> energy equivalence.
If there is one thing that science doesn't like, it is having to say
that it can't explain the phenomena.
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>> Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
>> The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained:
>>
>> SR predicts the twins will be the same age when they return to
>> Earth, as does Newtonian mechanics. All experimental evidence
>> agrees.
>
> O.K.
>
>> The contradictory outcome was colp's own theory.
>
> Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of
> relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a
> logically expected observation.
That's just more of the same wrong theory. Lacking any
reference citing the claims to another source, I stand by my
description of the error as colp's own theory.
>> His theory
>> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a
>> ludicrous conclusion.
>
> What effect of SR do you think that I omitted?
Several of us have explained and cited what colp is missing.
For some reason, he thinks changing frames has no significant
effect, contrary to what SR holds.
--
--Bryan
bz
news:97365a78-f48d-478b...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> C. S. Unnikrishnan
> Gravitation Group,
> Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
> Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
> http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>
[quote]
It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock,
while being affected by motion, does not change due to
acceleration. In particular, the rate of a clock in uniform
circular motion is the same as the rate of a clock that is in
rectilinear motion at the same speed. This means that the
rate of the clock B does not change in a manner different
from what is expected from the usual Lorentz factor
modification while decelerating from velocity v to zero.
[unquote]
Notice, he says that the rate of a clock IS affected by motion.
[quote]
I may also note here that a logically consistent possibility is to
acknowledge that the rate of a clock is modified according
to the standard Lorentz factor with the velocity always
relative to the average rest frame of the universe or
the frame in which the cosmic microwave background radiation
(CMBR) is isotropic, and then there is never a
paradox of the clocks. Indeed, the entire voluminous and
elaborate writings on the twin clock problem can all be
replaced by the single-sentence resolution that the clocks
age with Lorentz factors corresponding to their velocity
relative to the preferred frame of the matter-filled universe.
The answer is always unique, unambiguous and it
matches with all known experimental results. Further, it
does not discriminate between inertial and noninertial motion
and this simplifies and unifies all calculations on clock
comparisons, including those required in sophisticated
GPS timing. The universe as a preferred frame provides
the unambiguous solution to the twin clock problem, and
this point is discussed in detail elsewhere9.
[unquote]
He does NOT claim that clocks are unaffected by motion. He says that there
is no paradox if you study the motion from a single framework. He picks
one based on the CMBR. It appears to me that the use of ANY single
inertial frame of reference would resolve the problem.
I think that you must either change your stance or cease to cite this
paper as support for your stance.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
bz
1b7afc...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 23, 1:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>> > Special relativity says that both
>> > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
>> > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
>> > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
>>
>> You've gotten several good explanations of where your
>> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
>> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
>
> Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds.
A turn around NEVER** occurs 'at relativistic speeds' because it involves
reducing the 'velocity of separation' to zero before developing a 'closing
velocity'.
[**it is possible to remain at relativistic speeds by making a large arc,
but this would be wasteful of time and fuel]
>
>>
>> More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute
>> relativity.
>
> Wrong again. A thought experiment which results in a paradox is a form
> of a reductio ad absurdum argument.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
but what is being reduced? The thing that is being reduced in the normal
twins paradox is the idea that
'what is seen is important'. Each observer 'sees the other travel away and
then return'. So it would seem natural that each would experience the same
time effects.
But what is unseen [but felt] is important. One accelerates. The other
doesn't.
One moves differently with respect to the universe than the other.
Those differences are important.
The 'paradox' you set down is also resolved by studying both travelers from
the viewpoint of their younger sister.
She stays at home on earth and tracks her brothers as they travel away and
return.
She sees their clocks running at the same rates but at a different rate
from hers.
The only thing absurd would be to assume that what each 'sees' happening to
the clocks on earth or on the other ship actually has an effect on those
clocks.
The only thing that changes a clock is the fact that each takes a different
path through time-space and ends up together again at a common time and
space.
Different distances have been traversed in the journey between the starting
and ending points.
Different distance in 'x,y,z' AND in 't'.
So, it should be no surprise that the odometers that each carried with them
have changed and the clocks have also changed.
Since each traveler went the same distance, their odometers read the same.
Their clocks also accumulated the same time.
The stay at home sisters odometer has only added a few miles (she went out
to dinner occasionally), but her clock has accumulated more time than her
brothers.
This is because the total distance that each traveled through space-time is
equal. It is equal because they started together and ended up back
together.
It is like we start at 1,1 on the graph paper and both end up at 2,2
You travel directly, in a straight line from 1,1 to 2,2
I go from 1,1 to 2,1 and then from 2,1 to 2,2
I traveled a distance of 2 units, you only traveled the square root of 2
units.
We started at the same point and ended at the same point but traveled
different distances.
Should this surprise anyone?
bz
news:eeaf80ee-faa5-489c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>>>>>twin_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
SR says that they do not read the same until the twins are reunited.
At that point in space-time, SR says that they WILL read the same.
You are mistaken in what you think SR says.
bz
1267e6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Science does NOT seek to explain phenomena.
Science seeks to study phenomena that are observable, verifiable,
identifiable and formulate theories that allow the prediction of further
phenomena.
A theory MUST be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to
formulate an experiment that MIGHT show the theory to be wrong.
A theory that can not be tested is not a scientific theory, it is
philosophy.
Take 'ghosts', demons, gods; science is perfectly content to say that it
can't explain these things. It can't even study them because it cant
observe them.
It can, of course, study the behavior of people that claim to have seen
these things.
It can, of course, record what is present when someone claims to be seeing
a ghost.
Those are the realm of science and can be studied. But non observables can
not and are not part of science.
Your statement indicates a lack of understanding of how science works.
Perhaps your [lack of]understanding of the aim of science is the basis of
your confusion about the twins paradox.
colp
> colp wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
> >> colp wrote:
> >>> Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
> >> The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained:
>
> >> SR predicts the twins will be the same age when they return to
> >> Earth, as does Newtonian mechanics. All experimental evidence
> >> agrees.
>
> > O.K.
>
> >> The contradictory outcome was colp's own theory.
