The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 03:50 On Jun 17, 12:08 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant "without" instead of "with". You know it is a late > > night thing in my time zone. <shrug and yawn> > > So your position is that the GPS system does NOT take into account > Relativistic effects? My position is that the GPS can function with or without the effects of GR. Claiming GR as an application of the GPS is a total lie. <shrug> Ps. Where is the ever so prolific word-salad generator, Professor Roberts? Yours truly is not very active in these forums except in the past few days. Could the good professor be foaming in his mouth in shock after realizing the truth explained in the posts of the ever so humble yours truly that his life was a total worthless of pursuits of myths upon more myths? Is he now realizing the silliness in worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as Einstein the nobody? Luckily in his lifetime, there is this ever so humble yours truly who would guide him to the side of physics that is free from mysticisms and lies. <shrug> The stupid Einstein Dingleberries don't realize it, but the smarter ones have sensed checkmate long before this. So, <CHECKMATE> TO MORE INTELLIGENT EINSTEIN DINGLEBERRIES. Ahahaha... hanson style. <shrug>
From: colp on 17 Jun 2010 05:36 On Jun 17, 5:56 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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. > > ________________________________ > If the situation is that both twins travel, and this is symmetric, then SR > predicts that they will have aged the same amount when re-united into the > same inertial frame. Wrong. SR predicts that one twin will observe time dilation of the other both on the outgoing and incoming legs. In no case does SR predict that that a twin will observe any kind of time compression of the other twin that would be necessary to compensate for the theoretically observed time dilation. Without such compensation for the observed time dilation, SR predicts that a twin will be older than the twin he observes, which contradicts with logical result of the twins being the same age. > If you do believe SR predicts anything different, then > you are wrong about the predictions of SR. If I am wrong and you understand SR then why are you unable to identify any error in my reasoning? > > Can you produce a single experiment which shows that SR is wrong? Yes, I have described the thought experiment that shows that SR is wrong, and you have been unable to show any flaws in my argument. The experiment is described in full at the following page: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N
From: Androcles on 17 Jun 2010 05:35 "Peter K" <peter(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote in message news:4c196efd$1(a)news.xnet.co.nz... | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | news:mcdSn.101410$Ny7.76954(a)hurricane... | > | > "Peter K" <peter(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote in message | > news:4c194a22$1(a)news.xnet.co.nz... | > | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | > | news:jKbSn.51002$y%5.50212(a)hurricane... | > | > | > | > "Peter K" <peter(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote in message | > | > news:4c194121$1(a)news.xnet.co.nz... | > | > | "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message | > | > | | > | > | > news:267c724a-a11c-4cfe-ae6d-b5b9395cf382(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... | > | > | > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains on | > | > | > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates | > and | > | > | > deaccelerates). In the symmetric twin paradox both twins leave | > Earth, | > | > | > setting out in opposite directions and returning to Earth at the | > same | > | > | > time. The conventional explanation for the classic twin paradox is | > | > | > since only one twin accelerates, the ages of the twins will be | > | > | > different. In the symmetric case this argument cannot be applied. | > | > | > | > | > | > The paradox of the symmetric twins is that according to special | > | > | > relativity (SR) each twin observes the other twin to age more | > slowly | > | > | > both on the outgoing leg | > | > | > and the return leg, so SR paradoxically predicts that each twin | > will | > | > | > be younger than | > | > | > the other when they return to Earth. | > | > | > | > | > | > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully in the | > following | > | > | > paper: | > | > | > | > | > | > The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility | > of | > | > | > Detecting Absolute Motion | > | > | > Authors: G. G. Nyambuya, M. D. Ngobeni | > | > | > | > | > | > 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." | > | > | | > | > | The only way to check this, is to send a couple of watches out on a | > | > | journey - say one to paris and back, and one to New York and back. | > Then | > | > when | > | > | they get back to NZ we can check the time on each of them! Sheesh, | > how | > | > hard | > | > | was that? | > | > | > | > Even easier, GPS satellites orbit the Earth in 12 hours. Ask any of | > them | > | > the | > | > time | > | > whenever you feel like it, they'll all visit NY and come back to NZ | > | > eventually, | > | > none ever show any time dilation and they've been travelling for years | > | > now. | > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation | > | | > | Hi - interesting comment. According to another wikipedia link, there ARE | > | time dilation effects seen in GPS satellites, and other relativistic | > effects | > | as well! Who to believe? | > | | > | See this for example, under the "Relativity" section: | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS | > | > I refuse to consider any article in Wackypedia (the encyclopaedia anyone | > can write) written by usenet bigots previously defeated here. They just | > want a wider audience for their ignorant preaching. | | Fair enough, and I do agree one must be careful. I for one can't judge if | the wikipedia article you yourself linked to, or the one I linked to is | "most correct" or relevant. | That's what makes wackypedia wacky. The constellation of satellites is factual, it has no need of discussion about theories of dog's breakfasts, theories of horology or theories of relativity. If you want to you can verify for yourself that the constellation exists, although you may need some electronic equipment to track each satellite. They always announce where they are and what time it is, that's what they are for. You wanted a clock to go from NZ to NY or Paris and back again, the GPS constellation is 20200km above NZ, your desire is fulfilled. Unfortunately it can't be done at sea level, but is that important? Surely the speed alone makes it a desirable test of undetected time "dilation". GR gravitational time contraction is exactly compensated for by SR velocity time dilation and chickens lay cubic eggs that have the corners rounded off. Wake up and smell the bullshit, it is very much like cow patties.
From: Androcles on 17 Jun 2010 05:43 "Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale(a)volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:34dbe709-3cc8-408b-9648-83e1e0e33d5e(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... |A person of normal intelligence That leaves you out.
From: Tom Roberts on 17 Jun 2010 09:13
Peter Webb 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. This is just plain not true. The relativistic effects in the GPS are well known and are MEASURED to agree with the predictions of GR to excellent accuracy. The GPS could not possibly work without applying the relativistic effects. Note that the GPS is an ENGINEERED system, and consists of clocks both in satellites and on the ground. It is true that a similar system without ground clocks could IN PRINCIPLE be designed to work without relativistic corrections; IN PRACTICE the engineering of such a system would be impossible (e.g. any satellite that missed its orbit by a small amount would be useless); the required perfection does not occur in the real world. Fortunately, the designers of the GPS knew this and designed a system that actually works; it requires BOTH relativistic corrections and daily parameter updates (the largest corrections are to satellite orbits). Note that the manufactured modification to the satellite clocks (due to relativistic effects) completely dwarfs the daily updates. Tom Roberts |