What about the triplets paradox?
Pat Dolan
paradox, where the Earthbound twin ages 20 years while the near
luminal velocity twin hasn't aged at all when they meet up again back
on earth. The reason this it's called a paradox is because at the
dawn of relativity when Einstein contrived this gedanken experiment it
was observed that the traveling twin would conclude that the Earth was
moving relative to him and so the Earthbound twin should stay young
while the traveling twin aged - this is how the word "paradox" came to
be included in the title. But we are assured that because the
traveling twin experiences acceleration and has to turn around at some
point to get back to Earth, that this somehow causes all that time
dilation to take place for the traveling twin only. That's always
seemed arbitrary and contrived to me. Some authors, such as Feynman
and DJ Griffiths, take umbrage that it is called a paradox at all.
They say that the theory of relativity doesn't claim that all motion
is relative, only that uniform linear motion between inertial frames
counts in Special Relativity. Fine. Then instead of Feynman's two
twins, Peter & Paul, let's consider the triplets Peter, Paul, and
Mary. As usual, Peter stays put on the Earth while Paul takes of at
near the speed of light. But this time, Mary also takes off in the
opposite direction of Paul at the same speed. All three triplets
observe each others clocks slow down as the experiment progresses.
Then Paul and Mary stop to turn around and head back to the Earth.
But before they start they observe that each other's (and Earthbound
Peter's) clock is running at the same rate as their own because their
relative speed is now zero; but all three of their clocks are
desyncronized due to the high speed trips. Each observes that the
other's clock has been set back and is running late. Now Paul and
Mary start their trips back towards Earth, and each other, at near the
speed of light. This high relative speed again makes them observe
that each other's clock is running at a slower rate than their own.
When they finally come to rest on the Earth what will the clocks read
after 20 years of Earth time? Paul and Mary have had exactly
symmetical & identical trips comprised of the exact same accelerations
and relative velocities. How do their clocks compare when they
finally meet up on Earth?
Martin Hogbin
"Pat Dolan" <patdo...@cs.com> wrote in message news:4f5d4135.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Some authors, such as Feynman
> and DJ Griffiths, take umbrage that it is called a paradox at all.
> They say that the theory of relativity doesn't claim that all motion
> is relative, only that uniform linear motion between inertial frames
> counts in Special Relativity.
Some authors? Einstein made it clear from the start that
only uniform translatory motion was relative.
> Fine. Then instead of Feynman's two
> twins, Peter & Paul, let's consider the triplets Peter, Paul, and
> Mary. As usual, Peter stays put on the Earth while Paul takes of at
> near the speed of light. But this time, Mary also takes off in the
> opposite direction of Paul at the same speed. All three triplets
> observe each others clocks slow down as the experiment progresses.
> Then Paul and Mary stop to turn around and head back to the Earth.
> But before they start they observe that each other's (and Earthbound
> Peter's) clock is running at the same rate as their own because their
> relative speed is now zero; but all three of their clocks are
> desyncronized due to the high speed trips. Each observes that the
> other's clock has been set back and is running late. Now Paul and
> Mary start their trips back towards Earth, and each other, at near the
> speed of light. This high relative speed again makes them observe
> that each other's clock is running at a slower rate than their own.
> When they finally come to rest on the Earth what will the clocks read
> after 20 years of Earth time? Paul and Mary have had exactly
> symmetical & identical trips comprised of the exact same accelerations
> and relative velocities. How do their clocks compare when they
> finally meet up on Earth?
Paul and Mary's clocks will agree when they meet up.
What point are you trying to make?
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
> paradox, where the Earthbound twin ages 20 years while the near
> luminal velocity twin hasn't aged at all when they meet up again back
> on earth. The reason this it's called a paradox is because at the
> dawn of relativity when Einstein contrived this gedanken experiment it
> was observed that the traveling twin would conclude that the Earth was
> moving relative to him and so the Earthbound twin should stay young
> while the traveling twin aged - this is how the word "paradox" came to
> be included in the title. But we are assured that because the
> traveling twin experiences acceleration and has to turn around at some
> point to get back to Earth, that this somehow causes all that time
> dilation to take place for the traveling twin only. That's always
> seemed arbitrary and contrived to me. Some authors, such as Feynman
> and DJ Griffiths, take umbrage that it is called a paradox at all.
Of course they take umbrage for the simple reason that
most people think that a paradox is a 'real' contradiction,
while it is merely a 'seeming' one.
See
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=paradox
> They say that the theory of relativity doesn't claim that all motion
> is relative, only that uniform linear motion between inertial frames
> counts in Special Relativity. Fine. Then instead of Feynman's two
> twins, Peter & Paul, let's consider the triplets Peter, Paul, and
> Mary. As usual, Peter stays put on the Earth while Paul takes of at
> near the speed of light. But this time, Mary also takes off in the
> opposite direction of Paul at the same speed. All three triplets
> observe each others clocks slow down as the experiment progresses.
> Then Paul and Mary stop to turn around and head back to the Earth.