>
> > Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of
> > relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a
> > logically expected observation.
>
> That's just more of the same wrong theory.
Yes, the theory of relativity is wrong.
> Lacking any
> reference citing the claims to another source, I stand by my
> description of the error as colp's own theory.
The following is not my theory:
Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that
another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking
at a slower rate as measured by their own clock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
The theory leads to a paradox in the case of two observers who
undertake symmetric relativistic journeys which start and end in a
common frame of reference.
>
> >> His theory
> >> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a
> >> ludicrous conclusion.
>
> > What effect of SR do you think that I omitted?
>
> Several of us have explained and cited what colp is missing.
I don't need your delusions.
> For some reason, he thinks changing frames has no significant
> effect, contrary to what SR holds.
The time spent in non-inertial frames cannot, in general, compensate
for the observed clock slowing.
Dono
> Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time
> value.
> This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative
> velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks
> separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time
> dilation.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Bzzzt, wrong. Try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Accelerated_rocket_calculation
colp
> colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:eeaf80ee-faa5-489c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> > SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of
> > one of the twins.
>
> SR says that they do not read the same until the twins are reunited.
SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing
progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at
bz
news:f92c81d1-fbb0-47e3...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
You are making a false assumption. You assume that they see each others
clocks as ticking slow, even when they approach each other.
In order to do that, they would need some faster than light communications
method so they could see what the other clock actually said.
But they have to depend on signals that travel at the speed of light.
Remember the Doppler shift I mentioned earlier? It effects the timing of
the time signals also.
As they head toward each other, they see the other persons clock ticking
FASTER than theirs is ticking.
As they get closer together, it takes less and less time for the clock
signals to travel the distance between ships
If you work through the math, you find that as they come toward each other,
they see each others clocks running fast.
The clocks 'catch up', converging upon the same 'correct' reading as they
land.
Of course it will NOT be the same as their stay-at-home sisters clock. Her
clock will have accumulated more time than either of theirs.
There is no paradox. Only the illusion of a paradox.
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> colp wrote:
>>> Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of
>>> relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a
>>> logically expected observation.
>> That's just more of the same wrong theory.
>
> Yes, the theory of relativity is wrong.
>
>> Lacking any
>> reference citing the claims to another source, I stand by my
>> description of the error as colp's own theory.
>
> The following is not my theory:
>
> Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that
> another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking
> at a slower rate as measured by their own clock.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Colp's theory is that somehow he gets the time-dilation of SR, but
the effect of changing inertial frames somehow does not count.
> The theory leads to a paradox in the case of two observers who
> undertake symmetric relativistic journeys which start and end in a
> common frame of reference.
Colp's theory leads to a contradiction. In SR, the relativity of
simultaneity implies that each twin's view of his far-away sibling's
age changes upon the turn-around.
>>>> His theory
>>>> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a
>>>> ludicrous conclusion.
>>> What effect of SR do you think that I omitted?
>> Several of us have explained and cited what colp is missing.
>
> I don't need your delusions.
>
>> For some reason, he thinks changing frames has no significant
>> effect, contrary to what SR holds.
>
> The time spent in non-inertial frames cannot, in general, compensate
> for the observed clock slowing.
Colp-theory doesn't make sense.
--
--Bryan
harry
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:d44fb984-12e6-4a0d...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 22, 11:16 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>>> news:45e50819-65f6-46a3...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO->> >> messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644...@i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in
>> >> > this
>> >> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips
>> >> > in
>> >> > opposite directions.
>>
>> >> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric,
>> >> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth.
>>
>> >> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each
>> >> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find
>> >> > that
>> >> > their clocks tell the same time.
>>
>> >> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's
>> >> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow
>> >> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast.
>>
>> >> No, special relativity says much more precise than that
>> >> "moving clocks" are running slow.
>>
>> > The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my description,
>> > but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong.
>>
>> >> It says something about intertial observers who measure
>> >> times between ticks on remote, moving clocks.
>>
>> >> When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure
>> >> this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock
>> >> is "running slower".
>> >> While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each
>> >> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
>> >> with a smaller time value.
>> >> While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each
>> >> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
>> >> with a smaller time value.
>>
>> > Yes, that is the standard theory.
>>
>> >> After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
>> >> another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each
>> >> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B
>> >> with a larger time value.
>> >> After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to
>> >> another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each
>> >> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A
>> >> with a larger time value.
>>
>> > Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time
>> > value.
>> > This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative
>> > velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks
>> > separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time
>> > dilation.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>>
>> dilation
>> is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames.
>
> Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be
> observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of
> switching reference frames.
You SNIPPED the explanation that TIME DILATION IS ALSO IRRELEVANT.
Therefore, probably you're too stubborn too listen. Too bad.
Harald
harry
> On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>>> news:43e6b051-fef5-444c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> Hello Dirk
>>
>> >> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the
>> >> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be
>> >> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox !
>>
>> >> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ?
>>
>> > A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well,
>> > since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to
>> > accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve
>> > the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased
>> > arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames.
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>>
>
> Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought
> experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment
> descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this
> thread.
The OP is you, right? Anyway, it doesn't matter much: the same calculations
apply only in the symmetrical case the result is that both clocks indicate
the same (of course).
Harald
colp
> colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:f92c81d1-fbb0-47e3...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:50 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> >> colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
> >> innews:eeaf80ee-faa5-489c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> >> :
> > <snip>
> >> > SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of
> >> > one of the twins.
>
> >> SR says that they do not read the same until the twins are reunited.
>
> > SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing
> > progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at
> > the end of the experiment.
>
> You are making a false assumption. You assume that they see each others
> clocks as ticking slow, even when they approach each other.
> In order to do that, they would need some faster than light communications
> method so they could see what the other clock actually said.
That isn't a false assumption. To consider the effect of signal
propagation times makes the argument more complicated, but it doesn't
change the element of time dilation which is the essence of the
paradox.
> But they have to depend on signals that travel at the speed of light.
> Remember the Doppler shift I mentioned earlier? It effects the timing of
> the time signals also.
