The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Koobee Wublee on 18 Jun 2010 18:05 On Jun 18, 8:27 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > colp wrote: > > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for you to > > identify the errors in the article. > > The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math of SR. Instead > they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run slow" -- SR > does NOT say that; what SR says is that if a moving clock's tick rate is > measured by using two SYNCHRONIZED clocks at rest in an inertial frame and > pre-positioned along the moving clock's path, then between meetings the moving > clock ticks fewer times than the inertial-frame clocks. You are confusing interpretations with math again. You can interpret (thus more hand-waving) whatever you want, but at the end of the day, the math of the Lorentz transform undeniably shows the twins paradox. <shrug> > In particular, the > METHOD of comparing the clocks is important. > > Note that using this method the turn-around is important, and what > happens during each twin's turn-around resolves the inconsistency > you think is present -- a correct analysis shows no inconsistency.. The turn-around can be nullified if these two traveling twins have the same acceleration profile. <shrug> > If either you or the authors of that paper had actually bothered to use SR in > the analysis, you would find the two twins return with identical ages. But the > comic-book you and they used gets it wrong. Like any typical post of yours, you have criticized the usage of mathematics but yet offered no mathematics to refute so but only with more word salad. <shrug> You are discussing physics using philosophy as always. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 18 Jun 2010 18:17 On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented experimentally, and > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not been > implemented experimentally AFAIK, These two statements contradict each other. You are saying the twins paradox is already and is not yet resolved by experiment(s) at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong. That is not a good way of confirming a theory by claiming that theory can predict just about anything possible even if the results contradict each other. <shrug> > but can be considered as a straightforward > extension of the usual one. So, brushing it under the carpet again. <hand-waving> > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Not. <shrug> > In particular, there are several experiments that DIRECTLY implement the "twin > paradox", and which confirm the prediction of SR. > > The experiment by Bailey et al is a particularly appropriate one. Notice you are using word implement instead of prove and putting the twins paradox in quote to attempt to raise more mysticism. <shrug> > It is true that the meaning of "mass" has evolved > since 1905, and now means an invariant quantity intrinsic to objects [#]. But > the basic theory known as SR is the same as Einstein presented in 1905 -- only > the vocabulary and mode of presentation is different. > > [#] This is the most straightforward updating of the meaning of > "mass" from Newtonian mechanics to SR; "relativistic mass" was not. > That's basically why "relativistic mass" is now an anachronism. More word salad in which you cannot prove your point with simple math as usual. <shrug> > Before attempting to criticize SR, you need to learn what the theory ACTUALLY IS. Your own interpretations of the bible is always more correct than someone elses. <shrug>
From: xxein on 18 Jun 2010 19:20 On Jun 17, 12:48 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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." xxein: That small part is very, very true. But it is hardly an answer as I said.
From: xxein on 18 Jun 2010 19:47 On Jun 16, 5:24 pm, "Peter K" <pe...(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:267c724a-a11c-4cfe-ae6d-b5b9395cf382(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Been done. Nobody should doubt that time dilation occurs. But what are the exact factors? All through history, we have made theories of how things physically work for our observations and we always find our theories to be lacking years later. And it doesn't help if you believe a theory and work it up, either.
From: xxein on 18 Jun 2010 20:04
On Jun 16, 5:53 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Peter K" <pe...(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote in message > > news:4c194121$1(a)news.xnet.co.nz...| "colp" <c...(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 xxein: I didn't know that Lego conferred degrees in engineering. |