The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 23 Nov 2007 03:43 On Nov 23, 3:07 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > This paradox involves a different argument than the original paradox. > The paradox is that SR says that a twin must observe time dilation of > the other twin, but logic says he can't because the clocks end up with > the same time. SR predicts apparent time dilation, but never allows > apparent time compression. Your version with the symetrical paths simply uses the error with a single traveler to cancel itself. There is nothing paradoxical if I see my skyrocket getting smaller than me and ticking slower and the skyrocket sees me getting smaller than it is and ticking slower. It becomes paradoxical when I retrive the rocket and the (nonflamable motor) caseing is indeed different than at launch or its clock doeshn't match mine. We can make a clock that slows with motion by exposing a pair of EM reflectors to the flow of the free_space dielectric. (Fizeau moving media) ) (light clock) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html Such a clock will quite conveniently track the Lorentz transformation that calculates how the stayhome twin's clock appears to the traveler. But it is a falicy to consider that has a direct relationship to an inertial clock (balance wheel, quartz crystal) that the travler might also have on board. <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Sue...
From: Sue... on 23 Nov 2007 03:50 On Nov 22, 9:05 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> When my own trials of thought experiments yield > >> conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask > >> myself: Did I just refute the work of all those > >> scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew > >> more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities > >> is quite a bit more likely than the other. > > > Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used > > by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920 > > paper > > I'm not so into the historical minutia. > > > which only couples to inertia by mass > > energy equivalence. > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/ > > Then you can debate with yourself whether > > 'tis more likely Einstein was right in 1905 > > or in 1920. > > I like the 1920 work, but reading it in an effort to find > discrepancies with other explanations is unlikely to be > helpful. Try putting aside what you think you know and > reading purely for understanding. Indeed... the 1905 paper is the "bible" for the H.G Wells fans. <<Pseudoscience does not progress. There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > -- > --Bryan
From: colp on 23 Nov 2007 04:03 On Nov 23, 9:12 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Nov 22, 11:48 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 23, 5:22 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > The opening post describes the scenario that I an arguing about. > > http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif Here's a suggestion, Dono. Remember to type your argument _before_ you add your sig and click on the Send button.
From: harry on 23 Nov 2007 04:38 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:85218094-8bf1-438e-bb30-eba87ab8e226(a)s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 8:24 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:d44fb984-12e6-4a0d-8af1-3990ae9789e8(a)s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Nov 22, 11:16 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> >> > wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:45e50819-65f6-46a3-a821-5c3698dd146a(a)p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 21, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" >> >> > <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- >> >> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in >> >> >> messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644-bfb7-43f49f46ae6a(a)i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in >> >> >> > this >> >> >> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return >> >> >> > trips >> >> >> > in >> >> >> > opposite directions. >> >> >> >> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are >> >> >> > symmetric, >> >> >> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to >> >> >> > earth. >> >> >> >> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of >> >> >> > each >> >> >> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > their clocks tell the same time. >> >> >> >> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the >> >> >> > other's >> >> >> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity >> >> >> > allow >> >> >> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running >> >> >> > fast. >> >> >> >> No, special relativity says much more precise than that >> >> >> "moving clocks" are running slow. >> >> >> > The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my >> >> > description, >> >> > but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong. >> >> >> >> It says something about intertial observers who measure >> >> >> times between ticks on remote, moving clocks. >> >> >> >> When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure >> >> >> this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock >> >> >> is "running slower". >> >> >> While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each >> >> >> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B >> >> >> with a smaller time value. >> >> >> While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each >> >> >> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A >> >> >> with a smaller time value. >> >> >> > Yes, that is the standard theory. >> >> >> >> After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to >> >> >> another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each >> >> >> tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B >> >> >> with a larger time value. >> >> >> After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to >> >> >> another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each >> >> >> tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A >> >> >> with a larger time value. >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> That is indeed irrelevant but you are still mistaken because time >> >> dilation >> >> is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames. >> >> > Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be >> > observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of >> > switching reference frames. >> >> You SNIPPED the explanation that TIME DILATION IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. > > What are you talking about? > > It is relevant because the according to SR it must be observed but > according to logic it cannot be observed. > >> Therefore, probably you're too stubborn too listen. Too bad. > > More likely that you've run out of arguments are are playing gamez. Let's see who is playing "gamez": - "harry": "you are still mistaken because time dilation is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames. Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity" - "colp" replied: "Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of switching reference frames." In a nutshell, I pointed out that for the turnaround you used (unwittingly?) a straw man - time dilation - and redirected your attention to the essential point that you had overlooked. You replied by calling your own straw man a straw man but you snipped the relevant point - in order to keep ignoring it? Harald
From: harry on 23 Nov 2007 04:44
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:9e729dd4-6300-40e3-8142-1cc5be37880e(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 8:27 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:3b9b6646-038c-47ff-94e1-f804966c2e47(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> >> > wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: >> >> > <snip> >> >> >> Hello Dirk >> >> >> >> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the >> >> >> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be >> >> >> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! >> >> >> >> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? >> >> >> > A solution could include an argument from general relativity as >> >> > well, >> >> > since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to >> >> > accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve >> >> > the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased >> >> > arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial >> >> > frames. >> >> >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox >> >> > Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought >> > experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment >> > descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this >> > thread. >> >> The OP is you, right? > > Dirk quoted me from sci.physics > >> Anyway, it doesn't matter much: the same calculations >> apply only in the symmetrical case the result is that both clocks >> indicate >> the same (of course). > > This paradox involves a different argument than the original paradox. The symmetry argument demands a different outcome but it involves the same calculaions. Only the numbers that you plug in differ - and the outcome differs accordingly. > The paradox is that SR says that a twin must observe time dilation of > the other twin, but logic says he can't because the clocks end up with > the same time. SR predicts apparent time dilation, but never allows > apparent time compression. When you finally open your mind and look into relativity of simultaneity, you may finally "get it". Otherwise, you won't. Ever. Harald |