Yes, but the cumulative effect is nil.
> As they head toward each other, they see the other persons clock ticking
> FASTER than theirs is ticking.
> As they get closer together, it takes less and less time for the clock
> signals to travel the distance between ships
>
> If you work through the math, you find that as they come toward each other,
> they see each others clocks running fast.
> The clocks 'catch up', converging upon the same 'correct' reading as they
> land.
The apparent clock speedup due to the decreasing relative distance on
the return leg is equal to the apparent clock slowing due to
increasing relative distance on the outbound leg.
>
> Of course it will NOT be the same as their stay-at-home sisters clock. Her
> clock will have accumulated more time than either of theirs.
The paradox that I am talking about is desribed in the opening post.
It does not have a stay-at-home clock.
Sue...
Most of the experiments used to support the twin's
myth barely qualify as science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments
We don't have a photo of a wrinkley grey headed twin comparing
his watch with his smooth skined fair haired sibling.
Clocks can't *measure* time. They mark or simulate
time's passages with some reference process. Because
certain symmetries are the foundation of canonical physics
we find a statement about time must also include
a statement about energy. Both SR and GR run a bit
wild in this regard.
<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
There is little doubt an atomic clock will run slower
on Jupiter's surface than on earth's surface. You can
draw you own conclusions about the life expectancy of
the chap in this photo experiencing similar conditions.
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=2696350&epmid=1&partner=Google
Once an experiment is published, the whole world is
free to interpret it in any way they please and the
most sensational interpretations will always the most
exposure.
Much of the confusion with SR stems from the student's inability
to understand the limitiations of point source and wave
models.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Feynman artfully takes the best of each model and
completely avoids the problem keeping most of the
model in the Coulomb gauge. [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
General relativty has its problems with time and energy
too:
<< In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no
meaning to speak of a definite localization of energy.
One may define a quantity which is divergence
free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor
of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent:
i.e., it is not covariant under general coordinate
transformations. Consequently the fact that it is
divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local
energy conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert
saw it, in such theories `improper energy theorems.' >>
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html [1]
When Special Relativity is scaled back to the statement of the
1920 paper:
<< in reality there is not the least incompatibility
between the principle of relativity and the law of
propagation of light, >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
...there is no problem either mathematical or
conflict with Maxwell's equations.
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
Since causality demands that both twins have to agree on
the number of orbits Jupiter's moons make during the
experiment, it is rather absurd to claim one lived
longer than the other.
(Historical note)
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_03/jupiter.html
Sue...
[1]
This URL seems to honour any and all holidays
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html
"Google cache"
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:qYoxDxDuvD0J:www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html+noether+hilbert+assertion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
colp
The opening post describes the scenario that I an arguing about.
colp
What are you talking about?
It is relevant because the according to SR it must be observed but
according to logic it cannot be observed.
> Therefore, probably you're too stubborn too listen. Too bad.
More likely that you've run out of arguments are are playing gamez.
colp
Dirk quoted me from sci.physics
> Anyway, it doesn't matter much: the same calculations
> apply only in the symmetrical case the result is that both clocks indicate
> the same (of course).
This paradox involves a different argument than the original paradox.
The paradox is that SR says that a twin must observe time dilation of
the other twin, but logic says he can't because the clocks end up with
the same time. SR predicts apparent time dilation, but never allows
apparent time compression.
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:97365a78-f48d-478b...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > C. S. Unnikrishnan
> > Gravitation Group,
> > Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
> > Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
> >
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>
> [quote]
> It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock,
> while being affected by motion, does not change due to
> acceleration. In particular, the rate of a clock in uniform
> circular motion is the same as the rate of a clock that is in
> rectilinear motion at the same speed. This means that the
> rate of the clock B does not change in a manner different
> from what is expected from the usual Lorentz factor
> modification while decelerating from velocity v to zero.
> [unquote]
>
> Notice, he says that the rate of a clock IS affected by motion.
The author is not an authority on clocks.
The author is not an authority on moving clocks.
>
> I think that you must either change your stance or cease to cite this
> paper as support for your stance.
I have no problem using Einstein's 1920 paper and classical
electromagnetism to support my position. I offer the
C. S. Unnikrishnan paper as a fair response to Mike Weiss's
self diminished and Baez discredited page whose logical
falicy is summed up on the last page:
"Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never
borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second,
that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and
third, that the crack was already present when he
borrowed it."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
Sue...
harry
> On Nov 23, 6:22 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
>> colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote
>> innews:f92c81d1-fbb0-47e3...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I agree with you that the Doppler effect isn't particularly helpful. One can
put clocks everywhere along the way so that no signal delay effects need to
be accounted for.
>> Of course it will NOT be the same as their stay-at-home sisters clock.
>> Her
>> clock will have accumulated more time than either of theirs.
>
> The paradox that I am talking about is desribed in the opening post.
> It does not have a stay-at-home clock.
One more clock was obviously ADDED to your example in order TO HELP YOU to
understand that both clocks slow equally. However, it becomes increasingly
clear that you are not here to be helped...
Harald
Dono
Sue...
>
> This paradox involves a different argument than the original paradox.
> The paradox is that SR says that a twin must observe time dilation of
> the other twin, but logic says he can't because the clocks end up with
> the same time. SR predicts apparent time dilation, but never allows
> apparent time compression.
Your version with the symetrical paths
simply uses the error with a single traveler
to cancel itself.
There is nothing paradoxical if I see my skyrocket getting
smaller than me and ticking slower and the skyrocket sees
me getting smaller than it is and ticking slower.
It becomes paradoxical when I retrive the rocket and
the (nonflamable motor) caseing is indeed
different than at launch or its clock doeshn't match
mine.
We can make a clock that slows with motion by exposing
a pair of EM reflectors to the flow of the free_space
dielectric. (Fizeau moving media) ) (light clock)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
Such a clock will quite conveniently track the Lorentz
transformation that calculates how the stayhome twin's
clock appears to the traveler. But it is a falicy to
consider that has a direct relationship to an inertial
clock (balance wheel, quartz crystal) that the travler
might also have on board.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Sue...
