CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 01:38 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c07ad045-933b-4070-a650-feb4f34dceff(a)s39g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> Clocks run slower in gravitation fields - clocks in jet planes, >> satellites > > This would manifest the twins� paradox No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a 'paradox'. The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative motion results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. In the case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual reciprocal time dilation. If A and B are at different gravitational potentials, A measures B as slower than A, and B measures A as faster than B. So that the elapsed times being different is not unintuitive. > where it has never been > resolved. The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive answer is not the correct answer.
From: Koobee Wublee on 11 Sep 2009 01:59 On Sep 10, 10:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > This would manifest the twins paradox > > No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a 'paradox'. That could be true, but that is not what I was referring to. <shrug> The discussion so far is somewhat within SR. However, you can behave like professor Roberts and his academic buddies why SR does apply anymore and convince yourself of the total bull$hit not reconcilable by any mathematics involved. <shrug> > The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative motion > results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins > must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. That is very correct. The academics somewhat can never understand this simple logic. <shrug> > In the > case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual reciprocal > time dilation... Yes, that is true. Part of GR is based on position where it has a position less affected by gravitation, but the other part of GR is very much under the confine of SR. That is what I am addressing. <shrug> The ground sees the GPS satellites traveling at such high speed. Thus, according to the Lorentz transform, there must be time dilation associated with the observation. Now, the satellite also sees the same speed at any point on the surface of the earth. Time dilation must also apply to the satellites. The ground compares its time to be slower than the satellite, and at the same time, the satellite compares its time to be slower than on the ground. Thus, setting up equations fit for the engineering world in which the self-styled physicists would be totally lost, there is no solution for this case. Thus, the paradox still exists. It has never been resolved. <shrug> > > where it has never been resolved. > > The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other > such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive answer is > not the correct answer. Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug>
From: Inertial on 11 Sep 2009 03:19 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:23fb4ba4-5800-4fed-bef0-4694cd6163ab(a)w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 10, 10:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > This would manifest the twins� paradox >> >> No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a >> 'paradox'. > > That could be true, but that is not what I was referring to. <shrug> Odd. as it is what you appeared to be saying quite clearly > The discussion so far is somewhat within SR. However, you can behave > like professor Roberts and his academic buddies why SR does apply > anymore and convince yourself of the total bull$hit not reconcilable > by any mathematics involved. <shrug> > >> The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative >> motion >> results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins >> must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. > > That is very correct. The academics somewhat can never understand > this simple logic. <shrug> They do understand it, as that is what many new students think. they then go on to point out how SR actually works, and that in the twins paradox, it is not that there was mutual motion that leads to the difference in aging, it was because one twin accelerated more than the other .. hence its not symmetric. If you have BOTH twins acclerating away and returning, then there is no age difference. >> In the >> case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual reciprocal >> time dilation... > > Yes, that is true. Part of GR is based on position where it has a > position less affected by gravitation, but the other part of GR is > very much under the confine of SR. That is what I am addressing. > <shrug> > > The ground sees the GPS satellites traveling at such high speed. > Thus, according to the Lorentz transform, there must be time dilation > associated with the observation. Now, the satellite also sees the > same speed at any point on the surface of the earth. Time dilation > must also apply to the satellites. The ground compares its time to be > slower than the satellite, and at the same time, the satellite > compares its time to be slower than on the ground. Thus, setting up > equations fit for the engineering world in which the self-styled > physicists would be totally lost, there is no solution for this case. > Thus, the paradox still exists. It has never been resolved. <shrug> There is no paradox in SR, however. >> > where it has never been resolved. >> >> The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other >> such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive answer >> is >> not the correct answer. > > Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas > who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug> Guess he must be correct as well then.
