The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 25 Nov 2007 21:19 On Nov 26, 2:37 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:a99bf3bb-6f11-4a6a-bfbd-4c285e3b2995(a)s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Nov 26, 7:18 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > > <dl...(a)cox.net> > > wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:8286a417-e3e3-4956-ae1d-132fedf34158(a)a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > >> ... > > >> > I'd say that someone who has been outed for > >> > misdirection but refuses to admit defeat is a retard. > > >> From your own mouth too. > > >> Hoist by your own petard... > > > Really? > > Really. You havem't shown any misdirection on my part. You lose. > > > Dirk's misdirection is evident in his opening post, but > > he has not shown any misdirection on my part. > > *You* certainly have shown such. > > ... You are unable to quote anything that I posted which supports your claim. > > > He has neither admitted not denied his error, and has > > resorted to insults in favour of arguments. > > He is about the kindest person I know, and he has the most fun > with those who set out to decieve. If you honestly believe he > has made an error, you'd better check your facts at least twice. I checked my facts before and after his reply. I stand by my claim. > I assure you, he has not. It would spoil his fun. The error is his claim that relativistic time dilation is reversed on the return leg of the experiment. From Dirk's opening post: 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. 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.
From: Dono on 25 Nov 2007 21:31 > The error is his claim that relativistic time dilation is reversed on > the return leg of the experiment. > > From Dirk's opening post: > > 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. > > 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. Dirk is describing the Doppler effect piece to you, http://www.catshoes.com/Tubes/Cartoons/Dumbo03.gif
From: colp on 25 Nov 2007 21:45 On Nov 26, 3:31 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > The error is his claim that relativistic time dilation is reversed on > > the return leg of the experiment. > > > From Dirk's opening post: > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Dirk is describing the Doppler effect piece to you,http://www.catshoes.com/Tubes/Cartoons/Dumbo03.gif Wrong. Here is the context: No, special relativity says much more precise than that "moving clocks" are running slow. 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".
From: Dono on 25 Nov 2007 21:48 On Nov 25, 3:46 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > Dirk's misdirects by describing the return leg in a way which is > inconsistent with SR. Umm, no. > This misdirection serves to hide the paradox. Also no. > One could argue that switching reference frames half way through the > experiment is another form of misdirection. > Again, no. > He has neither admitted not denied his error, and has resorted to > insults in favour of arguments. http://www.catshoes.com/Tubes/Cartoons/Dumbo03.gif
From: Dono on 25 Nov 2007 21:49
On Nov 25, 6:45 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Nov 26, 3:31 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > The error is his claim that relativistic time dilation is reversed on > > > the return leg of the experiment. > > > > From Dirk's opening post: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > Dirk is describing the Doppler effect piece to you,http://www.catshoes.com/Tubes/Cartoons/Dumbo03.gif > > Wrong. Here is the context: > > No, special relativity says much more precise than that > "moving clocks" are running slow. > > 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". What is the incorrect part according to you, http://www.catshoes.com/Tubes/Cartoons/Dumbo03.gif |