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
> >> When my own trials of thought experiments yield
> >> conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
> >> myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
> >> scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
> >> more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
> >> is quite a bit more likely than the other.
>
> > Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
> > by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
> > paper
>
>
> > which only couples to inertia by mass
> > energy equivalence.
>
> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/
> > Then you can debate with yourself whether
> > 'tis more likely Einstein was right in 1905
> > or in 1920.
>
> I like the 1920 work, but reading it in an effort to find
> discrepancies with other explanations is unlikely to be
> helpful. Try putting aside what you think you know and
> reading purely for understanding.
Indeed... the 1905 paper is the "bible" for the
H.G Wells fans.
<<Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch
from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research,
from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP
research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a
given topic, no progress is made. Little or no
new information or uncovered. New theories are
seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely
modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries,"
since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries."
The older the idea, the more respect it receives. >>
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Sue...
>
> --
> --Bryan
colp
Here's a suggestion, Dono. Remember to type your argument _before_ you
add your sig and click on the Send button.
harry
Let's see who is playing "gamez":
- "harry":
"you are still mistaken because time dilation
is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames. Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity"
- "colp" replied:
"Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be
observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of
switching reference frames."
In a nutshell, I pointed out that for the turnaround you used (unwittingly?)
a straw man - time dilation - and redirected your attention to the essential
point that you had overlooked. You replied by calling your own straw man a
straw man but you snipped the relevant point - in order to keep ignoring it?
Harald
harry
The symmetry argument demands a different outcome but it involves the same
calculaions. Only the numbers that you plug in differ - and the outcome
differs accordingly.
> The paradox is that SR says that a twin must observe time dilation of
> the other twin, but logic says he can't because the clocks end up with
> the same time. SR predicts apparent time dilation, but never allows
> apparent time compression.
When you finally open your mind and look into relativity of simultaneity,
you may finally "get it". Otherwise, you won't. Ever.
Harald
Sue...
ht tp://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity"
Relativty of simultaneity is a point particle concept.
If you need to switch between particle and wave
models there is a correct way to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Ward-Takahashi_identities
The page you are offering is not the correct way.
Sue...
>
> - "colp" replied:
> "Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be
> observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of
> switching reference frames."
>
> In a nutshell, I pointed out that for the turnaround you used (unwittingly?)
> a straw man - time dilation - and redirected your attention to the essential
> point that you had overlooked. You replied by calling your own straw man a
> straw man but you snipped the relevant point - in order to keep ignoring it?
>
> Harald- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:21p1j.46460$eY.3...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
: colp wrote:
: > Special relativity says that both
: > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
: > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
: > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
:
: You've gotten several good explanations of where your
: reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
: all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
Fuckin' idiot. It's all about this:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of
isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Androcles
: colp wrote:
: > Why are you unable to explain the paradox?
:
: The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained:
:
: SR predicts
Fuck your prophesies, you poxy simple-minded fortune teller,
you are a charlatan and an idiot.
Androcles
: colp wrote:
: > Bryan Olson wrote:
: >>> Special relativity says that both
: >>> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is
: >>> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus
: >>> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
:
: >> You've gotten several good explanations of where your
: >> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's
: >> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart.
: > Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds.
:
: Why ask the questions if you don't want to know the answers?
You don't have any answers, you are a bullshitter. Her's the answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
Androcles
: colp wrote:
: > "harry" cited:
:
: >>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_intro.html
: >>
: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
: >
: > Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought
: > experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment
: > descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this
: > thread.
: They explain the point you missed in your analysis: When a twin,
: far from his brother, change frames for the return trip, from
: his own point of view his brother's clock jumps ahead.
Bullshit. Fucking lying bullshit.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Bryan Olson
> colp wrote in
>> SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing
>> progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at
>> the end of the experiment.
>
> You are making a false assumption. You assume that they see each others
> clocks as ticking slow, even when they approach each other.
I've liked your previous explanations, but not this one.
While the twins move toward each other, as long as they stay
in inertial frames, time-dilation applies, and each one will
find the other's clock moving shower than his own. That much
colp has correct.
> In order to do that, they would need some faster than light communications
> method so they could see what the other clock actually said.
> But they have to depend on signals that travel at the speed of light.
> Remember the Doppler shift I mentioned earlier? It effects the timing of
> the time signals also.
> As they head toward each other, they see the other persons clock ticking
> FASTER than theirs is ticking.
> As they get closer together, it takes less and less time for the clock
> signals to travel the distance between ships
That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
happens when I turn around.
For simplicity, assume turn-around is instantaneous, all
other travel inertial. Just before turn-around, how old is
my twin brother? I've determined his clock to be slow, by
looking at it and calculating how long it took the light
to reach me moving at speed c in my frame. I found my
far-off twin brother to be *younger* than myself.
Just after I instantaneously turn around, how old is my
brother? I see essentially the same image of my brother's
clock. The light left just an instant later than what I
saw before turn-around, so I see the clock displaying the
same time, though Doppler-shift has changed the colors. I
figure in how long the light took to reach me moving at c
in my frame, and find my twin brother is now *older* than
am I.
Younger them me, then changing directions made him older?
How old was my twin at the instant I turned around? SR says
that the answer depends upon one's frame. Simultaneity of
events in different places is relative. See:
In my new frame, my twin's age is different than in my
old frame. Given the symmetric movement of my twin that
colp stipulates, the effects exactly cancel. My twin is
older just after I turn around, and I observe his clock
running slow as we approach. We are the same age when we
meet back at home.
> If you work through the math, you find that as they come toward each other,
> they see each others clocks running fast.
> The clocks 'catch up', converging upon the same 'correct' reading as they
> land.
No; working through the SR math will show that any inertial
frame finds perfect clocks in different frames to be slow,
never fast. In symmetric cases, effects will be symmetric
and balanced.
