The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 23 Nov 2007 10:00 On Nov 23, 8:41 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] 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] > > 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? Findings like these: << Cooper pairs are present in both superconductors and insulators, they believe that they behave differently in each instance. In superconductors, pairs link up with other pairs and move in a linear way to create a continuous stream of electric current. Think of a conga line. But in the insulating film, researchers believe the pairs spin solo. Think of couples twirling on a ballroom dance floor. >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071122151144.htm "Tajmar / de Matos" http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html ....have me wondering if more energy should be allocated to the gas immedately surrounding the mass that is reacting inertially to an applied force. After all, it does take some energy to align a collection of atoms. When the induction force is removed, the energy is released as an EM signal. (NMR). Fortunately, that would more closely approximate a Newtonian inertial ether. They laughed at George Westinghouse when he proposed to stop a train with air so I'll no doubt be burned at the stake for suggesting that planets can be steered with air. http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/atomlaser_97/atomlaser_comm.html Sue... > > -- > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 23 Nov 2007 10:41 "bz" <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns99F0D5DC118DBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:837a2c0c-8bfc-4aa8-8f45- > 1267e6c0a1f6(a)e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > 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. > > Science does NOT seek to explain phenomena. > > Science seeks to study phenomena that are observable, verifiable, > identifiable and formulate theories that allow the prediction of further > phenomena. > > A theory MUST be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to > formulate an experiment that MIGHT show the theory to be wrong. > A theory that can not be tested is not a scientific theory, it is > philosophy. Then SR is not a scientific theory. Why? because it is not falsifiable. In SR the speed of light is a defined constant c by a circular definition of .......1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light second.
From: kenseto on 23 Nov 2007 11:09 "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message news:WTm1j.73865$Um6.15433(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... > Ken Seto wrote: > > [...] I said that a clock second for a moving clock > > contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR > > assertion that the rate on the moving clock is running slow compared to the > > observer's clock. > > On the other hand, a second observer, in the frame of the > 'moving' clock, sees the first observer's clock running slow. No that's not observed experimentally. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. But from the GPS clock point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is approx. 7 us/day running fast. > > So what's the deal on this "absolute time"? It's a BIG deal. Absolute time is the only time exists. A clock second in a specfic frame (a specfic state of absolute motion) will represent a specific interval of absolute time. Two clocks in relative motion are in different states of absolute motion. That's why clocks in relative motion are running at different rates......SR interprets the different rates of the relative clocks as time dilation. > In one frame, > clock A's second contains "a larger amount of absolute time" > than clock B's second, while in another frame, clock B's > second contains more of this "absolute" time than clock A's. Absolute time is common time. The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. However, the rate of passage of clock seconds is different in different frames. Why? Because A's clock second contains a different amount of absolute time than B's clock second. Ken Seto
From: Dono on 23 Nov 2007 11:09 On Nov 23, 1:03 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: <....> You are still http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Nov 2007 12:18
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:efba2671-a734-4801-a8ec-64c62f428ff5(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 9:53 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] >> Have you tried drawing that diagram? > > There's not much point unless we can both see the diagram and talk > about what it represents. That would involve getting the diagram onto > the internet, which is more work that I am willing to contemplate > right now. Well, it has become clear from this (and from your other responses) that, for some unknown reason, you act like a person who is too stupid to understand the basics, or to even *try* to understand them, so I will stop wasting your time. If - and only if - you are ready to reply directly to my explanation with the spacetime diagram, feel free to do so. Dirk Vdm |