The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 26 Nov 2007 11:55 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:c5890f23-510b-4454-97f9-d49fd7686ef0(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 25, 3:46 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > < > > > http://www.moronsalt.com/moronsalt.jpg Good one :-)) Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 26 Nov 2007 11:58 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:Brp2j.20320$4k.3923(a)newsfe11.phx... > "colp" <colp(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. > >> Dirk's misdirection is evident in his opening post, but >> he has not shown any misdirection on my part. > > *You* certainly have shown such. > > ... >> 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 assure you, he has not. It would spoil his fun. David, are you sure I deserve that compliment? Thanks! And fun is what I'm having indeed :-) Dirk Vdm
From: Sue... on 26 Nov 2007 12:16 On Nov 26, 11:48 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Sue... says... > > >I won't dispute you have stated one of many refutations of > >what I call the "parlor trick" interpretation of SR. > > What you call a "parlor trick" is just taking the axioms > of Special Relativity and applying them, using ordinary > high-school level algebra. OK... That is what I thought. "elapsed proper time" is only useful as a parlor trick. Thank you. Sue... > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: bz on 26 Nov 2007 11:00 colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:a99bf3bb-6f11-4a6a-bfbd- 4c285e3b2995(a)s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > One could argue that switching reference frames half way through the > experiment is another form of misdirection. > You have multiple reference frames in the problem as originally stated. If you want to use one reference frame through the experiment, you would do better to stick with the point of origin of both ships [the earth]. That is because both ships accelerate several times during the experiment. That means that neither of them stays in the same inertial frame of reference(iFoR). This is because each CHANGE in velocity is also a change of iFoR. That means that SR will not tell us how things look from the viewpoint of one of the ships during acceleration. We can look at what happens inside the ships from the earths iFoR [ignoring the earths motions through space and considering it to be an iFoR. We can look at things from the viewpoint of a ship as long as it is 'coasting'. But if you want to use SR, You need to find a way to treat the ship as if it is inertial. One way to do that is to assume it instantly goes to the velocity, coasts all the way to the turn around point, then drifts home and stops instantly. That way each ship is in one iFoR for the entire outbound trip. At turn around you can assume it instantly reverse direction of travel. It is NOW in another iFoR. There is no cheating done. This is one way to approach the problem. Hint: All approaches that are consistent with SR should give similar final results, ie both travelers end up with the same number of ticks. The way I worked it, with the Doppler shifts and 1 second signal pulses works AND there is nothing 'odd' happening. The way Dirk explained it ALSO works but things are a bit odder because of non inertial frames of reference involved. It is much easier to understand if you do make all your clock observations from the Earth's iFoR. From earths iFoR, it is clear that both clocks are 'in sync' through out the trip, but the clocks are NOT in sync with the earthbound clock. If you insist on looking at things from the iFoR of a ship, you MUST keep in mind that the ship changes iFoR at turn around. When you do calculations of 'current' time on the other ship, just before turn around and again just after turn around, there are large changes in in the time on the other ship. Your time also changes in going from iFoR_outbound to iFoR_inbound, or it would if you looked from one of those iFoRs the instant before turnaround at the iFoR just after turn around. Of course, as you are using the ship's iFoR for your standard, when you look at the outside world, YOU see no change in your clock. All the changes that WOULD show up as changes in your clock get put onto the clocks of others. As I said before, it is much simpler to look at things from the earths iFoR and to look at the signals from the other ship as I did. In any case, there is no actual paradox as long as you remember what pocket you are putting your ticks into and why. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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: dlzc on 26 Nov 2007 12:42
Dear Dirk Van de moortel: On Nov 26, 9:58 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote in messagenews:Brp2j.20320$4k.3923(a)newsfe11.phx... .... > > 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 assure you, he > > has not. It would spoil his fun. > > David, are you sure I deserve that compliment? > Thanks! Did not mean to make you blush. The fact that you question yourself is, to me, proof that what I said is correct. Cranks never do question themselves. And keep in mind that "kind" does not mean you pull any punches. Telling someone what it really is, can be the kindest thing you can do for them. > And fun is what I'm having indeed :-) Excellent. Hope the upcoming holidays are good to you. David A. Smith |