Did I work through the math specifically for colp's thought
experiment? Did I plug in terms and grind out numbers to show
that the synchronization shift when changing frames exactly
balances the time-dilation? Nope. No need; we have a more
general result. Einstein showed how to *derive* the Lorentz
transform and the and the synchronization-shift from the
principle of relativity. In symmetric cases such as colp
posed, the effects balance, which is not a surprise for
effects derived from a premise of symmetry.
Is relativity just theory for its own sake? Shouldn't we
demand more from physics than self-consistency? At the end
of colp's experiment, SR predicts that twins who followed
symmetric paths will be the same age when they arrive at
the same place at the same time. Well duh. Why bother with
all the relativity crap?
But no: Relativity is the real thing. The interesting twin
experiment is the asymmetric Einstein/Langevin version. In
this case, SR predicts that when the twins rendezvous at the
end, they will be different ages, an outcome so astonishing
that people call it a paradox. Yet not only is the theory
self-consistent, experiments indicate it is how the universe
actually works.
--
--Bryan
Sue...
[...]
> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
> happens when I turn around.
If the traveler has a light clock, a common view observer
will see the travelers clock as slower whether inbound
or outbound.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
If the traveler has an inertial clock, the twins will
see their siblings clock as faster than thier own.
(simple doppler effect)
A common view observer will see the inertial clock
in synchrony for the entire experiment.
http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Sue...
> --Bryan
Sue...
>
> For simplicity, assume turn-around is instantaneous, all
> other travel inertial. Just before turn-around, how old is
> my twin brother? I've determined his clock to be slow, by
> looking at it and calculating how long it took the light
> to reach me moving at speed c in my frame. I found my
> far-off twin brother to be *younger* than myself.
Ahh... no
The theory denies the existance of an inertial ether
that would slow an inertial clock but it does not
deny the existance of the free_space dielectric
which can slow a light clock. it is as Einstein
pointed out, essential to the constancy of the
speed of light.
You can't say your twin brother is younger
just because you gave him a light clock that
responds to motion.
Sue...
> --Bryan
bz
> bz wrote:
>> colp wrote in
>>> SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing
>>> progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at
>>> the end of the experiment.
>>
>> You are making a false assumption. You assume that they see each others
>> clocks as ticking slow, even when they approach each other.
>
> I've liked your previous explanations, but not this one.
That is ok. We can still learn something from each other.
> While the twins move toward each other, as long as they stay
> in inertial frames, time-dilation applies, and each one will
> find the other's clock moving shower than his own. That much
> colp has correct.
Yes, but 'finding' and 'seeing' are two different things.
And as their relative velocities go to zero, the RATE at which they see
each others clock tick will approach their own clocks rate. ONLY if they
are in the same location. It takes time for the signals to bring the
information. At turn around they see signals sent much earlier by their
twin.
>> In order to do that, they would need some faster than light
>> communications method so they could see what the other clock actually
>> said. But they have to depend on signals that travel at the speed of
>> light. Remember the Doppler shift I mentioned earlier? It effects the
>> timing of the time signals also.
>> As they head toward each other, they see the other persons clock
>> ticking FASTER than theirs is ticking.
>> As they get closer together, it takes less and less time for the clock
>> signals to travel the distance between ships
>
> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light [from] my
> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
> happens when I turn around.
Correct.
>
> For simplicity, assume turn-around is instantaneous, all
> other travel inertial. Just before turn-around, how old is
> my twin brother? I've determined his clock to be slow, by
> looking at it and calculating how long it took the light
> to reach me moving at speed c in my frame. I found my
> far-off twin brother to be *younger* than myself.
Yes.
>
> Just after I instantaneously turn around, how old is my
> brother? I see essentially the same image of my brother's
> clock. The light left just an instant later than what I
> saw before turn-around, so I see the clock displaying the
> same time, though Doppler-shift has changed the colors.
The ticks were arriving further apart than your clock ticks.
The signals were red shifted.
NOW, after turn around, the ticks arrive faster than your clock is ticking
and the signals are blue shifted. We digitally encode the time on each
tick so that we don't have to 'see' the clock, we can just look at the
'repeater' on our control panel that takes the decoded time from our twins
clock and shows it to us.
> I
> figure in how long the light took to reach me moving at c
> in my frame, and find my twin brother is now *older* than
> am I.
He "appears to be" 'aging faster than you' as determined by his clock tick
rate. His clock's ticks are arriving faster, now that you have turned
around.
>
> Younger them me, then changing directions made him older?
No, it makes him appear to age faster than you.
If you take the apparent tick rate and _PROJECT HIS AGE_ based on the tick
rate, THEN he would appear to be older. But remember, we digitally encoded
his time onto each of those ticks, so each tells you what his clock was
reading when the radio signal left his ship. You calculate his age based
on what you see.
Right after you turn around, you are still seeing signals from his ship
from BEFORE he turned around. He is still going away from you, as far as
you can tell. [He might never turn around. You had agreed to both turn
around at time T2, but did he actually do it? How do you know? You can't.]
> How old was my twin at the instant I turned around? SR says
> that the answer depends upon one's frame. Simultaneity of
> events in different places is relative. See:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/
>
> In my new frame, my twin's age is different than in my
> old frame.
The age you CALCULATE for him is different. His real age has not changed.
The clock ticks continue to tell you his age at the time they left his
ship.
You are smart enough so that you do NOT assume that he has aged at the
rate he currently appears to be aging for all the time since you
separated.
> Given the symmetric movement of my twin that
> colp stipulates, the effects exactly cancel. My twin is
> older just after I turn around, and I observe his clock
> running slow as we approach. We are the same age when we
> meet back at home.
He might have died of a stroke just before he could hit the button to turn
around. He might have changed his mind.
Until you start picking up the MUCH faster ticks (his blue shift on top of
yours), you will not know.
>
>> If you work through the math, you find that as they come toward each
>> other, they see each others clocks running fast.
>> The clocks 'catch up', converging upon the same 'correct' reading as
>> they land.
>
> No; working through the SR math will show that any inertial
> frame finds perfect clocks in different frames to be slow,
> never fast. In symmetric cases, effects will be symmetric
> and balanced.