> But before they start they observe that each other's (and Earthbound
> Peter's) clock is running at the same rate as their own because their
> relative speed is now zero; but all three of their clocks are
> desyncronized due to the high speed trips. Each observes that the
> other's clock has been set back and is running late. Now Paul and
> Mary start their trips back towards Earth, and each other, at near the
> speed of light. This high relative speed again makes them observe
> that each other's clock is running at a slower rate than their own.
> When they finally come to rest on the Earth what will the clocks read
> after 20 years of Earth time? Paul and Mary have had exactly
> symmetical & identical trips comprised of the exact same accelerations
> and relative velocities. How do their clocks compare when they
> finally meet up on Earth?
Draw a spacetime diagram and you will see.
Bear in mind that, *exactly* like in the simple twins case,
you need 3 different frames to describe the entire situation.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/MoeLarryCurly.gif
Replace Moe with Peter, Larry with Paul, and Curly with Mary.
I don't see any contradiction. Not even a paradox.
<Total proper time Paul>
= Int{ 0 to T/2; 1/gpout dt } + Int{ T/2 to T; 1/gpin dt }
<Total proper time Mary>
= Int{ 0 to T/2; 1/gmout dt } + Int{ T/2 to T; 1/gmin dt }
where the gamma values are given by
gpout = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] Paul outbound
gpin = 1/sqrt[ 1 - (-v)^2/c^2 ] Paul inbound
gmout = 1/sqrt[ 1 - (-v)^2/c^2 ] Mary outbound
gmin = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] Mary inbound
and you see that
gpout = gpin = gmout = gmin
so finally
<Total proper time Paul> = <Total proper time Mary>
= 1/g * Int{ 0 to T; dt }
= 1/g * T
= <Total proper time Peter> / g
where
g = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ]
hth.
Dirk Vdm
Pat Dolan
Curly) is not a seeming paradox, to be cleared up with some handwaving
about who accelerates and who doesn't; it is still a very real
paradox. Pual & Mary (Moe & Curly) have the same length world lines,
therefore their two clocks should agree when they arrive back at
Earth. But, in accordance with SR, they have each observed that the
other's clock has been running slow for each of their entire
(identically symmetrical) trips. At what point do their two clocks
begin to resynchronize so as to agree with each other when they meet
up at Earth? Someone is going to have to pull a
relativistico-acceleristic rabbit out of the hat, or we are facing a
real live controdiction!
Dirk Van de moortel
> Curly) is not a seeming paradox, to be cleared up with some handwaving
> about who accelerates and who doesn't; it is still a very real
> paradox. Pual & Mary (Moe & Curly) have the same length world lines,
> therefore their two clocks should agree when they arrive back at
> Earth. But, in accordance with SR, they have each observed that the
> other's clock has been running slow for each of their entire
> (identically symmetrical) trips. At what point do their two clocks
> begin to resynchronize so as to agree with each other when they meet
> up at Earth?
Clocks can only be synchronized when they are in the same
inertial frame. They are in the same frame before they embark,
and they are in the same frame after they return, but during
their entire trips they never are in the same frame, so it does
not even makes sense to talk about 'resynchronization'. That
should be obvious, because remember that dreadful statement
"each one will find the other one's clock to be running slower
than his own".
> Someone is going to have to pull a
> relativistico-acceleristic rabbit out of the hat, or we are facing a
> real live controdiction!
What you *can* do in this particular case, is to be a Peter, put
yourself 'in the middle' of the others, and imagine to be some
sort of referee.
At any time on *your* referee's clock (call it T_p), imagine Paul
and Mary to HALT for a little while, so they are momentarily in
your inertial frame. Now it makes sense to compare their clock
readings. You will find at any such time:
<Partial proper time Paul> = <Partial proper time Mary>
= 1/g * Int{ 0 to T_p; dt }
= 1/g * T_p
= <Partial proper time Peter> / g
[you find the details of the calculation in my other message].
Now you, Referee Paul, can settle the conflict, right?
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
> Curly) is not a seeming paradox, to be cleared up with some handwaving
> about who accelerates and who doesn't; it is still a very real
> paradox. Pual & Mary (Moe & Curly) have the same length world lines,
> therefore their two clocks should agree when they arrive back at
> Earth.
And so they do.
> But, in accordance with SR, they have each observed that the
> other's clock has been running slow for each of their entire
> (identically symmetrical) trips.
Not so. During the turnaround (when they are both accelerating)
each will observe the other's clock to be running fast.
> At what point do their two clocks
> begin to resynchronize so as to agree with each other when they meet
> up at Earth?
As you see, this is not necessary.
> Someone is going to have to pull a
> relativistico-acceleristic rabbit out of the hat, or we are facing a
> real live controdiction!
Or a misunderstanding of SR?
Martin Hogbin
Pat Dolan
> "Pat Dolan" <patdo...@cs.com> wrote in message news:4f5d4135.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > The point I am making is that Peter, Paul, and Mary (Larry, Moe, and
> > Curly) is not a seeming paradox, to be cleared up with some handwaving
> > about who accelerates and who doesn't; it is still a very real
> > paradox. Pual & Mary (Moe & Curly) have the same length world lines,
> > therefore their two clocks should agree when they arrive back at
> > Earth.
