The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 19:30 On Jun 17, 5:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote: > On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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). > > > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that > > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical > > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug> > > Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic > clocks, say.. > The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving > at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's > theory. References?
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:33 On Jun 16, 9:45 am, Mike_Fontenot <mlf...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Here's another way to word it...maybe it'll be clearer to some readers. I doubt it. The self-styled physicists cannot understand the basic mathematics. <shrug> > It helps, in distinguishing between the two twins, to identify twin A > as a "he", and twin B as a "she": > > Twin A will conclude that twin B ages slowly on his (twin A's) outbound > leg, then she ages quickly during his (twin A's) turnaround, and then > she ages slowly on his (twin A's) inbound leg. When twin A adds up > those THREE components of twin B's ageing, he (twin A) will get the same > total ageing for twin B as his (twin A's) own total ageing. > > And twin B will conclude the same thing about twin A's THREE components > of ageing. > > So they each will conclude (as they obviously must, because of the > symmetry) that they are both the same age when they are reunited. In addition, the self-styled physicists cannot understand logics. <shrug>
From: Androcles on 16 Jun 2010 19:16 "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.
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:38 On Jun 16, 5:56 am, Dave Doe <h...(a)work.ok> wrote: > koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com says... > > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that > > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical > > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug> > > Don't be silly! - this is routinely proven - and used everyday in the > GPS system... You are confusing gravitation as acceleration. Remember that in GR, there is no such thing as acceleration but curvature of spacetime. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment This one-way trip does not prove the symmetry. In fact, it supports Larmors transform not the Lorentz transform. The link below will help you understand the differences are. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Special_and_general_relativity 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>
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 19:39
On Jun 17, 9:24 am, "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 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? Your proposal does not test the paradox because the paradox involves observations of time dilation of non-local frames of reference. Your watches only record the passage of time for their own local frame of reference. |