They SEE each others clocks running fast. If they compensate for the
Doppler shift THEN they can CALCULATE that their twins clock is still
running slow, but that is NOT what they can see.
>
> Did I work through the math specifically for colp's thought
> experiment? Did I plug in terms and grind out numbers to show
> that the synchronization shift when changing frames exactly
> balances the time-dilation? Nope. No need; we have a more
> general result. Einstein showed how to *derive* the Lorentz
> transform and the and the synchronization-shift from the
> principle of relativity. In symmetric cases such as colp
> posed, the effects balance, which is not a surprise for
> effects derived from a premise of symmetry.
As a third party, stationary in a frame of reference 'midway' between
them, omniscient, YOU can see what is happening to both of them. As
someone traveling with either of them, you can NOT see what is happening
in the other ship. You can only see the signals from the other ship and
ASSUME they actually turned around at the right time.
>
>
> Is relativity just theory for its own sake? Shouldn't we
> demand more from physics than self-consistency? At the end
> of colp's experiment, SR predicts that twins who followed
> symmetric paths will be the same age when they arrive at
> the same place at the same time. Well duh. Why bother with
> all the relativity c**p?
>
> But no: Relativity is the real thing.
AGREED.
> The interesting twin
> experiment is the asymmetric Einstein/Langevin version.
Both experiments are informative.
> In
> this[the asymmetric] case, SR predicts that when the twins rendezvous at
> the end, they will be different ages, an outcome so astonishing
> that people call it a paradox. Yet not only is the theory
> self-consistent, experiments indicate it is how the universe
> actually works.
agreed.
bz
news:9558199a-541d-4784...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
You 'see' your twins clock ticking faster than yours.
Once the signals from his ship, after his turn around, reach you, the
doppler shifts are doubled.
>
>>
>> Of course it will NOT be the same as their stay-at-home sisters clock.
>> Her clock will have accumulated more time than either of theirs.
>
> The paradox that I am talking about is desribed in the opening post.
> It does not have a stay-at-home clock.
So? You can pick any frame of reference you want in order to simplify the
problem.
The object is NOT to create a problem that can not be solved in a
particular reference frame, it is to understand what would really happen.
"A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer."
"Wisdom comes from asking questions that can be answered."
bz
news:0718443e-4500-438a...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> The author is not an authority on moving clocks.
And you are?
>>
>> I think that you must either change your stance or cease to cite this
>> paper as support for your stance.
>
....
> I offer the
> C. S. Unnikrishnan paper as a fair response to Mike Weiss's
> self diminished and Baez discredited page whose logical
> falicy is summed up on the last page:
The fallacy is clear when Sue is caught with her hand in the cracked
cookie jar, citing things out of context because they seem to support her
position, whereas the article really opposes her contention.
bz
1c5242...@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 23, 6:25 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
>> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
>> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
>> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
>> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
>> happens when I turn around.
>
>
> If the traveler has a light clock, a common view observer
> will see the travelers clock as slower whether inbound
> or outbound.
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> If the traveler has an inertial clock, the twins will
> see their siblings clock as faster than thier own.
> (simple doppler effect)
You have yet to convince me that the atoms and molecules (which some claim
are held together with virtual photons)
Will behave any differently than 'light coupled' devices.
As far as I can determine, ALL are equally effected by motion.
Why should my quartz clock and my light clock show a different rate of
ticking when traveling in the same ship at relativistic speeds?
Why should my chemical clock continue to tick at a fast rate while my light
clock slows down?
>
> A common view observer will see the inertial clock
> in synchrony for the entire experiment.
>
> http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
>
>> --Bryan
>
>
--
Laurent
> On Nov 22, 9:38 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > > When my own trials of thought experiments yield
> > > > conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
> > > > myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
> > > > scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
> > > > more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
> > > > is quite a bit more likely than the other.
>
> > > Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
> > > by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
> > > paper which only couples to inertia by mass
> > > energy equivalence.
>
> > If there is one thing that science doesn't like, it is having to say
> > that it can't explain the phenomena.
>
> Most of the experiments used to support the twin's
> We don't have a photo of a wrinkley grey headed twin comparing
> his watch with his smooth skined fair haired sibling.
>
> Clocks can't *measure* time. They mark or simulate
> time's passages with some reference process. Because
> certain symmetries are the foundation of canonical physics
> we find a statement about time must also include
> a statement about energy. Both SR and GR run a bit
> wild in this regard.
>
> << invariance with respect to time translation
> gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> There is little doubt an atomic clock will run slower
> on Jupiter's surface than on earth's surface. You can
> draw you own conclusions about the life expectancy of
>
> Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
> (classic field theory)_
> a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
>
> Since causality demands that both twins have to agree on
> the number of orbits Jupiter's moons make during the
> experiment, it is rather absurd to claim one lived
> longer than the other.
>
>
> Sue...
>
> [1]
> This URL seems to honour any and all holidayshttp://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html
> "Google cache"http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:qYoxDxDuvD0J:www.physics.ucla.ed...
>
> [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If energy is finite, then we must have covariance, if it isn't then
there is no need for covariance.
So, what's the answer?
--
Laurent
Sue...
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:f35e809a-d602-4334-b6e0-
> 1c5242876...@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 6:25 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
> >> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
> >> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
> >> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
> >> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
> >> happens when I turn around.
>
> > If the traveler has a light clock, a common view observer
> > will see the travelers clock as slower whether inbound
> > or outbound.
> >http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> > If the traveler has an inertial clock, the twins will
> > see their siblings clock as faster than thier own.
> > (simple doppler effect)
>
> You have yet to convince me that the atoms and molecules (which some claim
> are held together with virtual photons)
> Will behave any differently than 'light coupled' devices.
That is the popular argument necessary for the H.G Wells
interpretation to be of value to would-be Ponce' de Leons.
I don't know about the clocks at your house but if I
synchronise all the clocks at my house today, then
revist them in a year, no two will be the same.
...and that is without moving them anywhere!
That would seem to falsify your implied premise
that all clocks behave the same.
>
> As far as I can determine, ALL are equally effected by motion.
