The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:41 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:35d234ea-cd8c-4c10-9b37-ac02343e9990(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> On Jun 21, 4:19 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 11:26 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun >> > > > > > 20, 11:35 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to >> > > > > > > > > age more >> > > > > > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. >> >> > > > > > > > No... >> >> > > > > > ================= >> >> > > > > > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an >> > > > > > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought >> > > > > > > experiment? >> >> > > > > > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. >> >> > > > > Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of >> > > > > SR. >> >> > > > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths >> > > > to an optical illusion and your interpretation >> > > > will change. >> >> > ==========> >> >> > > How do you think that works in the case of the symmetric twin >> > > paradox? >> >> > It works with everything. You don't >> > get answers 'till you formalize your >> > question. >> >> How does additional rigor add anything to a test that is sufficient in >> determining the reality of the paradox? >> >> >> >> > > > > In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that >> > > > > each >> > > > > twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing >> > > > > leg? >> >> > > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the >> > > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, >> > > > among others. >> >> > > No, that isn't what I'm referring to. Will you please answer my >> > > question? >> >> > You haven't asked a question. > > ==================> > >> Wrong. I asked you if you denied that SR predicts that each twin >> observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg. > > The doppler effect predicts that. If you are talking about what would be seen. If you are talking about what would be measured (ignoring visual illusions) that is a different thing. Ignoring the relativistic effects, just the Doppler effect will make the aging appear (optical illusion) faster when moving closer together, and slower when moving away. >> > You formed >> > your scenario around what some think relativity >> > says, rather that what it actually says. >> >> No, I didn't. > > Again... Here is what it says: [snip just as irrelevant quote as before and totally unhelpful] > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > Now what is your problem with coordinate > independent physics? > > Perhaps your attack is misdirected and > LET is really what you object to: Ahh .. Sue's usual out when cornered .. claim that its LET being talked about and not SR. You're so predictable ,little Sue-bot. And note that regardless LET predicts the exact same measurements as SR does. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 02:06 On Jun 21, 1:25 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:2578d36e-3887-4f48-a460-124e8ff4ba63(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 20, 10:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:1a23b1f5-4139-4906-9464-0a92e5dc74e8(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> >> > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, > >> >> > 11:35 > >> >> > am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> >> > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > >> >> > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age > >> >> > > > > more > >> >> > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > >> >> > > > No... > > >> >> > ================= > > >> >> > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an > >> >> > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought > >> >> > > experiment? > > >> >> > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. > > >> >> Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of SR.. > > >> > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths > >> > to an optical illusion and your interpretation > >> > will change. > > >> SR is NOT optical illusion. Again , ,Sue speaks from ignorance > > >> >> In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each > >> >> twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? > > >> > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the > >> > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, > >> > among others. Well, two wrongs don't > >> > make a right. > > >> It may appear absurd .. but there is no contradiction or inconsistency > > >> >> If so, what do you think that SR does predict in this case? > > >> > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > >> > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > >> > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > >> > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > >> > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > >> > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > >> > an imaginary magnitude > > >> > sqrt(-1) > > >> > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > >> > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > >> > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > >> > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r le as > >> > the three space co-ordinates. >> > >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > >> Sue does NOT think .. she pastes the same old quotes over and over in the > >> hope they will be relevant > > >> > In other words, clock mechanisms can't > >> > detect coordinate systems to cooperate > >> > with either part of your thought experiment. > > >> That is certainl 'other words' .. it has NOTHING to do with what you > >> quoted > >> .. just your own word-salad > > >> > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > >> > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > >> > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > >> > That means candles, torsion pendulum, > >> > guns and even Rolex watches can't operate > >> > differently as the result of relative motion. > > > ============== > > >> It doesn't say that. Again .. you don't understand what you copy and > >> paste. > > > Yes! > > Nope > > > It does say that. > > Nope > > > Now if you disagree > > you should not be posting to usenet but rather > > working on the implied replacement for airspeed > > indicators that is as reliable as an accelerometer. > > Just this year a faulty airspeed indicator > > contributed to a crash so your customers are > > already lined up awaiting your product. > > I'm not responsible for that .. nor your ignorance of physics. Nice attempt > at diversion, however. That is not a diversion. The principle of relativity is why you can't construct such a device. > > The principle of relativity say that an experiment performed in one inertial > frame of reference will yield the same results as an identical experiment > performed in any other inertial frame of reference. > ================ > However, it is quite valid under that principle, for a [coordinate(1)]clock to tick more > slowly, as measured in a given frame of reference, when in motion in that > frame than when at rest. When air marshals allow for the aeroplanes uniform motion by adjusting powder loads, we might give that some consideration. Until then: << * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications As long as the same is true in any frame of > reference you choose. So its motion will affect the observed ticking rate > of the clock .. that sounds like a difference in operation to me. > ============== > You are correct, however, that there is no INTRINSIC change to the object > (ie change to how it behaves in its own rest frame, or how physics works in > that frame) regardless of the motion of other observers. Powder 1 joule Bullet 1 gram Range 1 metre K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 Does your fairy eat powder, conjure up lead atoms or shrink rulers when a rocket motor is running? Sue... (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 02:20 On Jun 21, 1:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: [...] > > Ahh .. Sue's usual out when cornered .. claim that its LET being talked > about and not SR. You're so predictable ,little Sue-bot. And note that > regardless LET predicts the exact same measurements as SR does. Talk is cheap. Show us Bell's spaceship in four-vector calculus if you really think that is true. Cheating is permitted so copy from the book as much as you please. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html Sue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > >
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 02:28 On Jun 21, 5:34 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each > > > > > > twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? > > > > > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the > > > > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, > > > > > among others. > > > > > No, that isn't what I'm referring to. Will you please answer my > > > > question? > > > > You haven't asked a question. > > ==================> > > > Wrong. I asked you if you denied that SR predicts that each twin > > observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg. > > The doppler effect predicts that. It's clear that you won't answer a straightforward yes/no question about SR. Is it because you know that the implications of a truthful answer will lead to being faced with the reality of the paradox?
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 02:31
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:7d6187ec-9c14-440d-9a8c-2df1682ba305(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 1:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > [...] >> >> Ahh .. Sue's usual out when cornered .. claim that its LET being talked >> about and not SR. You're so predictable ,little Sue-bot. And note that >> regardless LET predicts the exact same measurements as SR does. > > Talk is cheap. So is copy and pasting irrelevant links and quotes > Show us Bell's spaceship in four-vector > calculus if you really think that is true. Of course it is true. SR and LET have the same math for what is measured.. they predict the same results. They are modeled with the same geometry (at the level of what we measure) And, like most 'paradoxes' there is no paradox in the Bell's spaceship scenario. If you accelerate two objects, joined with a rope, identically (frrom the point of view of the initial rest frame of reference) then the rope would be stretched and eventually snap. > Cheating is permitted so copy from the > book as much as you please. Like you do > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html Is that supposed to be prove something? Other than you not understanding what you post? > Sue... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Who cares. You understand neither LET nor SR .. os you posting the same old links over and over doesn't impress anyone. |