Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 06:53 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:utsgj5d4pt2605930qa0ib4jt459485o0g(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:53:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"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. > > hey, don't you worry about George.... he's OK deep down...apart from his > bomb > making obsession of course... I think maybe he's just a comedian doing physics jokes.
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 07:19 On 28 Dec, 11:03, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > a35de26f-5383-4b5f-86b5-0c0c3b43b...(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. It's > > not the frame of reference that changes, 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. > > Sure, if you like, you can use equations where no more > than the proper accelerations of both twins are used: > See for instance > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf > and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Difference_in_elapsed_times.... > > In this case however, a simplified *calculation* can be used, > with simple Lorentz transformations in simple inertial > reference frames. > In order to be able to use the transformations, we use > three of them. (Of course we ignore the fact that the stay > at home twin is not *really* inertial, since he is on the > surface of a rotating planet. It can be shown however > that the effect of this can be ignored, and of course we > can just as well put the stay at home twin somewhere > freely floating in space). > > The twin who takes the trip can't possible stay in one > inertial reference frame, but in order to make the > calculations, we can use two different inertial frames > to model the trip in the most simplified case. > If you look at the PDF (1st paragraph of section A), > you will find a way to use the "proper-acceleration-way" > to model the simplified situation. It gives the same > result as the two-frame-jump way. > Don't you agree? Let me be clear I didn't actually disagree with your model within its own mathematical terms. What I disagree with is the approach which you say is mathemetically more simple and yet is in fact less intuitive. The fact that this supposed paradox has not been laid to bed yet surely proves that's it's in want of a simple explanation. And indeed the explanation does seem to be simple: the astronaut accelerates more. If the universe *had* accelerated around the astronaut, then the astronaut would end up *older* than his twin - but in fact, a simple accelerometer *proves* that the universe did not in fact accelerate around the astronaut - the astronaut accelerated around the universe, and that is why the astronaut returns to Earth younger.
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 07:22 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d110af8f-9159-4aaa-9f65-8686588a11df(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 05:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0ee9d1e6-4eeb-40ff-907a-722c351315e7(a)r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 28 Dec, 03:27, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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. >> >> > Dear me. >> >> Dear me what? Every frame will agree that one of the twins is younger >> than >> the other .. ie that less time has elapsed for the 'travelling' twin as >> opposed to that of the 'stay-at-home' twin. There is nothing >> contradictory >> about that > > I should clarify. Please do > The explanations I've seen so far, about "changing > reference frames", I find quite inadequate and they contradict SR, No .. they do not > which says that an observer in any reference frame should perceive the > same effects. I think you mean 'the same events'. Yes they do. That the will measure everything as the same .. no it does not > If one twin ends up younger, then there is clearly some > factor that applies differently to the astronaut than the homebody, Yes .. the younger one changed from being at rest in one inertial frame to moving in that frame and becoming at rest in another inertial reference frame (ie he changed velocity) > and I'm afraid I don't accept the explanation that it is because the > astronaut changes direction (because by definition in relativity, it > may as well be the earth that changes direction as far as the > astronaut is concerned). No. You do not understand what SR says. In SR acceleration is 'absolute' in that all observers agree as to what object is accelerating and what is not. An object moving with constant velocity in SR is measured as moving at a constant velocity for all inertial observers (but not necessarily the SAME constant velocity) And object that changes velocity will be measured as changing velocity by all inertial observers.
From: Inertial on 28 Dec 2009 07:26 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b10fc983-4174-4006-8d32-59ab590a3497(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Dec, 05:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:55e687f7-b47e-4325-aedc-9584f0234270(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message >> >> >> >> People are so bitter here! >> >> >> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant >> >> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of >> >> > lunacy. >> >> >> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he >> >> forgot >> >> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description >> >> > Indeed. Why is this place so feral? >> >> Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for >> Einstein. >> >> Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they >> failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that >> fact. >> >> Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame >> the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must >> be >> some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was >> something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong. > > So which did you say you were? None of the above >> Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep >> this >> 'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the >> runts of the Einsteinian religion. > > I actually think Einstein was on the right track. If he was wrong at > all, then he wasn't that wrong. Indeed .. though he was wrong about some things (particularly later in life) ... he was, after all, only human. >> In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the >> experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute >> their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what >> they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead >> show >> why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination >> vendetta >> against Einstein. > > I claim to have solved the paradox within the terms of SR. Its already been solved for a century. > The fact > is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no > matter what reference frame you choose. Of course .. that's what *I* have been telling *you* .. and you've been arguing that the acceleration is the same. >> Of course, this means each of them thinks they are the lone voice of >> reason >> in a world that is out to get them and silence their voice. >> >> Also those who DO understand physics (SR in particular) will point out >> the >> mistaken ideas of the crackpots, and that truth makes the resent just >> about >> everyone. PD, Eric, Tom (and myself) are amongst the few who understand >> SR >> well. > > Perhaps. But then no one doubts that theologians know their subject. They are not theologians. Just because you do not understand science, that does not mean it is a religion.
From: Ste on 28 Dec 2009 07:37
On 28 Dec, 12:26, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b10fc983-4174-4006-8d32-59ab590a3497(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 28 Dec, 05:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:55e687f7-b47e-4325-aedc-9584f0234270(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message > > >> >> >> People are so bitter here! > > >> >> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant > >> >> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of > >> >> > lunacy. > > >> >> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he > >> >> forgot > >> >> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description > > >> > Indeed. Why is this place so feral? > > >> Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for > >> Einstein. > > >> Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they > >> failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that > >> fact. > > >> Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame > >> the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must > >> be > >> some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was > >> something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong. > > > So which did you say you were? > > None of the above > > >> Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep > >> this > >> 'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the > >> runts of the Einsteinian religion. > > > I actually think Einstein was on the right track. If he was wrong at > > all, then he wasn't that wrong. > > Indeed .. though he was wrong about some things (particularly later in life) > .. he was, after all, only human. > > >> In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the > >> experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute > >> their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what > >> they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead > >> show > >> why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination > >> vendetta > >> against Einstein. > > > I claim to have solved the paradox within the terms of SR. > > Its already been solved for a century. Indeed. So why does it persist (if only amongst non-physicists)? > > The fact > > is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no > > matter what reference frame you choose. > > Of course .. that's what *I* have been telling *you* .. and you've been > arguing that the acceleration is the same. I was saying that relativity, or at least the interpretations that I'd read, all said that all reference frames are equal. And I know a guy with a PhD who suggests to me that the paradox does not exist, because the astronaut returns to Earth the same age as his homebody twin. So clearly there is a lot of popular misconception about an issue that should be incredibly simple to explain (and trust me, I'd trawled the internet and couldn't find any easy and intuitive refutation of this paradox). |