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: Daryl McCullough on 9 Aug 2010 22:57 Sam Wormley says... >On 8/9/10 2:13 PM, RichD wrote: >> What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a >> straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the >> same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the >> universe is closed), without turning around, hence no >> acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then? > > The universe is flat. No twins are going to leave each other > and return without accelerations involved. Don't fool yourself. For one thing, you can't really determine the topology of the universe based on limited observations---it could be circular in some direction, and it might not be detected yet. For another thing, it's an interesting hypothetical question, even if it doesn't actually apply in our universe. You can certainly use Special Relativity to analyze a universe that is flat except for the fact that every point with coordinates (x,y,z,t) is identified with the point with coordinates (x+L,y,z,t). In other words, the x-axis is not a line, but a circle. The physics of such a universe is completely determined by Special Relativity with unusual (periodic) boundary conditions. Such a universe has a preferred direction (the direction "around" the universe). It therefore also has a preferred frame (or set of frames) because only in certain special frames is the preferred direction purely spatial (as opposed to having a temporal component). -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: BURT on 9 Aug 2010 23:12 On Aug 9, 7:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 9, 7:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 10:48 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 8, 7:27 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 elo, 17:18, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > No. The aging difference effect is due to a difference in relative > > > > > velocity. If you get up and go for a walk you will be younger than the > > > > > 'you' who decided instead to just sit in one place. Not much younger, > > > > > but younger. > > > > > No, your proper time is of course different then and that is solely > > > > because you _felt more acceralation_. > > > > No. When the ship decelerates and returns, while the ship is > > > motionless WRT the other twin, the twins experience the same rate of > > > time and again when the ship with the travelling twin returns and > > > stops in the frame of the stationary twin they share the same rate of > > > time. At all other moments when the relative velocity of the frames > > > differs, the difference in the time-span that occurs in the two frames > > > increases. It is necessarily the travelling twin's clock (his frame) > > > that is moving slower (time-wise) that the stationary twin. > > > > It is the velocity, not the acceleration. I'll give you this, you > > > can't get from an initial shared state of rest to two frames moving > > > WRT each other without acceleration, but there deosn't need to be any > > > more than the initial aceleration i.e. the velocity can be constant > > > for the majority of the trip. > > > The acceleration of the traveling clock increases its state of > > absolute motion and thus makes it runs slower than the stay at home > > clock. > > > Ken Seto > > > > Mathal > > > By the way, when did the Linus blaket term 'proper time' come back > > > into vogue?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Accelerated energy flow decelerates aether flow in an inverse Gamma > relationship. Accelerating energy decelerates its clock by Gamma for > its speed. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Decelerating energy's flow through space accelerates energy's time. Energy has two times. One is from gravity the other from motion. They come togther as one flow rate over energy. The two times slowdown and come together. Gravity time and Energy time are Unified in flow. They flow as one rate. Mitch Raemsch
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Aug 2010 03:15 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> > 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? > > 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: Gc on 10 Aug 2010 03:34 On 9 elo, 22:13, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.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. > > What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a > straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the > same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the > universe is closed), without turning around, hence no > acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then? I guess in inertial coordinates, which are always cartesian, you see the curvature of the path, thus you the motion is not inertial. The straight lines are only in straight in curved space. For example a satellite on a round orbit goes a straigh all the time in the curved space. But in inertial coordinates you see a curved path.
From: harald on 10 Aug 2010 04:09
On Aug 9, 7:52 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Establishing his reference system, in order to correctly understand the meaning of the words "you are passing at high speed". His next words "you are the one aging slower" are consistent with that meaning, so I wrote "OK". > > > 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> No, you merely don't take for "real" what you arbitrarily pretend (at least, if you are sane of mind!). > > > 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. Instead it is explained in the link that I gave below. > Se the link below. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/95cd7cf159f... > > > > 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. No, that is a "twin" EXAMPLE - what "paradox" do you see there? > Without mathematics backing it up, some scholars of physics would call > that bullshit. <shrug> He talked to physicists who were able to do the math themselves. > > > 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? He pointed out that motion relative to the ether is the physical cause of "relativistic" effects at constant velocity; and he explained how this can be demonstrated by "absolute" effects due to a change of velocity, as also Newton did before him. Here the "relative" effect is the phenomenon of mutual time dilation at constant relative speed, and the "absolute" effect is a true difference in age of two people who first had the same age. > Never mind. You are > free to worship farce as usual. <shrug> No worship, just lucidity. Harald |