Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision
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: Peter Webb on 17 Jun 2010 00:12

"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:f85a3f97-74c9-4e95-b358-d1c4c8b9600c(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
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.

__________________________
That's not an experiment. And SR does predict a time dilation. So its hardly
an experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur. When
this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger.


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.

________________________
No, SR predicts the travelling twin would be younger, and this does occur.

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.
__________________________
They are not symmetrical. The travelling twin changes inertial frames; the
stay at home twin does not.

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.

__________________________
No. Why don't you quote what some reputable textbook on SR actually says, if
you disagree with it.

In the mean time, have you got a single experiment where relativity predicts
time dilation but it does not occur? No?



From: Koobee Wublee on 17 Jun 2010 00:25
On Jun 16, 6:19 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > 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?

I am saying the GPS will function fine with compensating for
relativistic effect if it really does exist. The critical path is to
synchronize the chronological time (time count) and not the clock
driving these time counters among all the satellites. The ground
system can have its own clock and its own chronological time count
different from the satellite. The Einstein Dingleberry Dirk van de
moortel used to post about how the GPS actually works without such
clock synchronization, you can also google for yours truly's recent
past posts, or just go to Androcles' website. <shrug>

Again, it is not the clock that needs to be synchronized but the timer
that accumulates the chronological time that does so.

The GPS engineers did not lie about anything. It is perpetrated by
the self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries who do not
understand how the system actually works started the whole myth about
the implementation of the effects of GR in the GPS. It is a total
lie. <shrug>


From: colp on 17 Jun 2010 00:54
On Jun 17, 4:12 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
>
> news:f85a3f97-74c9-4e95-b358-d1c4c8b9600c(a)s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> __________________________
> That's not an experiment.

Wrong. A thought experiment is a type of experiment.

> And SR does predict a time dilation.

Absolutely.

> So its hardly
> an experiment where SR predicts time dilation but it does not occur.

Wrong again. The point of an experiment is to test a hypothesis.
Whether the test is conducted with physical apparatus or simply with
reason is unimportant.

> When
> this is tested by actual experiment, the travelling twin is younger.

In the symmetric paradox that I spoke of in my previous post, both
twins travel and they are the same age, despite the predictions of SR.
I'm not going to argue about the classic paradox because the paradox
is much easier to show in the symmetric case.
From: Paul Cardinale on 17 Jun 2010 01:10
A person of normal intelligence who diligently studies relativity will
be able to understand the resolution of the twin paradox.

That excludes you.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: beautiful equation
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.1: France finds Macroscopic-Microscopic Duality with Deceleration to Acceleration Transition Analogous to Elliptic Flow of Strong Interaction Collisions and to Compression followed by Relaxation Phase of Collision