The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 22 Nov 2007 10:23 "bz" <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns99EFC6EC6C39FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:75645b9d-5e0d-4d6d-8793-6a916df243dd(a)l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > > > "normal" clocks are usually inertial mechanisms. Are you disputing > > this statement with your suggestion that a light-clock should behave > > the same way as an inertial clock ? > > I am not talking about light clocks at all. > I still don't know about them. KS keeps telling me that the first photons > miss the mirrors. Yes.....due to the absolute motion of the mirror wrt the light ray. > KS, HW and Sue keep telling me that "normal clocks" don't lose ticks, no > matter how far and fast they go. Wong I didn't say that at all. 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. > I don't know who to believe, KS, HW and Sue or the evidence. Believe the evidence.....that a moving clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. > > > I would love to see data that falsifies GR, but I don't expect to see it > soon or here. > But that is not my goal at the moment. > My goal is to find a "normal clock" that will be unaffected by traveling at > relativistic velocities wrt a stay-at-home test clock. > Tell me where I can find one, pleeeese. There is no such clock exist. The rate of a clock is affected by relativistic velocities. > > > >> And the neutronium clocks are too heavy to carry around. > >> > Show me the data. Did it run slow, as predicted by SR and GR or did it > maintain a constant rate as per Sue, KS, HW??? > It was supposed to launch in 2006. This is almost 2008. The web page was > last updated in 2004. > Show me the data. I didn't say that at all. I said that a moving clock running slow because its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds to the SR/GR prediction that a moving clock runs slow. Ken Seto
From: Dono on 22 Nov 2007 11:15 On Nov 22, 7:23 am, "kenseto" <kens...(a)woh.rr.com> wrote: > I didn't say that at all. I said that a moving clock running slow because > its clock second contains a larger amount of absolute time. This corresponds > to the SR/GR prediction that a moving clock runs slow. > > Ken Seto http://www.movv.com/prvupload/uploads/super_retard_stfu.jpg
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 22 Nov 2007 12:06 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45e50819-65f6-46a3-a821-5c3698dd146a(a)p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 21, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644-bfb7-43f49f46ae6a(a)i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this >> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in >> > opposite directions. >> >> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric, >> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth. >> >> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each >> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that >> > their clocks tell the same time. >> >> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's >> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow >> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast. >> >> No, special relativity says much more precise than that >> "moving clocks" are running slow. > > The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my description, > but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong. > >> >> 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". >> 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. > > Yes, that is the standard theory. > >> >> 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. > > Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time > value. This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative > velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks > separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time > dilation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation If you have ever heard of a spacetime diagram, try to draw one and you'll see. Draw the line of simultaneity on A before the turnaround and look at Event AB1 this line intersects the worldine of B. Then draw the line of simultaneity after the turnaround and mark event AB2 where this line intersects B's worldline. You will notice that there is a large jump in B's time between events AB1 and AB2. Likewise, draw the line of simultaneity on B before the turnaround and look at Event BA1 this line intersects the worldine of A. Then draw the line of simultaneity after the turnaround and mark event BA2 where this line intersects A's worldline. You will notice that there is a large jump in A's time between events BA1 and BA2. Does this help? Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 22 Nov 2007 12:07 "Josef Matz" <josefmatz(a)arcor.de> wrote in message news:47446186$0$27132$9b4e6d93(a)newsspool1.arcor-online.net... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb > im Newsbeitrag news:tWT0j.217820$gM5.12435682(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > news:06b84031-18aa-4644-bfb7-43f49f46ae6a(a)i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this >> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in >> > opposite directions. >> > >> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric, >> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth. >> > >> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each >> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that >> > their clocks tell the same time. >> > >> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's >> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow >> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast. >> >> 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". >> 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. >> >> > >> > The paradox is that special relativity says that a twin will never see >> > the other twin's clock catch up, but the clocks must show the same >> > time at the end of the experiment because of symmetry. >> >> When they finally meet, for both clocks, this larger time reading of >> the simultaneous events on the other clock is compensated by the >> "more slowly running time" on that clock such that they read the >> same time when they are reunited. >> > > Hello Dirk > > If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the > symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be > compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! > > Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? > > And please: SR says that both clocks go physically physically different > (slower) than the other. > > Josef See my reply to colp. Dirk Vdm
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 15:12
On Nov 22, 11:16 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:45e50819-65f6-46a3-a821-5c3698dd146a(a)p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Nov 21, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in > >> messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644-bfb7-43f49f46ae6a(a)i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this > >> > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in > >> > opposite directions. > > >> > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric, > >> > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth. > > >> > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each > >> > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that > >> > their clocks tell the same time. > > >> > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's > >> > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow > >> > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast. > > >> No, special relativity says much more precise than that > >> "moving clocks" are running slow. > > > The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my description, > > but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong. > > >> 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". > >> 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. > > > Yes, that is the standard theory. > > >> 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. > > > Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time > > value. > > This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative > > velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks > > separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time > > dilation. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation > > That is indeed irrelevant but you are still mistaken because time dilation > is ALSO irrelevant at the instant of switching reference frames. Straw man. Time dilation requires a finite amount of time to be observable, so time dilation is not observable at the instant of switching reference frames. |