The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: BURT on 16 Jun 2010 23:30 On Jun 16, 7:28 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 16, 5:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 6:30 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > You have ignored the basis of the paradox, which is the issue of the > > each twin observing time dilation of the other twin.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: NO! They did not observe a time dilation. They only > observered a frequency shift of each other's clock due to a v/c and > calculated a relative velocity for a time dilation. The stay at home > triplet will calculate a completely different time dilation for the > both of them (but it will be the same for each). Doppler effect. > Duh. Or doesn't that count. > > Look. First of all these are only relative timerates. For the stay > at home triplet, how does he know that he doesn't have a v/c when at > the start? Lorentz covered all this but Einstein (SRT) obscured that > with a shortcut math which everyone wanted to believe. > > Do you want me to show you how it physically works? It's easy if you > stop believing in magic. Matter can leave light behind by accelerating ahead of it near the speed of light. This is a motion black hole and is temporary. But it is also possible to maintain motion behind light. If matter is just below light speed light could be seen as only inching ahead of the fast matter. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 00:12 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:f85a3f97-74c9-4e95-b358-d1c4c8b9600c(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it > does > not occur? The symmetric twin thought experiment (as described in the OP) is such an experiment. __________________________ That's not an experiment. And SR does predict a time dilation. So its hardly an experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur. When this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger. In the experiment SR predicts that the twins will both be younger than each other when they return to Earth, which is of course impossible. ________________________ No, SR predicts the travelling twin would be younger, and this does occur. For the paradox to be resolved, each twin must observe the same amount of time compression of the other as time dilation, since the symmetry of the experiment demands that both twins are the same age when they return to Earth. __________________________ They are not symmetrical. The travelling twin changes inertial frames; the stay at home twin does not. Some solutions proposed by the relativists are: 1. Only consider one frame of reference, since SR fails when moving between inertial frames. 2. Ignore the paradox. Draw some timelines and say that everything is O.K. 3. Claim that the time dilation will be compensated for by acceleration, even though there is no experimental support for time compression arising from acceleration. 4. Feet stamping and name calling. __________________________ No. Why don't you quote what some reputable textbook on SR actually says, if you disagree with it. In the mean time, have you got a single experiment where relativity predicts time dilation but it does not occur? No?
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 00:25 On Jun 16, 6:19 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > GPS will function without any GR effect applied if indeed exists. You > > can google the previous few posts by yours truly to understand how GPS > > works. <shrug> > > That's funny. Are you claiming that the GPS system does NOT compensate for > relativistic effects, and that the builders and designers of the system are > lying about the mathematics they use? I am saying the GPS will function fine with compensating for relativistic effect if it really does exist. The critical path is to synchronize the chronological time (time count) and not the clock driving these time counters among all the satellites. The ground system can have its own clock and its own chronological time count different from the satellite. The Einstein Dingleberry Dirk van de moortel used to post about how the GPS actually works without such clock synchronization, you can also google for yours truly's recent past posts, or just go to Androcles' website. <shrug> Again, it is not the clock that needs to be synchronized but the timer that accumulates the chronological time that does so. The GPS engineers did not lie about anything. It is perpetrated by the self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries who do not understand how the system actually works started the whole myth about the implementation of the effects of GR in the GPS. It is a total lie. <shrug>
From: colp on 17 Jun 2010 00:48 On Jun 17, 2:28 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 16, 5:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 6:30 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > You have ignored the basis of the paradox, which is the issue of the > > each twin observing time dilation of the other twin.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: NO! They did not observe a time dilation. In the same way that I don't observe the sun - I only see the light from it about 8 minutes later. > They only > observered a frequency shift of each other's clock due to a v/c and > calculated a relative velocity for a time dilation. The difference is unimportant. The point is that in the experiment the twins can measure the time dilation of the other, and the measurements predicted by SR result in a paradox at the end of the experiment. P.S. I'm talking about the symmetric twin paradox as described by the following paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found within the currently accepted provinces of the STR if one adopts the currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion."
From: colp on 17 Jun 2010 00:54
On Jun 17, 4:12 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:f85a3f97-74c9-4e95-b358-d1c4c8b9600c(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it > > does > > not occur? > > The symmetric twin thought experiment (as described in the OP) is such > an experiment. > > __________________________ > That's not an experiment. Wrong. A thought experiment is a type of experiment. > And SR does predict a time dilation. Absolutely. > So its hardly > an experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur. Wrong again. The point of an experiment is to test a hypothesis. Whether the test is conducted with physical apparatus or simply with reason is unimportant. > When > this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger. In the symmetric paradox that I spoke of in my previous post, both twins travel and they are the same age, despite the predictions of SR. I'm not going to argue about the classic paradox because the paradox is much easier to show in the symmetric case. |