The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 23:16 On Nov 23, 4:00 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > colp wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> Why are you unable to explain the paradox? > >> The Colp Symmetric Twin Paradox Explained: > > >> SR predicts the twins will be the same age when they return to > >> Earth, as does Newtonian mechanics. All experimental evidence > >> agrees. > > > O.K. > > >> The contradictory outcome was colp's own theory. > > > Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of > > relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a > > logically expected observation. > > That's just more of the same wrong theory. Yes, the theory of relativity is wrong. > Lacking any > reference citing the claims to another source, I stand by my > description of the error as colp's own theory. The following is not my theory: Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation The theory leads to a paradox in the case of two observers who undertake symmetric relativistic journeys which start and end in a common frame of reference. > > >> His theory > >> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a > >> ludicrous conclusion. > > > What effect of SR do you think that I omitted? > > Several of us have explained and cited what colp is missing. I don't need your delusions. > For some reason, he thinks changing frames has no significant > effect, contrary to what SR holds. The time spent in non-inertial frames cannot, in general, compensate for the observed clock slowing.
From: Dono on 22 Nov 2007 23:22 On Nov 21, 8:37 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time > value. > This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative > velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks > separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time > dilation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Bzzzt, wrong. Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Accelerated_rocket_calculation
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 23:23 On Nov 23, 3:50 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:eeaf80ee-faa5-489c-8a82-7f8224e631eb(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com: <snip> > > SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of > > one of the twins. > > SR says that they do not read the same until the twins are reunited. SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at the end of the experiment.
From: bz on 23 Nov 2007 00:22 colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:f92c81d1-fbb0-47e3-8303-d4ce14366ebe(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 23, 3:50 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote >> innews:eeaf80ee-faa5-489c-8a82-7f8224e631eb(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com >> : > <snip> >> > SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of >> > one of the twins. >> >> SR says that they do not read the same until the twins are reunited. > > SR cannot explain the discontinuity between the clocks showing > progressively different times and the clocks showing the same time at > the end of the experiment. > You are making a false assumption. You assume that they see each others clocks as ticking slow, even when they approach each other. In order to do that, they would need some faster than light communications method so they could see what the other clock actually said. But they have to depend on signals that travel at the speed of light. Remember the Doppler shift I mentioned earlier? It effects the timing of the time signals also. As they head toward each other, they see the other persons clock ticking FASTER than theirs is ticking. As they get closer together, it takes less and less time for the clock signals to travel the distance between ships If you work through the math, you find that as they come toward each other, they see each others clocks running fast. The clocks 'catch up', converging upon the same 'correct' reading as they land. Of course it will NOT be the same as their stay-at-home sisters clock. Her clock will have accumulated more time than either of theirs. There is no paradox. Only the illusion of a paradox. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Bryan Olson on 23 Nov 2007 02:00
colp wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> colp wrote: >>> Wrong. The contradictory outcome is a result of the theory of >>> relativity predicting that an observation will disagree with a >>> logically expected observation. >> That's just more of the same wrong theory. > > Yes, the theory of relativity is wrong. > >> Lacking any >> reference citing the claims to another source, I stand by my >> description of the error as colp's own theory. > > The following is not my theory: > > Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that > another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking > at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Colp's theory is that somehow he gets the time-dilation of SR, but the effect of changing inertial frames somehow does not count. > The theory leads to a paradox in the case of two observers who > undertake symmetric relativistic journeys which start and end in a > common frame of reference. Colp's theory leads to a contradiction. In SR, the relativity of simultaneity implies that each twin's view of his far-away sibling's age changes upon the turn-around. >>>> His theory >>>> adopted one effect of SR, but omitted others, leading to a >>>> ludicrous conclusion. >>> What effect of SR do you think that I omitted? >> Several of us have explained and cited what colp is missing. > > I don't need your delusions. > >> For some reason, he thinks changing frames has no significant >> effect, contrary to what SR holds. > > The time spent in non-inertial frames cannot, in general, compensate > for the observed clock slowing. Colp-theory doesn't make sense. -- --Bryan |