The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: spudnik on 24 Jun 2010 18:32 you are only typing of a simple symmetry condition, that probably'd not violate Noether's theorem e.g. -- haven't done that math, either. now, it is quite obvious, in terms of Doppler shifts of the clock-signals (or what ever) of the two travelling Star Trek ephemera salesmen, what they'd perceive of the other's signals or clocks ... um, the signal could be a softcore movie with Jane Fonda, for purposes of slo-mo. of course, the same is true of signals & clocks and cheap GPS units from Southwest Asia -- or really expensive ones from Southeast Asia -- viz-a-vu smart stay-at-home twins, and dumb (fraternal) going-away at sublight twins. that is, "turnaround" makes no difference, at all, if the twins are accelerating symetrically (of course, doesn't have to be mirror-image or anything, as lont as their accelerations & decelerations are matched). > No, each twin should be observed to age slower according to the other > twin regardless of the stay at home twin or not. Noticing the > traveling twin has to accelerate away in the first place, Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar pulled out the nonsense that > acceleration breaks the symmetry. Well, as you have proposed earlier, > we can have the stay at home twin doing the traveling using the > acceleration profile as the traveling twin. In doing so, if there is > any effect of time dilation in would be nullify between these twins. > The result unmistakably, still shows the twin's paradox. thus&so: I forgot what a Lucas number is, though akin to Fibonaccis; a sum of the same-powered phi and 1/phi? > prime p, there are infinitely many > primes congruent to 1 mod p and the smallest one is no larger than > L(p) <= 1 + (phi^p), where > phi is the positive root of x^2 - x - 1 = 0. --Nationalize BP's USA ops in the Gulf, Alaska and ARCO! "Haiti did not have a single sewage treatment plant even before the earthquake. It has long been the victim of the globalization and free trade policies of London-centered financial predators." http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100222lar_haiti.html --le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt! http://wlym.com
From: train on 24 Jun 2010 20:54 On Jun 24, 9:17 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >snip > > Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. > > We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? > > Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied? > > Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head. > > D.Y.K. Meanwhile we will take up Androcles excellent suggestion to consider the GPS satellites, and thence calculate for ourselves the time dilation of the gps clock wrt the earth clock and thence arrive at a xxxxx. That is what we are after is it not? OK speed of the satellites : 7000 km/h using the formula, tau ) tau = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) v squared : 3780864.198 c squared : 8.98755E+16 v squared over c squared : 4.20678E-11 1 minus that : 0.999999999957932000000 Square root : 0.999999999978966000000000000 so in this time, the position error would be 0.999999999978966000000000000 x speed of satellite 1944.4444444035500000000 metres am I right?
From: train on 24 Jun 2010 20:58 On Jun 25, 12:10 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> writes: > >On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. > >> We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a hoax? > > >Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied? > >Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head. > > Never mind "Androcles" (John Parker), he's a senile old fart who has a > (bad) obsession with Einstein, and he doesn't really understand relativity > anyway. > > (space below is reserved for Parker to curse and cuss at me for pointing > this out) Parker as you call him has come up with some useful suggestions and even insight. He has patience with explaining the same things over and over again. You have to admit he makes us think. I understand he worked on the Concorde flight instrument system. ( no relativity calculations involved there, were there Androcles?)
From: Androcles on 25 Jun 2010 00:21 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a5822132-1b36-498d-82d1-a2c7345aed89(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Jun 24, 9:17 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 3:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >snip > > Whales are mammals, whales have no legs. > > We establish by definition that all mammals have no legs. Stupid or a > > hoax? > > Androcles doesn't know how a mammal is definied? > > Or maybe what I post zipped right over his head. > > D.Y.K. Meanwhile we will take up Androcles excellent suggestion to consider the GPS satellites, and thence calculate for ourselves the time dilation of the gps clock wrt the earth clock and thence arrive at a xxxxx. That is what we are after is it not? OK speed of the satellites : 7000 km/h using the formula, tau ) tau = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ======================================= Not that it matters, but you really should learn basic algebra and how to read. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif ======================================== v squared : 3780864.198 c squared : 8.98755E+16 v squared over c squared : 4.20678E-11 1 minus that : 0.999999999957932000000 Square root : 0.999999999978966000000000000 so in this time, the position error would be 0.999999999978966000000000000 x speed of satellite 1944.4444444035500000000 metres am I right?
From: kado on 25 Jun 2010 01:25
On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > snip > > Meanwhile we will take up Androcles excellent suggestion to consider > the GPS satellites, and thence calculate for ourselves the time > dilation of the gps clock wrt the earth clock and thence arrive at a > xxxxx. That is what we are after is it not? > snip > > 1944.4444444035500000000 metres > > am I right? I did not check your math or numbers. I did not have to, to see that you are wrong. Your goal was to calculate the time dilation of the 'gps clock wrt the earth clock'. So should not the solution be in units of measure of time, rather than length or distance? D.Y.K. |