No...I am not putting the house on wheels to
see if motion reduces the drift of the clocks inside. :o)
>
> Why should my quartz clock and my light clock show a different rate of
> ticking when traveling in the same ship at relativistic speeds?
> Why should my chemical clock continue to tick at a fast rate while my light
> clock slows down?
The light clock does not travel *inside* the ship. There
would be no relative motion between the free_space dielectric
and the mirror's far-field. It would not slow in accordance with the
Lorentz transform.
Why can't you H.G. Wells fans learn vector addition and
get the correct answer for an aircraft's round-trip time
in the wind. The aritmetic is even done for you:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
If you thought a light clock inside the ship should
slow then you have not only resurrected Newton's inertial
ether but also assumed that light moves inertially.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Sue...
>
>
>
> > A common view observer will see the inertial clock
> > in synchrony for the entire experiment.
>
> >http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
>
> > Sue...
>
> >> --Bryan
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
>
> bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text -
Sue...
[...]
General relativty has its problems with time and energy
too:
<< In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no
meaning to speak of a definite localization of energy.
One may define a quantity which is divergence
free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor
of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent:
i.e., it is not covariant under general coordinate
transformations. Consequently the fact that it is
divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local
energy conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert
saw it, in such theories `improper energy theorems.' >>
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html
[1]
>
> If energy is finite, then we must have covariance, if it isn't then
> there is no need for covariance.
>
> So, what's the answer?
Findings like these:
<< Cooper pairs are present in both superconductors
and insulators, they believe that they behave
differently in each instance. In superconductors,
pairs link up with other pairs and move in a linear
way to create a continuous stream of electric current.
Think of a conga line. But in the insulating film,
researchers believe the pairs spin solo.
Think of couples twirling on a ballroom dance floor. >>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071122151144.htm
"Tajmar / de Matos"
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
...have me wondering if more energy should be allocated
to the gas immedately surrounding the mass that
is reacting inertially to an applied force.
After all, it does take some energy to align a collection
of atoms. When the induction force is removed,
the energy is released as an EM signal. (NMR).
Fortunately, that would more closely approximate
a Newtonian inertial ether.
They laughed at George Westinghouse when he proposed
to stop a train with air so I'll no doubt be burned at the
stake for suggesting that planets can be steered with air.
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/atomlaser_97/atomlaser_comm.html
Sue...
>
> --
> Laurent- Hide quoted text -
kenseto
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns99F0D5DC118DBWQ...@130.39.198.139...
> colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:837a2c0c-8bfc-4aa8-8f45-
> 1267e6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > When my own trials of thought experiments yield
> >> > conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask
> >> > myself: Did I just refute the work of all those
> >> > scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew
> >> > more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities
> >> > is quite a bit more likely than the other.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used
> >> by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920
> >> paper which only couples to inertia by mass
> >> energy equivalence.
> >
> > If there is one thing that science doesn't like, it is having to say
> > that it can't explain the phenomena.
>
>
> Science seeks to study phenomena that are observable, verifiable,
> identifiable and formulate theories that allow the prediction of further
> phenomena.
>
> A theory MUST be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to
> formulate an experiment that MIGHT show the theory to be wrong.
> A theory that can not be tested is not a scientific theory, it is
> philosophy.
Then SR is not a scientific theory. Why? because it is not falsifiable. In
SR the speed of light is a defined constant c by a circular definition of
......1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second.
kenseto
"Bryan Olson" <fakea...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:WTm1j.73865$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > [...] I said that a clock second for a moving clock
> > contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR
> > assertion that the rate on the moving clock is running slow compared to
the
> > observer's clock.
>
> On the other hand, a second observer, in the frame of the
> 'moving' clock, sees the first observer's clock running slow.
No that's not observed experimentally. From the ground clock point of view
the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the
ground clock. But from the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the
ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast.
>
> So what's the deal on this "absolute time"?
It's a BIG deal. Absolute time is the only time exists. A clock second in a
specfic frame (a specfic state of absolute motion) will represent a specific
interval of absolute time. Two clocks in relative motion are in different
states of absolute motion. That's why clocks in relative motion are running
at different rates......SR interprets the different rates of the relative
clocks as time dilation.
> In one frame,
> clock A's second contains "a larger amount of absolute time"
> than clock B's second, while in another frame, clock B's
> second contains more of this "absolute" time than clock A's.
Absolute time is common time. The rate of passage of absolute time is the
same in all frames. However, the rate of passage of clock seconds is
different in different frames. Why? Because A's clock second contains a
different amount of absolute time than B's clock second.
Ken Seto
bz
news:70627055-a88f-4647...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
All clocks DO behave the same. All real clocks drift.
The amount of drift depends on the construction of the clock and the
process used to measure time, as I am sure you know.
But we are assuming 'drift free clocks' in these thought experiments.
[put together enough of the same type of clock and you can get the drifts
to average to zero[as long as you keep temperatures and everything else
constant]
>
>>
>> As far as I can determine, ALL are equally effected by motion.
>
> No...I am not putting the house on wheels to
> see if motion reduces the drift of the clocks inside. :o)
I grew up in a house on wheels. Our velocity was non relativistic,
however.
>
>>
>> Why should my quartz clock and my light clock show a different rate of
>> ticking when traveling in the same ship at relativistic speeds?
>> Why should my chemical clock continue to tick at a fast rate while my
>> light clock slows down?
>
> The light clock does not travel *inside* the ship. There
> would be no relative motion between the free_space dielectric
> and the mirror's far-field. It would not slow in accordance with the
> Lorentz transform.
BUT that is exactly what Einstein said happens to ALL clocks. He just used
the light clock as a method of deriving the transform.
Hafele & Keating didn't use a light clock. Neither have those that have
replicated their experiment. Yet all have seen the predicted relativistic
effects.
Besides, it isn't motion with respect to some 'absolute free_space
dielectric' that is addressed in any form of relativity with which I am
familiar, It is motion of one clock with respect to another clock.
If you are depending on absolute motion then you really are in the same
catagory as KS and HW.
