The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Inertial on 16 Jun 2010 22:05 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e455ef39-af78-42a8-a7ac-2b39fbe0fe5f(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 5:22 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "Peter K" <pe...(a)parcelvej.dk> wrote in message >> >> news:4c19 > > > SNIP stuff that will make this too long > >> | >> 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". >> | >> | 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? >> | >> A devout relativist will argue black is white in support of his religion. > > I have brought this up before, in my opinion this is where SRT > contradicts itself, but never mind- Your opinion is only opinion. There is no self-contradiction in SR .. it is all self-consistent. > 1. If the twins start off at rest, in space, accelerate for 10 > seconds, and fly apart > > Twin A is seen to be aging faster than B and twin B is seen to be > aging faster than A, And an observer that stays where the twins are sees them both as aging less > in the age of live video transmissions, then, if A and B transmit a > video of themselves to each other what will they see? Now you're factoring Doppler shift into it > 2. If both of the twins constantly writes on a piece of paper - "my > twin, I see, is aging slower than myself" and they are brought back > together again, what will each piece of paper show? They won't see that .. even if you adjust for transit times of transimission. They will only see that other than at the turn-around time. THAT is when differences in simultaneity come into play > 3.If there is an outward and inward journey consisting of > acceleration, constant velocity, acceleration in the opposite > direction, and constant velocity followed by the final constant > acceleration to bring the twin spaceships together again, does the > `slow aging of the other twin` take place throughout the journey or is > there an unknown effect during the acceleration? No unknown effect .. just not looked at yet by you > Isn` t this unknown effect the same value in each case and leave us to > calculate only the time dilation due to velocity? > > 4. An astronaut in space holds two atomic clocks in each hand, close > to each other, all synchronized when stationary using any method you > want. He suddenly draws them apart, stretching his arms and brings > them back together again. Do the atomic clocks agree? Yes > Do they agree > with the clock fixed to his helmet? No > Has anyone thought of this before ? :) Yes. Nothing new in what you ask .. its been asked for as long as there has been SR. SR explains it all .. it isn't self-contradictory at all.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 22:10 On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Have you got a single experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does > not occur? The symmetric twin thought experiment (as described in the OP) is such an experiment. In the experiment SR predicts that the twins will both be younger than each other when they return to Earth, which is of course impossible. For the paradox to be resolved, each twin must observe the same amount of time compression of the other as time dilation, since the symmetry of the experiment demands that both twins are the same age when they return to Earth. Some solutions proposed by the relativists are: 1. Only consider one frame of reference, since SR fails when moving between inertial frames. 2. Ignore the paradox. Draw some timelines and say that everything is O.K. 3. Claim that the time dilation will be compensated for by acceleration, even though there is no experimental support for time compression arising from acceleration. 4. Feet stamping and name calling.
From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 22:23 there was ne'er a twin paradox, other than a tiny strawman or a pop-science effigy. 'twould be simpler to imagine the smart twin, going relativisitcly to some place ... wait ... then the other twin goes to place at the same acceleration, or less, or greater ... it's gedanken, for now, because we certainly don't have a space program in the USA (esp. not with cap&trade (search for CBOE's new IPO)). thus&so: as far as I know, there are two predominating criteria for Dark Stuff: a) the Big Bang interpretation of the redshifts; and b) only looking at gravity w.r.t. galactic rotation (or the Department of Einsteinmania, The Musical Dept. .-) thus&so: what are your figures on volcanic output -- do they produce CFCs?... well, there was a display in the meteorology dept. at UCLA about the "holes in the ozonosphere," and the main/digest poster had a distinctive and large cartoon of a volcano, but no figures. (the other, seldom-shown feature was of the data-hole of the pre- spring equinox pole .-) OK, so; why would they *not* produce CFCs, and what in any case are the known measurments? http://www.geog.ucla.edu/people/faculty.php?lid=500&display_one=1&mod... thus&so: '70s or '80s NSF meeting; Oliver "Buck" Revell (later unindicted co- conspirator in GHWB's Iran-contra) ; Tree War Assembly? thus&so: didn't notice any reply to the alleged story, "when he was an Illinois senator in 2000, he started a foundation ..." don't you guys realize, that cap&trade is the Last Bail Out of Wall Street and the City of London (financial district/ gated community/successor to the Br.E.India Co.) ?? definitively, it is not a tax, contra the WSUrinal.... have a nice night and, remember, if ultralight HDPE bags are outlawed, only outlaws & babysmotherers will have ultralight HDPE bags! Obama Creates a British Company !?!... http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Climate_swindle.pdf thus&so: the models are quite believeable, even if they're fundamentally not even wrongsville; i.e. when Svente Ahrrenius didn't win a Nobel prize for his coinage of "glass house gasses," no-one bothered to model a glass house *at some lattitude not zero*.... also, look at George Simpson's table-top model of glaciation. arctic ice is floating & evanescent & cannot change sea-level; there are more polar bears than forty years ago -- bears like gahbage in Hefty HDPE take-out bags! > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, > its mass diminishes by L/c2" -- dimensional analysis, please! thus&so: they think that photons are 0-d rocks o'light with no mass nor momentum. of course, there is nothing odd about the "symmetric twins," and there was ne'er any paradox; even less than with Russell's illiterate, tenseless ones -- I's just sayin', all Cretins be liars & me, three, now! 