The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 27 Nov 2007 13:35 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:e35a303c-4fce-4358-a6c7-3aac59e49677(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Does that mean that when I saw Big-Ben moving away from me > I could have calculted its proper time and my > egg would have been perfect, instead of overdone? If you have left someone in London and you tell them, from your ship that is moving near c, when you want them to start boiling and stop boiling the eggs, you better apply the right corrections, or the eggs won't be done when you get home. I didn't know you went for balut. -- 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: Daryl McCullough on 27 Nov 2007 14:37 colp says... > >On Nov 28, 4:32 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >On Nov 27, 9:51 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> >wrote: >> >> SR doesn't say *anything* about the frame of reference of an >> >> accelerated twin. It only talks about how things work within >> >> a single inertial coordinate system. If the twins are accelerating, >> >> then they are not in an inertial coordinate system. >> >> >The original thought experiment that I described in the OP (that Dirk >> >quoted) does talk about inertial coordinate systems. What happened when >> >the twins are accelerating and decellerating doesn't affect the >> >paradox. >> >> Well, that's completely incorrect. > >Why is that? > >> You only think that because you haven't actually done a calculation. > >Wrong. The calculation is not relevant to the argument. Sigh. Well, the fact is that you claim to have discovered an inconsistency in Special Relativity, but you haven't actually *derived* any contradiction from the postulates. So you *haven't* actually discovered a contradiction. The contradiction is in your sloppy paraphrasing of Special Relativity, not in relativity itself. The only way for you to actually see this is by going through the exercise of trying to put your supposed contradiction into rigorous mathematical form. If you did that, you would see that your contradiction vanishes. You (and Sue, and Alen, and Androcles, and so many others) are sloppy at reasoning, and your sloppiness leads to contradictions. That isn't the fault of relativity. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Nov 2007 14:40 In article <6ed33a22-9b96-4304-967b-7e1b359c0ba7(a)d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, colp says... > >On Nov 28, 4:24 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion >> >relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their >> >clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). >> >> You don't know what you are talking about. Relativity >> is not about what this or that observer *sees*. > >I was quoting the the following page: >http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > >So what you are saying is that Ohio State university does not know >what it is talking about. Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* and a pop science description? That page is *not* a rigorous derivation, it's a layman's introduction to the subject. You can't deduce anything about the consistency of relativity from a popular science article. It's as if you tried to solve some mystery about the life of Julius Caesar by studying a picture book about him written for eight-year olds. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: paparios on 27 Nov 2007 15:11 On 27 nov, 16:40, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > In article <6ed33a22-9b96-4304-967b-7e1b359c0...(a)d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > colp says... > > > > > > >On Nov 28, 4:24 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> colp says... > > >> >Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion > >> >relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their > >> >clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). > > >> You don't know what you are talking about. Relativity > >> is not about what this or that observer *sees*. > > >I was quoting the the following page: > >http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > >So what you are saying is that Ohio State university does not know > >what it is talking about. > > Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* > and a pop science description? That page is *not* a rigorous > derivation, it's a layman's introduction to the subject. You > can't deduce anything about the consistency of relativity from > a popular science article. > > It's as if you tried to solve some mystery about the life of > Julius Caesar by studying a picture book about him written > for eight-year olds. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail the twin paradox (well probably he is not into looking for answers...). The second figure in that web page, shows a detailed view of light signals as they are sent from Earth and from the ship (the Doppler shift). In the two rocket case the only thing to add is, on the right part of the figure, a mirror image along the t axis, to complete a parallelogram, and move the red and blue lines (from rocket 1) up until the intersection with the lines of rocket 2. Miguel Rios
From: Sue... on 27 Nov 2007 16:00
On Nov 27, 3:11 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 nov, 16:40, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > > > In article <6ed33a22-9b96-4304-967b-7e1b359c0...(a)d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > colp says... > > > >On Nov 28, 4:24 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > >wrote: > > >> colp says... > > > >> >Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion > > >> >relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their > > >> >clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). > > > >> You don't know what you are talking about. Relativity > > >> is not about what this or that observer *sees*. > > > >I was quoting the the following page: > > >http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html > > > >So what you are saying is that Ohio State university does not know > > >what it is talking about. > > > Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* > > and a pop science description? That page is *not* a rigorous > > derivation, it's a layman's introduction to the subject. You > > can't deduce anything about the consistency of relativity from > > a popular science article. > > > It's as if you tried to solve some mystery about the life of > > Julius Caesar by studying a picture book about him written > > for eight-year olds. > > > -- > > Daryl McCullough > > Ithaca, NY > > And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same > wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail > the twin paradox (well probably he is not into looking for > answers...). The second figure in that web page, shows a detailed view > of light signals as they are sent from Earth and from the ship (the > Doppler shift). In the two rocket case the only thing to add is, on > the right part of the figure, a mirror image along the t axis, to > complete a parallelogram, and move the red and blue lines (from rocket > 1) up until the intersection with the lines of rocket 2. Planes of simultaniety don't seem to be an effective way to translate from Lorenz to Coulomb gauge. Two papers were offered earlier in this thread and challenged with arguments on par with the football record of the author's alma mater. This is the more formal paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 and you might find this helpful too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing if you want to shed some light on what seems to be a simple thought experiment but become quite complex when real light is considerd. Sue... > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |