The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 23 Nov 2007 04:47 On Nov 23, 4:38 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > "colp" <c...(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: ht tp://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity" Relativty of simultaneity is a point particle concept. If you need to switch between particle and wave models there is a correct way to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation#Ward-Takahashi_identities The page you are offering is not the correct way. Sue... > > - "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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Androcles on 23 Nov 2007 05:09 "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message news:21p1j.46460$eY.32096(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... : colp wrote: : > Special relativity says that both : > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is : > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus : > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. : : You've gotten several good explanations of where your : reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's : all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart. Fuckin' idiot. It's all about this: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to." In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't use c+v. What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence, Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment, shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack moving at velocity v in his pipe dream. Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real. If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the part where Einstein screws up is: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif Here are some mathematical proofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof Not included are Proof by "because I say so", Proof by "everybody knows", Proof by "it is written", the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity. You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations" but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their indoctrination like lemmings. Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Prediction: The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a proof. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY. RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton
From: Androcles on 23 Nov 2007 05:19 "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message news:MRp1j.19189$4V6.7419(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... : colp wrote: : > Bryan Olson wrote: : >> colp wrote: : >>> Special relativity says that both : >>> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is : >>> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus : >>> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. : : >> You've gotten several good explanations of where your : >> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's : >> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart. : > : > Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds. : : Why ask the questions if you don't want to know the answers? You don't have any answers, you are a bullshitter. Her's the answer: Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to." In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't use c+v. What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence, Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment, shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack moving at velocity v in his pipe dream. Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real. If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the part where Einstein screws up is: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif Here are some mathematical proofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof Not included are Proof by "because I say so", Proof by "everybody knows", Proof by "it is written", the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity. You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations" but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their indoctrination like lemmings. Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Prediction: The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a proof. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY. RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton
From: bz on 23 Nov 2007 07:14 colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:9558199a-541d-4784-8c9a-5fc442a86509(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 23, 6:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote >> innews: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. > > That isn't a false assumption. To consider the effect of signal > propagation times makes the argument more complicated, but it doesn't > change the element of time dilation which is the essence of the > paradox. > >> 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. > > Yes, but the cumulative effect is nil. > >> 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. > > The apparent clock speedup due to the decreasing relative distance on > the return leg is equal to the apparent clock slowing due to > increasing relative distance on the outbound leg. You 'see' your twins clock ticking faster than yours. Once the signals from his ship, after his turn around, reach you, the doppler shifts are doubled. > >> >> 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. > > The paradox that I am talking about is desribed in the opening post. > It does not have a stay-at-home clock. So? You can pick any frame of reference you want in order to simplify the problem. The object is NOT to create a problem that can not be solved in a particular reference frame, it is to understand what would really happen. "A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer." "Wisdom comes from asking questions that can be answered." -- 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: Laurent on 23 Nov 2007 08:41
On Nov 23, 2:42 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Nov 22, 9:38 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > 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 which only couples to inertia by mass > > > energy equivalence. > > > If there is one thing that science doesn't like, it is having to say > > that it can't explain the phenomena. > > Most of the experiments used to support the twin's > myth barely qualify as science.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematic_physics_experiments > We don't have a photo of a wrinkley grey headed twin comparing > his watch with his smooth skined fair haired sibling. > > Clocks can't *measure* time. They mark or simulate > time's passages with some reference process. Because > certain symmetries are the foundation of canonical physics > we find a statement about time must also include > a statement about energy. Both SR and GR run a bit > wild in this regard. > > << invariance with respect to time translation > gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem > > There is little doubt an atomic clock will run slower > on Jupiter's surface than on earth's surface. You can > draw you own conclusions about the life expectancy of > the chap in this photo experiencing similar conditions.http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=2696350&epmid=1&partner=Google > > Once an experiment is published, the whole world is > free to interpret it in any way they please and the > most sensational interpretations will always the most > exposure. > > Much of the confusion with SR stems from the student's inability > to understand the limitiations of point source and wave > models. > > http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html > > Feynman artfully takes the best of each model and > completely avoids the problem keeping most of the > model in the Coulomb gauge. [2] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation > > General relativty has its problems with time and energy > too: > << In general relativity, on the other hand, it has no > meaning to speak of a definite localization of energy. > One may define a quantity which is divergence > free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor > of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent: > i.e., it is not covariant under general coordinate > transformations. Consequently the fact that it is > divergence free does not yield a meaningful law of local > energy conservation. Thus one has, as Hilbert > saw it, in such theories `improper energy theorems.' >>http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html[1] > > When Special Relativity is scaled back to the statement of the > 1920 paper: > > << in reality there is not the least incompatibility > between the principle of relativity and the law of > propagation of light, >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html > > ...there is no problem either mathematical or > conflict with Maxwell's equations. > > Time-independent Maxwell equations > Time-dependent Maxwell's equations > Relativity and electromagnetismhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html > > Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics > (classic field theory)_ > a) Maxwell equations (no movement), > b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_ex... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field > > Since causality demands that both twins have to agree on > the number of orbits Jupiter's moons make during the > experiment, it is rather absurd to claim one lived > longer than the other. > > (Historical note)http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_03/jupiter.html > > Sue... > > [1] > This URL seems to honour any and all holidayshttp://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html > "Google cache"http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:qYoxDxDuvD0J:www.physics.ucla.ed... > > [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixinghttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If energy is finite, then we must have covariance, if it isn't then there is no need for covariance. So, what's the answer? -- Laurent |