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. thus&so: there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no phenomenon, including sub-atomic angular momenta, "goes" faster than light. or, are you going to argue Ole Roemer's dyscovery of the "retardation" of light, way back, when ever -- against that? their clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so, you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment," a null perfection -- unlike M&M's results & their refinements. just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and you won't have to think so God-am hard about it. --Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall St., the City of London, George Soros et al ad vomitorium! http://larouchepub.com --Fermat's next theorem! http://wlym.com thus&so: so that an increase in calving could be either a) just increased melting & an actual decrease of the icesheet; b) increased snowfall. however, there was no evidence of the former, when I asked about it at a conference on satellite telemetry at UCLA (knew two of the profs on the panel, one saying, "no change seen, as yet" .-) thus&so: a popular impression is that oilcos are against Kyoto and other cap&trade schemes, like Waxman's '91 bill; well, hm. urban heat islands are said to be accounted-for by the IPCC, in some kind of a fudge-factor; interesting, if true, but how accurate is it? thus&so: the Milankovitch orbital periods are probably just synchronizing, not causative; that is, only during the glacial epochs, such as the present Quaternary Period (last two million years or so .-) Dear Editor; It is apparent from the City ordinance, proposed to ban high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags -- excepting take-out at restaurants -- that it'll be a state-wide eco-tax. The "green fee" slated is twenty- five cents for a paper bag from the retailer, grocer or farmer at the market. This is unfortunate for two reasons, although, as I stated a year ago in Council, when it first came-up, the super-light-weight, super-inexpensive bags (much less than the Staff Report figure) are so good at what they do, before they inevitably break-up and decompose (according to the apocrypha & studies of Heal the Bay etc., HDPEbagsR4ever) that coastal cities may justify a ban, to prevent stormdrain blockages. Firstly, just like with "hemp for haemarrhoids," it is not a panacea or much of an economic stop-gap, if only because "only criminals & baby-smotherers will have HDPE bags." Really, there are plenty of natural plastics; "plastic" is really an adjective, as in the plastic arts! Note also that even plant-derived plastic bags will be banned, although they are said to biodegrade. Secondly, a very small Carbon Tax would be much more realistic than Waxman's CO2 cap & trade nostrum, of letting the abitrageurs and daytraders raise the price of our energy as much as they can in the "free market" -- with no provision whatever for government revenue (contrary to the slogan of "cap & tax" used by Tea Partiers, "Republicans," and the WSUrinal). As with the much-greater amount of materiel & energy that is required for the paper bags, we might do better to ban *low* density polypropolene bags at department & boutique stores, which are many times heavier than the HDPE bags. It is surprising that a fifth of the HDPE bags are recycled, considerng that a) they're only good for garbage, if they get dirty, and b) they are quite often re-used; recycling them is an unsanitary joke, though composting might work. The retailers would get ten of the 25 cents, quite an incentive for any overhead. However, has anyone seen any analysis on the energy requirements for the "reusable" replacement, and their importation?... How about a surcharge on the super-light HDPE bags? --Sincerely, Brian H. --Stop BP's/Waxman's arbitragueur-daytripper's delight, cap&trade (Captain Tax in the feeble minds of Tea Partiers, "'republicans' R us," and the WSUrinal (and the latter just l o v e Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill !-)) http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 22:26 you're wrong; there never was any twin paradox. do atoms have internal dynamics, limited by the speed of light?
From: xxein on 16 Jun 2010 22:28
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. 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 stay at home triplet will calculate a completely different time dilation for the both of them (but it will be the same for each). Doppler effect. Duh. Or doesn't that count. Look. First of all these are only relative timerates. For the stay at home triplet, how does he know that he doesn't have a v/c when at the start? Lorentz covered all this but Einstein (SRT) obscured that with a shortcut math which everyone wanted to believe. Do you want me to show you how it physically works? It's easy if you stop believing in magic. |