How does mutual time dilation work with one twin aging faster?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
Next: Why relativity and other theories do not work in small scale?
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2010 09:37 On 8/10/10 3:53 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > I thought the universe is closed, spacetime curves > on itself, etc. How can it also be flat? Does not compute - With in the error of measurement, the universe is flat. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#SC See: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/map_bibliography.cfm Read: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Observations: Implications for Cosmology http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr2/pub_papers/threeyear/parameters/wmap_3yr_param.pdf
From: PD on 10 Aug 2010 09:53 On Aug 10, 2:15 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 9, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 9, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was the first, > > > perhaps persuaded by others, to claim the acceleration thing would > > > lead to no paradox. However, there was and has been no mathematics > > > showing how acceleration breaks the symmetry that manifests the twins > > > paradox. <shrug> > > > Don't be silly. > > I have never been. <shrug> > > > The mathematics is the integration of the proper time > > along the world lines of the two twins. > > That is never correct. <shrug> :>) Well, there's always the "I don't believe it, and you can't make me" approach. Have fun with that. > > > Then it is OBVIOUS they are different. > > You are sprouting nonsense as usual. <shrug> > > > This directly attributable to one of the world lines being > > less straight than the other. > > Babbling in your dream world of fouled mathematics again, professor- > want-to-be PD? > > > Your being oblivious to the mathematics doesn't mean that this is not > > a straightforward demonstration shown in many books. > > You are utterly delusional drowning in your cesspool of fermented > diarrhea of Einstein that nitwit, that plagiarist, and that liar. > <shrug> > > > Penrose's Road to > > Reality does this in a half-page, for example. > > What did he say? Read it. I assume you can read. > > > > On top of that, you can always design an experiment where both twins > > > do travel with the same acceleration profile. > > > And in this case there is no clock difference upon reunion. This has > > been pointed out to you many times before. > > You have been wrong for all these years. That is because you don't > understand the Lorentz transform, and it has shown for all these > years. <shrug> > > > > Leave a period where > > > both would be coasting with no acceleration to allow for the build-up > > > of mutual time dilation. Better yet, make this coasting period > > > variable. When the twins reunite any bullshit claims to the > > > acceleration part will be nullified. The time dilation from the > > > coasting period should very clearly spell that the twins paradox is > > > indeed a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > I am totally surprised that a professor of physics cannot understand > this. <shrug>
From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 10:04 On Aug 10, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/10 7:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > There is no such thing as absolute time dilation. From the cosmic muon > > point of view the lab muon has a life time of 2.2us/gamma. > > Wrong--From the perspective of any muon, its mean lifetime is 2.2 µs. > Seto FAILS to understand relativity. No idiot....the cosmic muon clock second has longer duration the the lab clock second. Therefore SR and IRT predicts that from the cosmic muon point of view the lab muon has a lifetime of 2.2us(cosmic muon time)/gamma. Ken Seto
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2010 10:07 On 8/10/10 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > What causes the different observations if the physics are the same? Is > it because the observer and the observed object are in a state of > individual motion? > Consider two inertial observers, A and B at different distances from a lightning strike, LS, such that A--------------LS------------------------------B All the laws of physics are identical for A and B, but they OBSERVE the lightning strike at different times. In another scenario A and LS have a relative velocity of zero, but B is receding from A and LS at velocity, v. A--------------LS------------------------------B 0 v A measures the duration of the Lightning Strike as ∆t_LS whereas B measures the duration of the lightning strike as γ ∆t_LS, where v is the relative velocity between LS and B, and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . The physics is the same for A and B, but the observations of A and B are quite different.
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2010 10:41
On 8/10/10 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 10, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/10/10 7:52 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> There is no such thing as absolute time dilation. From the cosmic muon >>> point of view the lab muon has a life time of 2.2us/gamma. >> >> Wrong--From the perspective of any muon, its mean lifetime is 2.2 �s. >> Seto FAILS to understand relativity. > > No idiot....the cosmic muon clock second has longer duration the the > lab clock second. Therefore SR and IRT predicts that from the cosmic > muon point of view the lab muon has a lifetime of 2.2us(cosmic muon > time)/gamma. > > Ken Seto Cosmic muons FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GROUND OBSERVER do exhibit time dilation predicted by special relativity. However, from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE MUON, there is no time dilation and the muon has a mean lifetime is 2.2 �s. Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity! |