The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 23 Nov 2007 16:42 On Nov 24, 6:18 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews: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 Coming from someone what can't event get SR time dilation right for decreasing relative distance in an inertial frame, your opinion isn't very credible.
From: colp on 23 Nov 2007 17:13 On Nov 23, 8:00 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > 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. You are unable to show that the effect of changing inertial frames solves the paradox. > > > 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. It's not my theory. It is standard special relativity. > In SR, the relativity of > simultaneity implies that each twin's view of his far-away sibling's > age changes upon the turn-around. The turnaround cannot affect the observed time of the remote clock. A radio clock signal from the remote twin does not change just because the spacecraft rotates.
From: Bryan Olson on 23 Nov 2007 17:27 colp wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> Colp's theory is that somehow he gets the time-dilation of SR, but >> the effect of changing inertial frames somehow does not count. > > You are unable to show that the effect of changing inertial frames > solves the paradox. Paradox solved here: <12q1j.19192$4V6.17299(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> Part of SR that colp ignores, making his theory contradictory: http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html >> Colp's theory leads to a contradiction. > > It's not my theory. It is standard special relativity. As we still lack any citation attributing the wrong theory to anyone else, I stand by my description of it as Colp's own. >> In SR, the relativity of >> simultaneity implies that each twin's view of his far-away sibling's >> age changes upon the turn-around. > > The turnaround cannot affect the observed time of the remote clock. > A radio clock signal from the remote twin does not change just because > the spacecraft rotates. "Turn-around" refers to change of direction, not orientation. -- --Bryan
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Nov 2007 17:45 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:f00a630f-91a1-49ea-93ad-37a674fd0fcf(a)i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 24, 6:18 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews: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 > > Coming from someone what can't event get SR time dilation right for > decreasing relative distance in an inertial frame, your opinion isn't > very credible. (unsnip) >> 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. "If and only if" I said. You obviously also act like a person who is too much of a coward to even reply to the only explanations that could really help him out of his self-inflicted misery. So you now are in the "autistic imbecile cowards" category. But don't this put you off - you are not alone. This very place was actually created to suck in people like you. Enjoy the attention. Dirk Vdm
From: bz on 23 Nov 2007 17:01
colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:ce4ba04e-546a-4468-a814-90c056b77de4(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> 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. > > Wrong. The cumulative effect is nil. > > f' = f + fv / c > > v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver in > meters/second: positive when moving towards one another, negative when > moving away You are forgetting the fact that the signals from his ship do not reach you the instant they are transmitted. You don't see the effect of his turn around until signals transmitted at the time of his turn around reach you. But at the instant you turn around you DO see a change in the frequency of the signal Let us say you both start from earth at the same time, each traveling at ..5c away from earth. Your relativistic velocities away from each other will be 0.8 c (see the composition of velocities formula). Let us say each ship transmits on 1 GHz (near some cell phone bands). As the ships go away from earth, receivers on earth will receive both ships on 0.577 GHz. Each ship will receive the other ship on 0.333 GHz, as they are separating at 0.8 c relative. After the ships turn around, They will receive each others signals at 1 GHz for a while because each will be receiving signals sent while the other was moving in the same direction and at the same velocity that they are now moving. They see the other ship's relative velocity as ZERO. When they get closer together and 'see' the other ship turn around, they will pick up the other ship's signals at 3 GHz, while the earth bound sister receives them both at 1.732 GHz as they are approaching earth at .5 c each. All frequencies were computed using the relativistic Doppler shift formula. Relative velocity computed using the composition of velocity formula. -- 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 |