>
> And so they do.
>
> > But, in accordance with SR, they have each observed that the
> > other's clock has been running slow for each of their entire
> > (identically symmetrical) trips.
>
> Not so. During the turnaround (when they are both accelerating)
> each will observe the other's clock to be running fast.
>
standard escape from the paradox, namely, that all the dilation hocus
pocus for the traveling twins takes place during the acceleration at
the turn around points. While I can understand why a clock in
relative motion to my FOR runs slower (given the universally constant
speed of light), I have never quite fathomed why or how acceleration
changes SR's gama. If you are so inclined, please give me a concise
explanation of why acceleration has this overpowering affect on gama
(i.e., two clocks, even though accelerating, but still in relative
motion to each other see each other's rate as greater than their own
rate). Also, does only linear acceleration have this power? Or are
curvelinear and circular acceleration also able to perform the trick?
Thanks in advance.
Arfur Dogfrey
> Everyone reading this post is probably familiar with Einstein's twins
> paradox, where the Earthbound twin ages 20 years while the near
> luminal velocity twin hasn't aged at all when they meet up again back
> on earth. The reason this it's called a paradox is because at the
> dawn of relativity when Einstein contrived this gedanken experiment it
> was observed that the traveling twin would conclude that the Earth was
> moving relative to him and so the Earthbound twin should stay young
> while the traveling twin aged - this is how the word "paradox" came to
> be included in the title. But we are assured that because the
> traveling twin experiences acceleration and has to turn around at some
> point to get back to Earth, that this somehow causes all that time
> dilation to take place for the traveling twin only. That's always
> seemed arbitrary and contrived to me. Some authors, such as Feynman
> and DJ Griffiths, take umbrage that it is called a paradox at all.
> They say that the theory of relativity doesn't claim that all motion
> is relative, only that uniform linear motion between inertial frames
> counts in Special Relativity. Fine. Then instead of Feynman's two
> twins, Peter & Paul, let's consider the triplets Peter, Paul, and
> Mary. As usual, Peter stays put on the Earth while Paul takes of at
> near the speed of light. But this time, Mary also takes off in the
> opposite direction of Paul at the same speed. All three triplets
> observe each others clocks slow down as the experiment progresses.
Yes, this is the prediction of SR.
> Then Paul and Mary stop to turn around and head back to the Earth.
> But before they start they observe that each other's (and Earthbound
> Peter's) clock is running at the same rate as their own because their
> relative speed is now zero;
Yes, this is the prediction of SR.
> but all three of their clocks are
> desyncronized due to the high speed trips.
To be accurate, SR predicts that Paul's and Mary's clocks will be
synchronized but Peter's clock will be ahead of Paul's and Mary's.
> Each observes that the
> other's clock has been set back and is running late.
No, SR predicts that all three observers will agree that Paul's and
Mary's clocks are synchronized and show less elapsed time than Peter's
clock.
> Now Paul and
> Mary start their trips back towards Earth, and each other, at near the
> speed of light. This high relative speed again makes them observe
> that each other's clock is running at a slower rate than their own.
Yes, this is what is predicted by SR.
> When they finally come to rest on the Earth what will the clocks read
> after 20 years of Earth time? Paul and Mary have had exactly
> symmetical & identical trips comprised of the exact same accelerations
> and relative velocities. How do their clocks compare when they
> finally meet up on Earth?
SR predicts that Paul's and Mary's clocks will show the same time and
that they will show less than 20 years. No paradox at all.
Note that ALL inertial observers will agree that Paul and Mary changed
inertial frames but that Peter didn't.
You can do all the calculations in Paul's (or Mary's) frames. Note
the plural "frames" You will have to adjust the time on the other
clocks during the frame change when Paul (or Mary) changes frames
(turns around and starts back etc.)
Details of the TWIN PARADOX version (on a 6th grade level) are at my
website:
http://conduit9SR.tripod.com
See the chapters "The Twin Paradox" and "More on the Twin Paradox."
Arf!
Arfur
Martin Hogbin
"Pat Dolan" <patdo...@cs.com> wrote in message news:4f5d4135.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Let me get this straight, Martin Hogbin, you are hewing to the
> standard escape from the paradox,
Well of course. I am using the well defined theory of relativity to
describe what happens. What do you expect?
> namely, that all the dilation hocus pocus for the traveling twins
>takes place during the acceleration at the turn around points.
When the twins turn round you have two options. Either you
make this instantaneous, in which case there is an abrupt jump
in how each would measure the other's time as they change
inertial frames,or you spread the turnaround over a period of
time in which case both twins are in accelerating (non-inertial)
frames, in which weird things (compared with our everyday
expectations) happen.
> While I can understand why a clock in
> relative motion to my FOR runs slower (given the universally constant
> speed of light), I have never quite fathomed why or how acceleration
> changes SR's gama.
Accelerating frames are not the easiest of things to
understand.
> If you are so inclined, please give me a concise
> explanation of why acceleration has this overpowering affect on gama
> (i.e., two clocks, even though accelerating, but still in relative
> motion to each other see each other's rate as greater than their own
> rate).
