CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Sep 2009 09:55 mluttgens wrote: > > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical. > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on > a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother > them. They don't even try to find a general solution for > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly. > > Marcel Luttgens Marcel, you should take some time to learn what special relativity really says. One cannot have more than one perspective simultaneously. There has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction of special relativity.
From: PD on 13 Sep 2009 15:29 On Sep 13, 4:28 am, mluttgens <mluttg...(a)orange.fr> wrote: > On 11 sep, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(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. > > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical. Why no, it's really very simple. The problem is, you're trying to make it apply between one pair of events. And in that case, yes, it's nonsensical. But that's not what SR says at all about mutual time dilation. Mutual time dilation applies between TWO distinct pairs of events with special criteria in each frame. Any nonsensibleness about it has simply to do with your shallow understanding of what it means, and your consequent misunderstanding of it. > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on > a road, show the same time dilation. ??? > Contradiction doesn't bother > them. There is no contradiction. > They don't even try to find a general solution for > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly. Not so, Marcel. People just try to explain that the comic-book level statements you take to be true in relativity are not exactly what relativity really says. You then claim that this means people are modifying relativity. Nothing has been modified. All that's being stated is that your shallow grip is not correct. > > Marcel Luttgens > > > 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: Paul B. Andersen on 15 Sep 2009 02:15 mluttgens wrote: > On 11 sep, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(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. > > Special relativity theory should be called the Theory of Mutual > Time Dilation. Clearly, mutual time dilation is nonsensical. > SRists found a solution for the twin paradox, explaining why "both > twins cannot be younger than each other", but consider normal > that two clocks moving relative to each other, for instance on > a road, show the same time dilation. Contradiction doesn't bother > them. They don't even try to find a general solution for > the nonsense, and modify SR accordingly. > > Marcel Luttgens The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is is no contradiction between the two. Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/twins.html I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Sep 2009 01:30 On Sep 14, 11:15 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' Yes, indeed agreed. <applause> > and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is > is no contradiction between the two. That would contradict the Lorentz transform. <boo> > Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf > > I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. I will take up your challenge for the nth time, and if you continue to cowardly stay away from the discussions, please do not bring up this challenge again, OK? Right off the bat, you have grossly violated the very foundation of SR. That is the relative simultaneity in which it makes no sense to coherently identify events, observed in another frame of reference where v != 0, in a chronological order. Please present analysis showing both A and B at rest initially, moving apart, and getting back together. Please show mathematics from both As and Bs point of view. Please also including the scenario where A and B move apart with identical acceleration profile leaving a period where both A and B are coasting away or towards each other with no acceleration.
From: Inertial on 16 Sep 2009 02:36
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1fadf7a0-46fb-4335-8667-4364e23250cb(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 11:15 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: > >> The Lorentz transform predicts both 'mutual time dilation' > > Yes, indeed agreed. <applause> > >> and 'one twin will be younger than the other', it is >> is no contradiction between the two. > > That would contradict the Lorentz transform. <boo> It comes from aplpixcation of the transform in the case where one is accelerating differently to the other. Do the math >> Strictly according to the Lorentz transform: >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf >> >> I challenge you to point out the inconsistency. > > I will take up your challenge for the n�th time, and if you continue > to cowardly stay away from the discussions, please do not bring up > this challenge again, OK? > > Right off the bat, you have grossly violated the very foundation of > SR. Wrong > That is the relative simultaneity in which it makes no sense to > coherently identify events, observed in another frame of reference > where v != 0, in a chronological order. Wrong .. you can very coherently identify events. But the order may differ depending on the observer. However, each observer has a coherent ordering of events. > Please present analysis showing both A and B at rest initially, moving > apart, and getting back together. Please show mathematics from both > A�s and B�s point of view. There are numerous such analysis available .. don't tell me you've never bothered to read one? > Please also including the scenario where A > and B move apart with identical acceleration profile leaving a period > where both A and B are coasting away or towards each other with no > acceleration. Why? |