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 14:48 On 8/10/10 1:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 10, 10:07 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Of course, they are at different distances from the LS. But this does > not mean the laws of physics are the same. > >> >> 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) > > This is wrong...A measure the strike to have a duration of > Delta(t_A)and B measure the strike has a duration of Delta(t_B). > I think what you are trying to say is: > The strike happened in A's frame and A measures the duration of the > strike to be Delta(t_LS) and you want to transform this interval of > time into the B frame and it becomes > Delta(t_LS)/gamma > > Ken Seto Seto, you are totally lost in your own abyss of ignorance! Why don't you purchase (AND READ.... AND DO THE PROBLEMS) a physics textbook that at least includes a section on special relativity. > >> >> The physics is the same for A and B, but the observations of >> A and B are quite different. >
From: BURT on 10 Aug 2010 16:29 On Aug 10, 11:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/10 1:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 10:07 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com>  wrote: > >> 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. > > > Of course, they are at different distances from the LS. But this does > > not mean the laws of physics are the same. > > >>   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 ât_LS > >>   whereas B measures the duration of the lightning strike > >>   as γ ât_LS, where v is the relative velocity between LS > >>   and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) > > > This is wrong...A measure the strike to have a duration of > > Delta(t_A)and B measure the strike has a duration of Delta(t_B). > > I think what you are trying to say is: > > The strike happened in A's frame and A measures the duration of the > > strike to be Delta(t_LS) and you want to transform this interval of > > time into the B frame and it becomes > > Delta(t_LS)/gamma > > > Ken Seto > >   Seto, you are totally lost in your own abyss of ignorance! Why don't >   you purchase (AND READ.... AND DO THE PROBLEMS) a physics textbook >   that at least includes a section on special relativity. > > > > > > >>   The physics is the same for A and B, but the observations of > >>   A and B are quite different.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Physics doesn't know much. How could it? It is too young to make claims. Mitch Raemsch
From: kenseto on 11 Aug 2010 10:08 On Aug 10, 12:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/10 10:50 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 10:41 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 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 > > >> 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 µs. > > > No idiot...the cosmic muon predicts that the lab muon decays at 2.2us/ > > gamma....this means that the lab muon has a shorter life time than the > > cosmic muon and that's why the lab muon can only travel a very short > > distance before decaying. > > No Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity. Hopelessly lost in the > abyss of ignorance. Wormy it is you who failed to understand relativity and the simple fact that the cosmic muon's clock second is worth gamma-seconds on the lab clock. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >> Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 11 Aug 2010 10:13 On Aug 8, 2:43 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Seto -- This phrase you banter about, "MUTUAL TIME DILATION" is > indicative of the idea that you think you can have more than one > perspective simultaneously. No idiot...from A's point of view B is running slow by a factor of 1/ gamma and from B's point of view A is running slow by a factor of 1/ gamma. How is that having more than one perspective simultaneously???? IDIOT. > > You can only have one and relativity theory predicts what you > will measure EVERY TIME! > > Just because A and B, in relative motion will each measure time > dilation in the others clock, DOES NOT mean you can observer both > simultaneously. Pick one or the other and relativity is correct > every time!
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2010 10:48
On 8/11/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 10, 12:12 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >>> No idiot...the cosmic muon predicts that the lab muon decays at 2.2us/ >>> gamma....this means that the lab muon has a shorter life time than the >>> cosmic muon and that's why the lab muon can only travel a very short >>> distance before decaying. >> >> No Seto, you FAIL to understand relativity. Hopelessly lost in the >> abyss of ignorance. > > Wormy it is you who failed to understand relativity and the simple > fact that the cosmic muon's clock second is worth gamma-seconds on > the lab clock. > > Ken Seto > Ken--We observe that your understanding of "relativity" is at odds with all the printed literature (textbooks and scientific papers) available in university and public libraries and on the world wide web. Other than a few crackpots and trolls on USENET, everybody else is trying to help you understand that you are WRONG! |