You seem to be criticising a theory without understanding it;
this is pointless. I suggest you read a good text book on
accelerating frames.
> Also, does only linear acceleration have this power? Or are
> curvelinear and circular acceleration also able to perform the trick?
All non-inertial frames, including rotating frames, are very
different from inertial frames.
Martin Hogbin
Pat Dolan
Martin, I say that trying to understand how acceleration removes the
paradox is like trying to understand the Trinity; it is not apriori
apparent like time dilation and the light clock. It is not even
unambiguously calculable. I suspect it is what the logicians call
"Deus ex Machina", an attempt to save SR theory from contradiction.
Here is what I suspect about you: I suspect you don't understand it
either, but are merely taking it on authority that the Twin Paradox is
really no paradox. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt
and ask you to simply give me the name of the book that straightened
it all out for you. Here is what you are ultimately up against: When
you have relative motion you also have a non-zero gama, period! There
is no provision in SR or GR for it's decrease, elimination, or change
of sign due to acceleration. Don't give me this "weird things happen"
stuff. Get real, give me some math. When and if you do, then we can
move on to the Ehrenfest Paradox (Ha,Ha,Ha)
Len Gaasenbeek
To all,
Time flows at a constant rate measured in seconds, hours, days, months,
years, light-seconds, light-hours and light-years, BY DEFINITION.
The fact that an observer sees a clock that moves away from him keep time
more slowly is because it takes the image of the moving clock a
progressively longer to reach him. After the clock has travelled one
light-second away from him it will appear one second slow, after it has
travelled an light-hour away from him it will appear one hour slow and so
on.
Of course on its way back the moving clock's observed image will catch up
with the stationary clock of the observer until it reaches the observer, at
which point in time it will show the same actual time again.
Conclusion, just because you see something doesn't mean that it is real.
Many stars we observe in the sky may actually have ceased to exist years
ago, yet we still see them.
As for the triplets paradox, what if one triplet stays home and two triplets
leave in a spaceship at .8 times the speed of light (c). Next after
travelling along it appears to the two moving triplets as if they are
stationary. So the second triplet decides to leave the mother space ship in
an ancillary ship at .8 c in relation to the spaceship. The net result
being that he travels away from the "stationary" earth at 1.6 c!
In this instance the earth triplet will see the mother's space ship clock
running slow at one rate and the ancillary's space ship's clock at an even
slower rate. According to special relativity, we now have three parallel
universes to contend with. Why don't people realize how ridiculous all of
this is?
For a realistic logical explanation of the above please see my "Selected
Papers" which you will find at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Enjoy, Len.
.....................................................
"Arfur Dogfrey" <dogs...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:b8a07d3f.03072...@posting.google.com...
................................................................
Dirk Van de moortel
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message news:viaavu7...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> To all,
>
to Gaasenbeek (and perhaps a little bit to "alen"):
>
> Time flows at a constant rate measured in seconds, hours, days, months,
> years, light-seconds, light-hours and light-years, BY DEFINITION.
It does not, by experiment.
And by definition, light-seconds, light-hours and light-years
are not even measures of time.
>
> The fact that an observer sees a clock that moves away from him keep time
> more slowly is because it takes the image of the moving clock a
> progressively longer to reach him.
That is the Doppler effect and it is independent of
time dilation, by definition.
> After the clock has travelled one
> light-second away from him it will appear one second slow, after it has
> travelled an light-hour away from him it will appear one hour slow and so
> on.
>
> Of course on its way back the moving clock's observed image will catch up
> with the stationary clock of the observer until it reaches the observer, at
> which point in time it will show the same actual time again.
It does not catch up, by experiment.
>
> Conclusion, just because you see something doesn't mean that it is real.
Conclusion, just because you think something is done
in some way, it doesn't mean that we, ordinary people,
do it that way.
> Many stars we observe in the sky may actually have ceased to exist years
> ago, yet we still see them.
Very true. Remarkable! I'm baffled!!
>
> As for the triplets paradox, what if one triplet stays home and two triplets
> leave in a spaceship at .8 times the speed of light (c). Next after
> travelling along it appears to the two moving triplets as if they are
> stationary. So the second triplet decides to leave the mother space ship in
> an ancillary ship at .8 c in relation to the spaceship. The net result
> being that he travels away from the "stationary" earth at 1.6 c!
>
> In this instance the earth triplet will see the mother's space ship clock
> running slow at one rate and the ancillary's space ship's clock at an even
> slower rate. According to special relativity, we now have three parallel
> universes to contend with.
Not a single word of what you have written here,
has anything to do with special relativity. Bravo!
Yet again, you prove that you have never even
listened to any of the numerous explanations that
were given to you. Bravo!
Recently I met someone who would say:
"I don't listen because I don't agree". Right, alen?
> Why don't people realize how ridiculous all of
> this is?
Because people have a full time job realizing how
utterly ridiculous you are.
>
> For a realistic logical explanation of the above please see my "Selected
> Papers" which you will find at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
A good place where you can put your selected
papers to use, is in the toilet somewhere under
your bottom.
>
> Enjoy, Len.
Thanks. I had a good time - again.
