The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Jun 2010 21:19 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> ________________________________ That's funny. Are you claiming that the GPS system does NOT compensate for relativistic effects, and that the builders and designers of the system are lying about the mathematics they use?
From: Peter Webb on 16 Jun 2010 21:25 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:274f0c41-1ea7-486d-9e87-ab3a2e5b1ff3(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Jun 16, 10:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote: > On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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.. No experiments can support the existence of a paradox. In fact, there are not a single experiment that shows so. <shrug> ______________________________ Its not a "paradox" in the sense that it predicts conflicting outcomes, its just a non-intuitive result, which merely seems paradoxical to people with little or no knowledge of physics (such as your good self). When you understand it, there is nothing paradoxical about it at all. And relativistic time dilation is experimentally tested every day in countless laboratories around the world, and they all quite clearly demonstrate it happens. Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur? No? Thought so.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 21:30 On Jun 17, 12:13 pm, "Peter K" <pe...(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:16fe04c0-8313-4242-87de-4ca11a04e750(a)42g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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. > > Oh. But when they get back can't I see what they measured? Then I've at > least observed the effects on a "non local frame of reference". Yes, but the frames were non-local with respect to you, not the watches themselves. The watches correspond to the twins in the symmetric paradox, and it is the twin's observations of each other that gives rise to the inconsistency in the predictions of SR. Also, your observation of a non-local watch is not symmetric because you are stationary with respect to the Earth, but the watch isn't. > > Otherwise, could we get the watches to continually send small signals back > to me when the travel? The could send a "tick" and a "tock" for each of > their seconds - and I could compare them to the "ticks" and "tocks" on a > third watch I'm holding. Would that work? For your experiment to work the watches would have to record the time signals from each other. SR predicts that the watches would both observe time dilation of each other's signal, but the paradox implies that this would not happen.
From: BURT on 16 Jun 2010 21:47 On Jun 16, 6:30 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 17, 12:13 pm, "Peter K" <pe...(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote: > > > > > > > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >news:16fe04c0-8313-4242-87de-4ca11a04e750(a)42g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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. > > > Oh. But when they get back can't I see what they measured? Then I've at > > least observed the effects on a "non local frame of reference". > > Yes, but the frames were non-local with respect to you, not the > watches themselves. The watches correspond to the twins in the > symmetric paradox, and it is the twin's observations of each other > that gives rise to the inconsistency in the predictions of SR. Also, > your observation of a non-local watch is not symmetric because you are > stationary with respect to the Earth, but the watch isn't. > > > > > Otherwise, could we get the watches to continually send small signals back > > to me when the travel? The could send a "tick" and a "tock" for each of > > their seconds - and I could compare them to the "ticks" and "tocks" on a > > third watch I'm holding. Would that work? > > For your experiment to work the watches would have to record the time > signals from each other. SR predicts that the watches would both > observe time dilation of each other's signal, but the paradox implies > that this would not happen.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What about a twin on a fast flowing train? If the stations clock is outside he could observe it to see what is happening. Now during the interval of the train passing there will be the opportunity to compare. The train is supposed to see the stations clock going slow in the SR theory. But if that is true how does the train find time to go slow in its aging? This is an example of getting rid of the lost time solution. Mitch Raemsch
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 21:49
On Jun 17, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:16fe04c0-8313-4242-87de-4ca11a04e750(a)42g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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. > > No .. its exactly the same (other than we aren't talking purely inertial > frame of reference) No, the essential element of the symmetric twin thought experiment is that the twins observe each other's time, and Peter K's experiment does not do that. > > But would need to make the trip north-south from the equator .. east west > doesn't work for that - its not symmetric. Yep. |