The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 26 Nov 2007 16:27 Sue... says... > >On Nov 26, 1:47 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: > >> >> What SR says is that, from the point of view of any >> *inertial* coordinate system, > >No... the inertial modifier does not appear. >That issue is considered with relation to >mass energy equivalence >http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html > >> >> 1. Light has speed c in all directions. >> 2. Moving clocks run slow, by a factor of square-root(1-(v/c)^2). > >SR says no such thing. It says moving clocks are *judged* to run >slow from a different frame. I'm not sure what distinction you are making, but the precise prediction is this: If a moving clock travels at constant velocity from event e1 with coordinates (x1,t1) to event e2 with coordinates (x2, t2), then the elapsed time on the clock will be given by square-root((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2/c^2), which will be less than t2 - t1. >"The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion " >http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html > >You are making a fine argument that the principle of >relativity doesn't hold true regardless of the speed of light. You don't make any sense, Sue. I wish you would stop Googling and start actually trying to read and understand some of the web pages you cite. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 26 Nov 2007 16:35 On Nov 26, 4:22 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Sue... says... > > >Practically speaking: > > >If I fly from London to New York, recording Big Ben's ticks > >I will have a summation of proper time intervals. > > >Returning, I can similarly record the number of ticks I > >see on the Times Square clock. > > >If I total the Eastward and Westward ticks from my notes, > >it will not agree with a count taken by a Beefeater during > >my absence. > > >It will have no relation to my age. > > Practically speaking, the effect of time dilation > is negligible for speeds of normal jets. Of course it is not a normal Jet. 0.5 c please. > However, > a precise enough clock (atomic clock, for instance) > would notice a difference. If you left one atomic > clock at Big Ben, and carried the other one with > you to New York, then when you get back to Big Ben, > there will be differences in the elapsed times on > the two atomic clocks. There were no clocks in motion. The proper time intervals were taken from views of the clocks that never left their stations in London and New York. What is the physical significance of difference between the traveler's count and the Beefeater's count? Sue... > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 26 Nov 2007 17:03 On Nov 26, 4:27 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Sue... says... > > > > > > > > >On Nov 26, 1:47 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > > >> What SR says is that, from the point of view of any > >> *inertial* coordinate system, > > >No... the inertial modifier does not appear. > >That issue is considered with relation to > >mass energy equivalence > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html > > >> 1. Light has speed c in all directions. > >> 2. Moving clocks run slow, by a factor of square-root(1-(v/c)^2). > > >SR says no such thing. It says moving clocks are *judged* to run > >slow from a different frame. > > I'm not sure what distinction you are making, but the > precise prediction is this: > > If a moving clock travels at constant velocity from event e1 > with coordinates (x1,t1) to event e2 with coordinates (x2, t2), > then the elapsed time on the clock will be given by > square-root((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2/c^2), > which will be less than t2 - t1. > > >"The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion " > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html > > >You are making a fine argument that the principle of > >relativity doesn't hold true regardless of the speed of light. > > You don't make any sense, Sue. I wish you would stop Googling > and start actually trying to read and understand some of the web > pages you cite. That is a common request from people that misquote papers. Daryl wrote: << 2. Moving clocks run slow, by a factor of square-root(1-(v/c)^2).>> The paper really says: <<As *judged* from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html So my example is exactly the same: ~~As *judged* from the aircraft, the time which elapses between two strokes of Big-Ben is not one second, but http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time.~~ Sue... > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: paparios on 26 Nov 2007 17:31 On 26 nov, 16:52, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > > What the Lorentz transformation says is that (t2-t1)=(t2'-t1')/sqrt(1- > > v^2/c^2), where (t2-t1) is the time interval between two colocal > > events, as measured by one inertially moving observer A, miving with > > velocity v, with respect to another inertial observer B, who measures > > the time interval between the same events as (t2'-t1'). > > Practically speaking: > > If I fly from London to New York, recording Big Ben's ticks > I will have a summation of proper time intervals. > > Returning, I can similarly record the number of ticks I > see on the Times Square clock. > > If I total the Eastward and Westward ticks from my notes, > it will not agree with a count taken by a Beefeater during > my absence. > > It will have no relation to my age. > > It will have a direct relation to the fuel used > by the two aircraft. > > Is that correct? > > Sue... > > > > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - You are hopeless. Which part of "where (t2-t1) is the time interval between two colocal events" you do not understand? See the reference provided by colp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Miguel Rios
From: bz on 26 Nov 2007 15:29
colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:1ed22159-fbb6-4cdc-b76c- dc307a83060c(a)s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 27, 7:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >SR describes time dilation. SR does not describe time compression. >> >> That's incorrect. > > According to your gamma equation. > >> The Lorentz transform for time >> has two factors: >> >> t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2) >> >> t' can be greater than t or less than t, >> depending on the value of x. > > According to Wikipedia the equation is: gamma = 1 / (sqrt (1 - v^2/ > c^2)) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation > > This means that time dilation occurs regardless of x and regardless of > whether v is positive or negative. Notice that t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2) gamma is always positive(because v is squared). But v is NOT always positive. -- 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 |