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
"Pat Dolan" <patdo...@cs.com> wrote in message news:4f5d4135.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Martin, I say that trying to understand how acceleration removes the
> paradox is like trying to understand the Trinity; it is not apriori
> apparent like time dilation and the light clock.
Agreed, it is no so easy.
> It is not even
> unambiguously calculable.
Yes it is.
> I suspect it is what the logicians call
> "Deus ex Machina", an attempt to save SR theory from contradiction.
What contradictions do you claim that there are in SR?
> Here is what I suspect about you: I suspect you don't understand it
> either, but are merely taking it on authority that the Twin Paradox is
> really no paradox. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the
> doubt...
That is very kind of you.
> ...and ask you to simply give me the name of the book that
> straightened it all out for you.
That is a strange request, I am not sure that there is one
book. that 'straightened it out for me'. The twins paradox
is covered in many text books, for example p 38 in
'Introducing Einstein's Relativity' by D'Inverno. There
you will see how the simultaneity lines of an accelerated
observer change during the turnaround.
> Here is what you are ultimately
> up against: When you have relative motion you also have a
> non-zero gama, period!
That is not the complete story. You cannot condense all of
relativity into one single factor. The relativity of simultaneity
plays a central role in the twins paradox.
> There
> is no provision in SR or GR for it's decrease, elimination, or change
> of sign due to acceleration.
Indeed, but there is plenty of provision for simultaneity to change
when you move from one inertial frame to another, either abruptly
of gradually.
>Don't give me this "weird things happen"
> stuff. Get real, give me some math.
> When and if you do, then we can
> move on to the Ehrenfest Paradox (Ha,Ha,Ha).
I am not sure what maths you want. There is plenty in most
text books. Why not read one? If I thought you were
someone who genuinely wanted to learn about the subject
I would gladly offer such help as I am able.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:bg42ge$ohu$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
[snip]
>
> I am not sure what maths you want. There is plenty in most
> text books. Why not read one? If I thought you were
> someone who genuinely wanted to learn about the subject
> I would gladly offer such help as I am able.
Perhaps that's why he didn't reply to my messages: I gave some
equations showing him wrong. He knows. So he doesn't reply.
Another troll.
See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=sci.physics.*&as_uauthors=pat%20dolan%20
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
[...]
> Here is what I suspect about you: I suspect you don't understand it
> either, but are merely taking it on authority that the Twin Paradox is
> really no paradox...
Pat, you have just made a _very_ bad move. Martin is one of the most
intelligent and patient people on this newsgroup. Insulting him in the
hope of serving some perverse purpose will get you not a single step
closer to resolving any of your confusions about special relativity.
You had better be thankful that someone of Martin's understanding of the
theory has offered to help you at all, seeing how difficult you are being
with him.
Jeff
Pat Dolan
Jeff, the others are correct, I am indeed a troll, looking for true
believers in any theory. And I may have hit the SR and GR motherload
here. While a bit sharp tongued, I am a fun loving troll, and you
will get used to me. You and Martin are about to learn the hard way
that there has yet to be a theory devised by the human mind that does
not contain antinomy and internal contradiction. This is true even of
arithmetic (see K. Goedel) I'm going to pause now and consult Martin's
favorite author, where I'm sure I will find a dozen other
contradictions resulting from the twins, acceleration, and
simultaneity. Then I'm going to come back and shove SR, complete with
twin paradox, simultaneity, acceleration...oops, I'm getting ahead of
myself. But I would like to know weather all you guys are up to
defending SR theory (which I suspect is sacred ground for you all).
Because if I'm just going to be ignored then I'll look for more
sporting SR game elsewhere. My posts will only contain properly
derivable results from the premises and well formed formulae of the
theory. So what do you say? Ya still wanna fight?
Len Gaasenbeek
To Mitchell,
You are right, a light-year is the distance that light travels in one year.
I stand corrected. However the rest of what I said stands, namely that when
an object is one light year away from the observer its clock will read one
year slow because that is the time it took for the clock's (historic) image
to reach the observer.
I disagree with you that it is impossible to explain the so called "time
dilation" by means of ordinary physics because I have done so in my Selected
Papers.
See: http://www2.rideau.net.gaasbeek
In my opinion Einstein was not only wrong but did the world a great
disservice by introducing his illogical reasoning into the science of
physics. In so doing he turned relativistic physics into a cult rather than
a science, i.e. Einstein was the greatest corrupter of science in the
history of man; this in spite of the fact that some of his earlier papers
had merit and he had his doubts about quantum mechanics.
Len.
.......................................................
"Mitchell B." <mitc...@galmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:3f254439$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
>
> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
> news:viab4li...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > To all,
> >
> > Time flows at a constant rate measured in seconds, hours, days, months,
> > years, light-seconds, light-hours and light-years, BY DEFINITION.
>
> To Len,
>
> I would love to see your definition of time. Besides the fact that a
> light-year is a distance, you really shouldn't state with such conviction
> what you obviously don't properly understand - it might corrupt the
curious
> minds of those more ignorant than yourself (although such a person might
be
> hard to find).
