Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 22:26 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a35de26f-5383-4b5f-86b5-0c0c3b43bbe5(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Dec, 11:19, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> 82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb8...(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com >> >> >>> On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> >> >>>> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can >> >>>> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, >> >>>> so if you go from London to New York you can do it >> >>>> twice without ever going from New York to London. >> >> >>>> He says >> >>>> quote/ >> >>>> "We use 3 inertial reference frames. >> >>>> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. >> >>>> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". >> >>>> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". >> >>>>http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >>>> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will >> >>>> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged >> >>>> 6 years. >> >>>> /unquote >> >> >>> I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. I >> >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I >> >> can explain. >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. >> >> > There is indeed a mistake. >> >> I assume you understood everything about it, so, in which >> line do you find the first mistake? > > The mistake is with this "changing frame of reference" business. So .. you don't understand. > It's > not the frame of reference that changes, No .. it IS the change in inertial frame of reference. > the time-lag is on account of > the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a > reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the > whole journey. You really don't understand what a frame of reference is (let alone an inertial one), nor what changing inertial frames means I suggest you learn and become familiar with the basic terms of physics before posting further
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 22:27 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:483e2fe2-a490-4f59-846e-1a7abf63fa86(a)26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Dec, 11:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:82a2de5c-1a2e-48e4-a7e4-76287acb88c2(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 23:32, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> c6d4ea67-9711-4b79-b35f-7bc54e086...(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com >> >> >> > On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> >> >> >> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can >> >> >> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it, >> >> >> so if you go from London to New York you can do it >> >> >> twice without ever going from New York to London. >> >> >> >> He says >> >> >> quote/ >> >> >> "We use 3 inertial reference frames. >> >> >> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin. >> >> >> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip". >> >> >> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip". >> >> >>http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> >> >> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will >> >> >> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged >> >> >> 6 years. >> >> >> /unquote >> >> >> > I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. I >> >> >> You see how I arrived at it by looking at >> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html >> >> If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I >> >> can explain. >> >> Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it. >> >> > There is indeed a mistake. >> >> Nope >> >> > You disproved relativity; because >> > relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the >> > effects will be the same. >> >> That's right .. in every frame, one twin is younger than the other > > And isn't that a contradiction? No.
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 22:53 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:q96gj55rvpcp0g5s5ns9vim3fc0gtlhgn8(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) > wrote: > > >> >> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless >> it's called god. >> >> > [Hammond] > Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard > scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed > literature, by me in 2003. Nope .. you proved nothing of the sort. The fact of the matter is that you are psychologically disturbed and not at all a scientist.
From: Sue... on 28 Dec 2009 00:03 On Dec 26, 11:21 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Dec, 15:15, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > > > earth? > << invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > > See also: > > > E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection > > Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws > > Authors: Nina Byers http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 > > I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my > question. Consider that a gun and a metre stick is a clock. Now, explain how you will maintain your point of view without violating energy conservation. You aren't a "free energy" nut are you? Considering only gravito-inertial effects: Do guns work better on another planet? Do guns work better in a different state of motion? You are taking the position that 1000 atoms of lead on earth is not a 1000 atoms of lead on Mars. You are taking the position that a joule of gunpowder on my ship is not a joule of gunpowder on your relativity moving ship. That is counter to accepted theory and experiment. << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue...
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 00:10
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:00f359a3-7d3f-47be-b7af-b91369b2f645(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 26, 11:21 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 26 Dec, 15:15, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances >> > > on >> > > earth? >> > << invariance with respect to time translation > gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications >> >> > See also: >> >> > E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection >> > Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws >> > Authors: Nina Byers > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 >> >> I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my >> question. > > Consider that a gun and a metre stick is a clock. You have a strange way of telling the time > Now, explain how you will maintain your point of view > without violating energy conservation. Which point of view is that? > You aren't a "free energy" nut are you? > > Considering only gravito-inertial effects: > Do guns work better on another planet? > Do guns work better in a different state of motion? > > You are taking the position that 1000 atoms of lead > on earth is not a 1000 atoms of lead on Mars. > > You are taking the position that a joule of gunpowder > on my ship is not a joule of gunpowder on your > relativity moving ship. Where did you get all that nonsense ??? > That is counter to accepted theory and experiment. > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > same form in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue' post) > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates. >> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue' post) > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > same in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue' post) > Sue... Again .. you clutter up threads with the exact same copy/pasted irrelevant quotes that you always post (in order to appear as if you understand physics, and on the off-chance that you might actually manage to post something relevant) |