> Why can't you H.G. Wells fans learn vector addition and
> get the correct answer for an aircraft's round-trip time
> in the wind. The aritmetic is even done for you:
>
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> If you thought a light clock inside the ship should
> slow then you have not only resurrected Newton's inertial
> ether but also assumed that light moves inertially.
The clocks in the GPS satellites are neither light clocks, nor exposed to
'the free_space dielectric'. Yet their actions are consistent with
predictions of GR and SR.
YOU seem to be the one invoking all kinds of special conditions to hang
onto the fixation you have with the time axis being imaginary.
You seem to be the one having problems with vectors. You really DO need to
learn why it is sometimes convenient to use 'i' as an axis but that does
NOT make the variable mapped onto that axis any less real than the
variable mapped onto the x, y, or z axis.
xx+yy+zz-cctt represents, according to GR, an invarient space-time
interval between any two events in space time.
quite clearly, there are multiple paths possible any two 'events' in space
time. quite clearly, the odometer and chronometer carried by someone
traveling any one of the paths can show a different amount of distance
traveled in space and in time.
I see nothing about light clocks. I see nothing about inertial vs inertia
free clocks.
I don't see anywhere that Einstein has said the time compression predicted
(and observed) is unreal.
Where do you get your fixation on this being unreal?
>
> <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> but no transformation mixes them with the
> gravitational field. >>
> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Show me where they say 'this lack of mixing of electro-magnetic and
gravity means that ONLY light clocks are effected by the Lorentz
transform. Other clocks continue on undeterred."
You have never shown any relevance for that quote to any kind of clocks.
You just keep chanting it like a mantra.
I used to think you knew what you were talking about and that the
citations you toss out were relevant.
Show me relevance.
Dono
<....>
You are still http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif
Dirk Van de moortel
"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:efba2671-a734-4801...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 9:53 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Have you tried drawing that diagram?
>
> There's not much point unless we can both see the diagram and talk
> about what it represents. That would involve getting the diagram onto
> the internet, which is more work that I am willing to contemplate
> right now.
Well, it has become clear from this (and from your other responses)
that, for some unknown reason, you act like a person who is too stupid
to understand the basics, or to even *try* to understand them, so I will
stop wasting your time. If - and only if - you are ready to reply directly
to my explanation with the spacetime diagram, feel free to do so.
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
[Debating club exercises snipped ]
>
>
>
> > <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> > but no transformation mixes them with the
> > gravitational field. >>
> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
>
> Show me where they say 'this lack of mixing of electro-magnetic and
> gravity means that ONLY light clocks are affected by the Lorentz
> transform. Other clocks continue on undeterred."
At last you dispute something of substance!
A mass accelerated by a spring moves inertially.
Light has no mass. So no *time* is required for
it to reverse directions at a reflector.
Need I go on? Or can you deduce a few other
differences between a balance wheel in a metal ship
and a pair of reflectors outside the ship
with free_space dielectric blowing through them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Build a sound-clock with one of these.
http://www.r-p-r.co.uk/windsonic/windsonic_how_it_works.htm
The frequency will drop when the wind blows
from any direction. You should recognise the
equations.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> You have never shown any relevance for that quote to any kind of clocks.
> You just keep chanting it like a mantra.
>
> I used to think you knew what you were talking about and that the
> citations you toss out were relevant.
>
> Show me relevance.
The aged and youthful twin is what is irrelevant because
no-one has ever seen him.
The thought experiment that has conficting solutiong is
what is irrelevant because it is not math and it is not
science.
Sue...
>
> --
> bz
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
> [...]
>> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
>> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
>> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
>> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
>> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
>> happens when I turn around.
>
> If the traveler has a light clock, a common view observer
> will see the travelers clock as slower whether inbound
> or outbound.
> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
Did you post the wrong link? Neither "light" nor "clock" appear
on that page, which is about Newtonian mechanics.
In the thought experiment, we merely assume a clock that travels
with my twin, so it ticks off one second as he ages one second.
> If the traveler has an inertial clock, the twins will
"Inertial" is a property of a frame of reference, not a
clock's design.
> see their siblings clock as faster than thier own.
> (simple doppler effect)
>
> A common view observer will see the inertial clock
> in synchrony for the entire experiment.
>
> http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Do you choose these links at random?
--
--Bryan
colp
Wrong. The cumulative effect is nil.
f' = f + fv / c
v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver in
meters/second: positive when moving towards one another, negative when
moving away
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > Bryan Olson wrote:
> > [...]
> >> That's not the issue. If I'm one of the twins, I observe
> >> time-dilation *after* I figure in how long it took light my
> >> brother to reach me. His clock runs slower when I'm outbound
> >> and slower when I'm inbound, as long as I'm not changing my
> >> velocity. The effect that compensates for time-dilation
> >> happens when I turn around.
>
> > If the traveler has a light clock, a common view observer
> > will see the travelers clock as slower whether inbound
> > or outbound.
> >http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html
>
> Did you post the wrong link? Neither "light" nor "clock" appear
> on that page, which is about Newtonian mechanics.
>
> In the thought experiment, we merely assume a clock that travels
> with my twin, so it ticks off one second as he ages one second.
This would be some kind of biological device.
Do you have some references that describe how it works?
Sue...
Bryan Olson
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>> For simplicity, assume turn-around is instantaneous, all
>> other travel inertial. Just before turn-around, how old is
>> my twin brother? I've determined his clock to be slow, by
>> looking at it and calculating how long it took the light
>> to reach me moving at speed c in my frame. I found my
>> far-off twin brother to be *younger* than myself.
>
> Ahh... no
> The theory denies the existance of an inertial ether
You don't seem to know what subject we are discussing.
> that would slow an inertial clock but it does not
> deny the existance of the free_space dielectric
> which can slow a light clock. it is as Einstein
> pointed out, essential to the constancy of the
> speed of light.
>
> You can't say your twin brother is younger
> just because you gave him a light clock that
> responds to motion.
Our clocks merely mark our ages. What did my twin's
clock read at the same time that I turned around?
Observers in different frames disagree:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
--
--Bryan