>
> Simply put, it is impossible to explain the dilations and contractions of
> time and matter with conventional (pre-Lorenzian) physics. This is how you
> are attempting to show that it is 'ridiculous'. Once you accept, or are
> shown mathematically, that the classical understanding of time is
mistaken,
> then you will see that the Einsteinian way of understanding this 'paradox'
> and many other problems is in fact correct.
>
................................................
Len Gaasenbeek
Harry
news:vibsr73...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> To Mitchell,
>
> You are right, a light-year is the distance that light travels in one
year.
> I stand corrected. However the rest of what I said stands, namely that
when
> an object is one light year away from the observer its clock will read one
> year slow because that is the time it took for the clock's (historic)
image
> to reach the observer.
>
> I disagree with you that it is impossible to explain the so called "time
> dilation" by means of ordinary physics because I have done so in my
Selected
> Papers.
> See: http://www2.rideau.net.gaasbeek
>
> In my opinion Einstein was not only wrong but did the world a great
> disservice by introducing his illogical reasoning into the science of
> physics. In so doing he turned relativistic physics into a cult rather
than
> a science, i.e. Einstein was the greatest corrupter of science in the
> history of man; this in spite of the fact that some of his earlier papers
> had merit and he had his doubts about quantum mechanics.
>
> Len.
> .......................................................
>
Len, please bottom post, as shown here!
I don't have the earlier postings.
- Can you show mathematically that the clock will read one year slow?! (I
don't think so, not in general).
- Your link didn't work, not even with archive.org.
Harald
Len Gaasenbeek
To Mark,
I address Rossi and Hall's experiment on the time dilation of decaying muons
in the last of my Selected Papers in detail, explaining where they went
wrong.
The paper is titled: "Time Dilation, Fact or Fiction" which you will find at
my website at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Why don't you read my papers before you criticize my postings?
Len.
....................................................
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:0eCdnSVx8vy...@wideopenwest.com...
>
> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
> news:vibs555...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > To Mitchell,
> >
> > You are right, a light-year is the distance that light travels in one
> year.
> > I stand corrected. However the rest of what I said stands, namely that
> when
> > an object is one light year away from the observer its clock will read
one
> > year slow because that is the time it took for the clock's (historic)
> image
> > to reach the observer.
>
> Time dilations are also in effect for objects moving toward the observer
or
> perpendicular to his direction of view. The equation remains the same
> regardless of velocity. And after the object has been stopped and
returned,
> it still remains younger than the object "at rest". This has been
> experimentally verified, not only with clocks, but with particles who's
> decay time actualy increases by a significant factor - enough for 180
> muons/square inch to arrive at sea level every second from the upper
> atmosphere, despite the fact that their life of only a few billionths of a
> second.
>
> >
> > I disagree with you that it is impossible to explain the so called "time
> > dilation" by means of ordinary physics because I have done so in my
> Selected
> > Papers.
> > See: http://www2.rideau.net.gaasbeek
> >
> > In my opinion Einstein was not only wrong but did the world a great
> > disservice by introducing his illogical reasoning into the science of
> > physics.
>
> Unfortunately, you are wrong and doing humanity a great disservice with
your
> ape-like rantings.
>
> <snipped garbage>
>
>
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
news:vibsda2...@corp.supernews.com...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message news:vicq1b8...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> To Mark,
>
> I address Rossi and Hall's experiment on the time dilation of decaying muons
> in the last of my Selected Papers in detail, explaining where they went
> wrong.
> The paper is titled: "Time Dilation, Fact or Fiction" which you will find at
> my website at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
>
> Why don't you read my papers before you criticize my postings?
Napoleon Bonaparte is still alive. He did not die on the
island of St. Helena. I address all the historians' evidence
about Napoleon's life in the last of my Selected Papers in
detail, explaining where they went wrong.
The paper is titled: "The final proof that I am Napoleon"
which you will find at my website at:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Spacegoof.jpg
Why don't you read my papers before you decide that I
am an idiot?
Dirk Vdm
Bob Thornton
"paradox". It's my opinion that we wouldn't have all this conclusion
had the earlier pioneers chosen to refer to this thought experiment as
something other than a paradox (the twin example, maybe?).
As with so many people I've seen on sci.physics.relativity over the
years, you seem to be confused by the etymology as applied to this
problem. Here's a tip: go buy a book on variational methods in physics
and read it; look at any elementary text on special relativity and
apply your knowledge of variational principles to the twin paradox as
follows: describe the twins' separate journeys through spacetime by
means of a path $\gamma$; now extremize each path with respect to the
proper time of the twins; the answer you get is perfectly simple and
makes absolute sense.
Voila! The twin "paradox" is exposed as nothing more than a
misconception about the nature of time. Repeat ad infinitum for any
number of N brothers/sisters in comoving inertial frames.
alen
But we are assured that because the
> traveling twin experiences acceleration and has to turn around at some
> point to get back to Earth, that this somehow causes all that time
> dilation to take place for the traveling twin only. That's always
> seemed arbitrary and contrived to me.
From one of your later posts in this thread I gather that you do
not believe in SR at all?
