Speed of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 27 Dec 2009 06:19 Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message 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. I assume you understood everything about it, so, in which line do you find the first mistake? Dirk Vdm
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 06:20 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1d3a27fc-45ad-4711-97e0-4c8de2884b0c(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Dec, 06:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7dfc99f9-fbfa-4957-96a0-1a06346525f7(a)j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:5b346f59-142c-43de-9543-208e09be2187(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference >> > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is >> > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative >> > length (i.e. length contraction). >> > ============================================= >> > You mean length expansion, surely? >> > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length. >> >> > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient. >> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference >> > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate. >> >> You forgot to adjust the speed of light. >> ========================================= >> Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light" >> is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is >> not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer. >> You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try >> again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot? > > No, I don't mean length expansion. Androcles continually lies about what Einstein says nad what SR predicts in order to make it look silly. Don't listen to his nonsense .. its been explainede to him countless times and his nonsese refuted over and over .. he continues to lie and latches onto newbies like you to play his little games with
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 06:25 "Ste" <ste_rose0(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 > The astronaut will perceive a slowing down > of events on earth on the out-bound journey, then simultaneity-with- > time-lag during the stop, and then a speeding up of events on Earth on > the in-bound journey. If special relativity holds, then when the > astronaut returns to Earth, his age should be the same as that of his > twin. Nope. You don't undersatnd SR beyond the comic book / coffee table notions > Incidentally, I know the answer to the assymmetry of ages in the twin > paradox. I'll give you a clue: it's because the proper frame of > reference is neither the Earth alone nor the rocket alone. Rubbish
From: Inertial on 27 Dec 2009 06:26 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fc6c9a03-c74b-4753-8cc8-0061525623f7(a)21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > 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 Byershttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044 > > I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my > question. Sue is notorious for doing copy/paste replies that are links to articles that almost always have no relevance to the topic at hand. If you reply back, you get more irrelevant copy/paste quotes
From: Ste on 27 Dec 2009 18:56
On 27 Dec, 11:18, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > ec506642-8744-4fbe-82e0-3937e9e35...(a)m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com > > > > > > > On 26 Dec, 23:02, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> e2b39ba1-e151-4bd3-8adb-b5f35af59...(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com > > >>> On 26 Dec, 09:09, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d3b9(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on > >>>>>> earth? > > >>>>> There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over > >>>>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if > >>>>> not all human languages). > > >>>>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and > >>>>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative > >>>>> velocities. > > >>>>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means) > > >>>> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2) > > >>> So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to > >>> some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a > >>> forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the > >>> human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world. > > > Just to clarify, the above text is not mine, even though you attribute > > it to me. > > Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3dba684e9f8.... > You did not write that? > Which "Ste" wrote it then? Sorry, my mistake! I think I just looked at my name at the top, and saw that it had been trimmed back a number of indentations. |