From: PD on 11 Sep 2009 08:52 On Sep 11, 12:59 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 10, 10:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > This would manifest the twins paradox > > > No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a 'paradox'. > > That could be true, but that is not what I was referring to. <shrug> > > The discussion so far is somewhat within SR. However, you can behave > like professor Roberts and his academic buddies why SR does apply > anymore and convince yourself of the total bull$hit not reconcilable > by any mathematics involved. <shrug> > > > The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative motion > > results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins > > must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. > > That is very correct. The academics somewhat can never understand > this simple logic. <shrug> > > > In the > > case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual reciprocal > > time dilation... > > Yes, that is true. Part of GR is based on position where it has a > position less affected by gravitation, but the other part of GR is > very much under the confine of SR. That is what I am addressing. > <shrug> > > The ground sees the GPS satellites traveling at such high speed. > Thus, according to the Lorentz transform, there must be time dilation > associated with the observation. Now, the satellite also sees the > same speed at any point on the surface of the earth. Time dilation > must also apply to the satellites. Why, no, Koobee. This is PRECISELY the shallow misconception that is being addressed. The poor student with the shallow understanding of relativity says: "Moving fast --> time dilation," thinking that relativity's statement really is as boneheadedly simple as that. The POINT is that this is in fact not the case. > The ground compares its time to be > slower than the satellite, and at the same time, the satellite > compares its time to be slower than on the ground. Thus, setting up > equations fit for the engineering world in which the self-styled > physicists would be totally lost, there is no solution for this case. > Thus, the paradox still exists. It has never been resolved. <shrug> > > > > where it has never been resolved. > > > The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other > > such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive answer is > > not the correct answer. > > Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas > who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug>
From: doug on 11 Sep 2009 10:16
Inertial wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:23fb4ba4-5800-4fed-bef0-4694cd6163ab(a)w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > >> On Sep 10, 10:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> > This would manifest the twins� paradox >>> >>> No .. the difference due to gravitational fields don't give you a >>> 'paradox'. >> >> >> That could be true, but that is not what I was referring to. <shrug> > > > Odd. as it is what you appeared to be saying quite clearly > >> The discussion so far is somewhat within SR. However, you can behave >> like professor Roberts and his academic buddies why SR does apply >> anymore and convince yourself of the total bull$hit not reconcilable >> by any mathematics involved. <shrug> >> >>> The *apparent* paradox in the usual twins paradox is that if relative >>> motion >>> results in both clocks ticking slower than each other, surely both twins >>> must be younger than each other, which clearly would be nonsense. >> >> >> That is very correct. The academics somewhat can never understand >> this simple logic. <shrug> > > > They do understand it, as that is what many new students think. they > then go on to point out how SR actually works, and that in the twins > paradox, it is not that there was mutual motion that leads to the > difference in aging, it was because one twin accelerated more than the > other .. hence its not symmetric. If you have BOTH twins acclerating > away and returning, then there is no age difference. > >>> In the >>> case of gravitational potential difference, there isn't mutual >>> reciprocal >>> time dilation... >> >> >> Yes, that is true. Part of GR is based on position where it has a >> position less affected by gravitation, but the other part of GR is >> very much under the confine of SR. That is what I am addressing. >> <shrug> >> >> The ground sees the GPS satellites traveling at such high speed. >> Thus, according to the Lorentz transform, there must be time dilation >> associated with the observation. Now, the satellite also sees the >> same speed at any point on the surface of the earth. Time dilation >> must also apply to the satellites. The ground compares its time to be >> slower than the satellite, and at the same time, the satellite >> compares its time to be slower than on the ground. Thus, setting up >> equations fit for the engineering world in which the self-styled >> physicists would be totally lost, there is no solution for this case. >> Thus, the paradox still exists. It has never been resolved. <shrug> > > > There is no paradox in SR, however. > >>> > where it has never been resolved. >>> >>> The actual so-called 'twins paradox' is fully resolved. Like many other >>> such 'paradoxes', it is simply a puzzle where often ones intuitive >>> answer is >>> not the correct answer. >> >> >> Boy, you sound so much like that fake professor of physics from Texas >> who calls himself PD, Perpetual Dip$hit. <shrug> > > > Guess he must be correct as well then. Koobee and others think that there stupidity, hatred and jealousy of Einstein constitute a problem with relativity. It is useless presenting facts to koobee since he is a total liar. > > |