I do accept SR but I, too, have always felt that the acceleration
argument is contrived. Clocks are not accelerometers, and
clock effects determined by the SR equations are manifestly
functions of velocity only.
Therefore I have advanced the argument that the paradox is real
and can be solved by an understanding that one sees a moving
clock to run slow because one sees it, not as it is, but via its
past history. Therefore, each twin is looking at the past history
of the other while in motion and, when they come to rest, they
will see one another to be the same age again, as they really
always were. Thus, it doesn't matter who accelerates or does
not accelerate, and acceleration has nothing to do with the
explanation.
Alen
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.07.28....@hotmail.com>...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:12:04 -0700, Pat Dolan wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Here is what I suspect about you: I suspect you don't understand it
>> > either, but are merely taking it on authority that the Twin Paradox
>> > is really no paradox...
>>
>> Pat, you have just made a _very_ bad move. Martin is one of the most
>> intelligent and patient people on this newsgroup. Insulting him in the
>> hope of serving some perverse purpose will get you not a single step
>> closer to resolving any of your confusions about special relativity.
>>
>> You had better be thankful that someone of Martin's understanding of
>> the theory has offered to help you at all, seeing how difficult you are
>> being with him.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Jeff, the others are correct, I am indeed a troll, looking for true
> believers in any theory.
Thank you kindly for admitting such.
> And I may have hit the SR and GR motherload here.
What, you mean with the twin paradox? This is a very common
misunderstanding of those new to the study of special relativity, so many
around here do indeed take some time to help clear up as much of the
confusion for interested readers as is reasonably possible.
> While a bit sharp tongued, I am a fun loving troll, and you will get
> used to me.
I suppose we will have to see about that.
> You and Martin are about to learn the hard way that there has yet to be
> a theory devised by the human mind that does not contain antinomy and
> internal contradiction.
Haha! Very interesting. Well, unfortunately for you, I _seriously_ doubt
there is going to be much you will be able to teach me about any
scientific theory, but I will wait for you to prove it.
> This is true even of
> arithmetic (see K. Goedel) I'm going to pause now and consult Martin's
> favorite author, where I'm sure I will find a dozen other contradictions
> resulting from the twins, acceleration, and simultaneity.
Oh, in this I would have to agree with you. With the extremely limited
intellect you have put on display, you are going to have an
extraordinarily difficult time wrapping your mind around much of anything,
and the result of your multitude of confusions and misunderstandings will
likely be supposed contradictions that you will trot out to get shot down
on the group.
But, please, don't flatter yourself. There have already been _many_ more
spectacular cranks and trolls which have preceeded you, and you are very
unlikely to be able to match the best we have all previously seen.
> Then I'm going to come back and shove SR, complete with twin paradox,
> simultaneity, acceleration...oops, I'm getting ahead of myself. But I
> would like to know weather all you guys are up to defending SR theory
> (which I suspect is sacred ground for you all).
This is also interesting. If one of us is taking all of this personally,
and holding anything sacred, I would say it would be you, with the passion
and belligerence you use in your "attacks". Science is a strongly
objective endeavor, and every sentence you present shows how far from real
science you actually are.
> Because if I'm just going to be ignored then I'll look for more sporting
> SR game elsewhere. My posts will only contain properly derivable results
> from the premises and well formed formulae of the theory. So what do
> you say? Ya still wanna fight?
Ah, well, if you are entering this with as closed a mind as you show here,
then the chances of getting any true engagements from the rest of the
group will likely be very small. If, however, you are interested in an
open and honest discussion, then ask away!
Jeff
Len Gaasenbeek
To Harry,
You will find my website at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
My mistake!
I recommend you read my last paper: "Time Dilation: Fact or Fiction" first.
Next read papers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Good luck!
Len.
..............................................................
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3f2622f2$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Len Gaasenbeek
Your posting below is up to your usual standard.
Why don't you give up?
"He that knows little, often repeats it."
Proverb.
Len.
...........................................
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:3f2676d6$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
Pat Dolan
Wonderful!!! I'll be back atcha' soon. You and Martin write very
similarly, do you realize that? And has he got anything to add about
my tossing down the gaunlet? Or does he better understand than you,
the deep intellectual danger you are both in?
Pat
Martin Hogbin
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:12:04 -0700, Pat Dolan wrote:
> >
>
> Jeff, the others are correct, I am indeed a troll, looking for true
> believers in any theory.
You clearly do not understand the purpose of a
theory of physics. There are no 'true believers'
in science, only in religion.
> And I may have hit the SR and GR motherload
> here. While a bit sharp tongued, I am a fun loving troll, and you
> will get used to me. You and Martin are about to learn the hard way
> that there has yet to be a theory devised by the human mind that does
> not contain antinomy and internal contradiction.
Sure, but _you_ have not found any problems in relativity.
The twins paradox and the Ehrenfest paradox have been
known and understood for years. If you want to make life
hard, ask what an inertial frame is.
> This is true even of
> arithmetic (see K. Goedel) I'm going to pause now and consult Martin's
> favorite author,
I made no mention of a favourite author.
>...where I'm sure I will find a dozen other
> contradictions resulting from the twins, acceleration, and
> simultaneity.
