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: PD on 9 Aug 2010 11:59 On Aug 8, 9:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 9:53 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if you are > > > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you > > > but ticking slower than you at the same time? > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in > > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it > > comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just when > > the acceleration does. > > > > If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age any different than > > > the other. But one does. > > > Notice that in SR only inertial coordinates are equivalent. > > Since no place on earth can be connsidered inertial That's not true. It depends on the precision of the measurement. > does that mean > that SR is not valid on earth? > > Ken Seto > > > > > > Please prove that time only appears slower. I say to you that you will > > > see the station's clock always running faster and mutual is an excuse; > > > If you are the one that accelerated as the station did not. The > > > difference is you felt weight at acceleration that the station doesn't > > > know about. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Yes, like I said you see the station`s clock go slower, until you get > > out from inertial coordinates.
From: Michael Moroney on 9 Aug 2010 12:35 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Aug 8, 9:35=A0am, 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. >Hey idiot....what I said includes only one perspective...the >perspective of the SR observer. Which SR observer? There are (at least) two, for example the observer on the platform and the one on the train for the train gedankens.
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Aug 2010 13:30 On Aug 8, 6:53 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if you are > > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you > > but ticking slower than you at the same time? > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it > comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just when > the acceleration does. > > > If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age any different than > > the other. But one does. > > Notice that in SR only inertial coordinates are equivalent. > > > Please prove that time only appears slower. I say to you that you will > > see the station's clock always running faster and mutual is an excuse; > > If you are the one that accelerated as the station did not. The > > difference is you felt weight at acceleration that the station doesn't > > know about. > > Yes, like I said you see the station`s clock go slower, until you get > out from inertial coordinates. 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> On top of that, you can always design an experiment where both twins do travel with the same acceleration profile. 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>
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Aug 2010 13:31 On Aug 8, 10:26 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > It's not so mysterious. Think about traveling along the x-axis. > If you travel at a constant speed for 1 hour elapsed time, you'll > end up a certain distance from your starting point. If you travel > twice as fast, you'll end up twice as far from your starting > point. There's nothing mysterious about that. > > Now, people are always traveling at a nonzero velocity in the t-direction. > If you travel for one hour, you'll end up at a different time then when > you started. If you travel for one hour at twice at twice the velocity > in the t-direction, you'll end up twice as far along the t-axis. > > The 4-D view of SR is that every object has a velocity in the x-direction, > the y-direction, the z-direction and the t-direction. Different travelers > have different velocities in the t-direction, so they travel different > distances along the t-axis. > > Rather than thinking one twin ages 1 hour while the other ages 1/2 hour, > instead you think that one twin takes a full hour to go from 12:00 to 1:00, > while the other twin only takes 1/2 hour to go the same distance along > the t-axis. Einstein Dingleberries are getting sillier and sillier defending their piles of nonsense. Ahahahaha...
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Aug 2010 13:52
On Aug 8, 11:43 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 8, 7:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; > > if you are the one aging slower > > OK - Thus you are moving faster than the clock, according to you. What is the significance of this? > > how can you see that it is aging more than you > > but ticking slower than you at the same time? > > Because that is wrong: > > 1. What you say means that your measurements refer to a reference > system in which you are moving faster than the clock. > > 2. Thus you will measure that it is aging LESS than you; as you said, > you are aging SLOWER. In another words, you dont trust any of your experimental results. Well, might as well to live to the fantasy world. <shrug> > > If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age any different than > > the other. But one does. > > Time dilation is ONLY mutual between inertial reference frames; the > symmetry is broken when a twin changes velocity. This is hand-waving and thus bullshit. Se the link below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/95cd7cf159ff807b?hl=en > > Please prove that time only appears slower. > > To the CONTRARY: Langevin demonstrated with the "twin" example that > "time dilation" is more than mere appearance. Our description of it > however does depend on our perspective. > http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911 You call Langevins word salad as a resolution to the twins paradox. Without mathematics backing it up, some scholars of physics would call that bullshit. <shrug> > > I say to you that you will > > see the station's clock always running faster and mutual is an excuse; > > If you are the one that accelerated as the station did not. The > > difference is you felt weight at acceleration that the station doesn't > > know about. > > "Weight" doesn't generally matter, as experiments confirmed. Only the > velocity matters, and a *change* in velocity is revealing. > As Langevin put it: "Only a uniform speed relative to the ether cannot > be detected, but any change of velocity, any acceleration has an > absolute sense." What is the significance of Langevins saying? Never mind. You are free to worship farce as usual. <shrug> |