Your finding them and their being there are two completely
different things.
> I did not
> Then I'm going to come back and shove SR, complete with
> twin paradox, simultaneity, acceleration...oops, I'm getting ahead of
> myself.
The idea that you can wade into a subject that has been
understood for nearly a century and find a dozen
contradictions is, to say the least, somewhat hopeful.
> But I would like to know weather all you guys are up to
> defending SR theory (which I suspect is sacred ground for you all).
Aha! A 'relativity is a religion' crackpot. I has all been done
before.
> Because if I'm just going to be ignored then I'll look for more
> sporting SR game elsewhere. My posts will only contain properly
> derivable results from the premises and well formed formulae of the
> theory. So what do you say? Ya still wanna fight?
I reserve the right not to have a battle of wits with an
unarmed man.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3f2622f2$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[snip]
>
> Len, please bottom post, as shown here!
There is a big void upstairs with Len.
Top posting is his way of filling the vacuum.
Dirk Vdm
Harry
>
> To Harry,
>
> You will find my website at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
> My mistake!
>
> I recommend you read my last paper: "Time Dilation: Fact or Fiction"
first.
>
> Next read papers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
>
> Good luck!
> Len.
> > Len, please bottom post, as shown here!
> >
> > I don't have the earlier postings.
> > - Can you show mathematically that the clock will read one year slow?!
> > (I don't think so, not in general).
> > - Your link didn't work, not even with archive.org.
> >
> > Harald
Len,
- Just a pick:
"In summary, the light frequency of the moving hydrogen ions is lower than
that of the stationary ions, not because their fast moving clocks run slower
but because in their conversion from linear wave particles into helical wave
particles they converted some of their spin momentum into orbital momentum.
"
A hydrogen ion does not HAVE a clock, it can be USED as clock. Instead of
refuting it, you are suggesting a mechanism for the "atomic" clock slowdown
that Ives and Stillwell advocated.
But if atomic clock slowdown is a real physical phenomenon, I would expect
that you agree with the Clock Paradox's standard outcome that the moved
clock (RMS) is slow. That seems to be contradicted by your claim: "Since the
twins were 20 years old when Robert left, they will be 70 years old after he
gets back." Assuming that they measure their ages with atomic clocks, what
would you say?
- I did not find the example of your claim that a clock that is moved one
light-year away will run one year slow.
Harald
Len Gaasenbeek
[Len] See my second paper titled: Frames of Reference.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
Harry
Ah. Suddenly it clicked! You think that the time-of-flight is not taken into
account in the theory!!
Sorry to disappoint you, but you are hopelessly wrong...
A clock at one light year distance is assumed to be running ON TIME if the
received image is one year behind.
Harald.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3f27da03$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
[snip]
>
> Ah. Suddenly it clicked! You think that the time-of-flight is not taken into
> account in the theory!!
> Sorry to disappoint you, but you are hopelessly wrong...
> A clock at one light year distance is assumed to be running ON TIME if the
> received image is one year behind.
This has been explained to Len at least 1534 times.
It does not work. Very strong vacuum up there.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message news:vidjqej...@corp.supernews.com...
> To Dirk,
>
> Your posting below is up to your usual standard.
> Why don't you give up?
>
> "He that knows little, often repeats it."
> Proverb.
Nice proverb.
Google "my selected papers" author:gaasenbeek:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22my+selected+papers%22+author%3Agaasenbeek
440 hits and counting.
Dirk Vdm
Pat Dolan
Uhm, excuse me please; Dirk, Harry, Asutralopithecus, Arfur, Bob,
etc., Please leave poor Len alone in his relativistic reveries and try
to concentrate on what is about to happen in the Pat, Martin, Jeff
thread. They are going to need your undivided attention.
Pat
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pat Dolan" <patdo...@cs.com> wrote in message news:4f5d4135.03073...@posting.google.com...
First have a careful read of
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Don't count on too much attention.
Dirk Vdm
Harry
I had missed that original thread entirely!
OK I'll have a look, although I think that it's in essence the same as the
Twin Paradox.
Harald
Harry
SNIP
> What, you mean with the twin paradox? This is a very common
> misunderstanding of those new to the study of special relativity, so many
> around here do indeed take some time to help clear up as much of the
> confusion for interested readers as is reasonably possible.
You forgot to mention that it sometimes also "hits" people who already know
it very well, but get second thoughts about its interpretation.
Ref: Builder 1958 , Austr. J. Phys.11 p.297.
Harald
Harry
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:01c355e5$f1e38f40$257ea6cb@default...
You sound like Dingle (a "true" relativist), or maybe like Len G.
I also have the opinion that acceleration has nothing to do with it.
But if you claim that the two twins (clocks) indicate the same time in the
end, you have to reject the validity of the Lorentz transformations (and
thus SRT), for the equations don't agree with your thinking.
Harald
alen
You may not have come across my website link, so I
will give it here:
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/index.htm
I make the case that the historical clock times are
determined by Lorentz transformation equations which
are not those that are normally used.
If by a 'true' relativist you mean someone who will support SR
only as long as he will see it as a true description of
reality, I accept your description.
Alen