The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 28 Nov 2007 04:56 On Nov 28, 4:40 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:a32da81e-30d8-4242-811e-d233128dfc71(a)s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 27, 9:55 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > > wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:3f691012-f547-4146-8a75-b3796fcc60f9(a)s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Nov 27, 1:05 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > >> > wrote: > >> >> One last attempt ... > > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:81a29c49-6048-4f2d-87fd-b59380b5dd98(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Nov 25, 5:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> colp says... > > >> >> >> >The point is that a paradox exists due to the time dilation > >> >> >> >expected > >> >> >> >by SR. > > >> >> >> No, there is no paradox in the sense of contradiction. > > >> >> > The contradiction between SR prediction ant reality is described > >> >> > below: > > >> >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in > >> >> > this > >> >> > experiment 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. > > >> >> Sure. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> There is no need for that, and this has been explained to you from the > >> >> very > >> >> start. > > >> > What has been explained from the very start? > > >> That there is no need for an observation that "shows that the other clock > >> is > >> running fast". > > > The fact that SR pedicts that such an observation can be made is part > > of the paradox. Ignoring the observation means ignoring the paradox. > > No, SRT doesn't really predict such an observation, see below. SR *does* address clocks that are moving toward each other. "General results of the Theory" http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html ....And this machine confirms the prediction. http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHIC Sue... > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: harry on 28 Nov 2007 05:23 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:873636c4-2a93-4f87-88a4-19394f1d85f3(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 28, 4:40 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:a32da81e-30d8-4242-811e-d233128dfc71(a)s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 27, 9:55 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> >> > wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:3f691012-f547-4146-8a75-b3796fcc60f9(a)s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Nov 27, 1:05 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> One last attempt ... >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:81a29c49-6048-4f2d-87fd-b59380b5dd98(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Nov 25, 5:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >> >The point is that a paradox exists due to the time dilation >> >> >> >> >expected >> >> >> >> >by SR. >> >> >> >> >> No, there is no paradox in the sense of contradiction. >> >> >> >> > The contradiction between SR prediction ant reality is described >> >> >> > below: >> >> >> >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in >> >> >> > this >> >> >> > experiment 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. >> >> >> >> Sure. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> There is no need for that, and this has been explained to you from >> >> >> the >> >> >> very >> >> >> start. >> >> >> > What has been explained from the very start? >> >> >> That there is no need for an observation that "shows that the other >> >> clock >> >> is >> >> running fast". >> >> > The fact that SR pedicts that such an observation can be made is part >> > of the paradox. Ignoring the observation means ignoring the paradox. >> >> No, SRT doesn't really predict such an observation, see below. > > SR *does* address clocks that are moving toward each other. > "General results of the Theory" > http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html Where "are the clocks seen to be running fast"? > ...And this machine confirms the prediction. > > http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHIC > > Sue... > >> Harald- > > Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >
From: Sue... on 28 Nov 2007 06:18 On Nov 28, 5:23 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:873636c4-2a93-4f87-88a4-19394f1d85f3(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 4:40 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > > wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:a32da81e-30d8-4242-811e-d233128dfc71(a)s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On Nov 27, 9:55 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:3f691012-f547-4146-8a75-b3796fcc60f9(a)s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Nov 27, 1:05 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> One last attempt ... > > >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:81a29c49-6048-4f2d-87fd-b59380b5dd98(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Nov 25, 5:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> colp says... > > >> >> >> >> >The point is that a paradox exists due to the time dilation > >> >> >> >> >expected > >> >> >> >> >by SR. > > >> >> >> >> No, there is no paradox in the sense of contradiction. > > >> >> >> > The contradiction between SR prediction ant reality is described > >> >> >> > below: > > >> >> >> > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in > >> >> >> > this > >> >> >> > experiment 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. > > >> >> >> Sure. > > >> >> >> > 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. > > >> >> >> There is no need for that, and this has been explained to you from > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> very > >> >> >> start. > > >> >> > What has been explained from the very start? > > >> >> That there is no need for an observation that "shows that the other > >> >> clock > >> >> is > >> >> running fast". > > >> > The fact that SR pedicts that such an observation can be made is part > >> > of the paradox. Ignoring the observation means ignoring the paradox. > > >> No, SRT doesn't really predict such an observation, see below. > > > SR *does* address clocks that are moving toward each other. > > "General results of the Theory" > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html > > Where "are the clocks seen to be running fast"? They don't actually attach clocks to the gold atoms because less than 1 gram is used in 20 years which is barely enough to plate one Rolex. :o) It is the various calorimeters that confirm the clock, if it could be attached it would have to be gamma corrected to agree with the measured energy. << Computer simulation of two gold ions immediately after colliding head-on at an energy of 200 billion electron volts (200 GeV). >> http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/heavy_ion.htm << Since the COM frame (also called center-of-momentum frame) is chosen as the frame to measure the mass of most compound objects, Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2 continues to apply in these circumstances. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass Sue... > > > > > ...And this machine confirms the prediction. > > >http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/ > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHIC > > > Sue... > > >> Harald-
From: harry on 28 Nov 2007 09:34 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:cc00974d-5121-463a-ad2d-5fa18a20f767(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 28, 5:23 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> [...] >> >> > The fact that SR pedicts that such an observation can be made is >> >> > part >> >> > of the paradox. Ignoring the observation means ignoring the paradox. >> >> >> No, SRT doesn't really predict such an observation, see below. >> >> > SR *does* address clocks that are moving toward each other. >> > "General results of the Theory" >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html >> >> Where "are the clocks seen to be running fast"? > > They don't actually attach clocks to the gold atoms > because less than 1 gram is used in 20 years which > is barely enough to plate one Rolex. :o) > > It is the various calorimeters that confirm > the clock, if it could be attached it would have to > be gamma corrected to agree with the measured > energy. :-)))
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 09:54
colp says... > >> 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 > >You are supporting my original argument by quoting that page. The >specific example on that page uses the same formula and methodology as >I used when I showed Dirk's error in the OP. That page explains in many different ways why the twin paradox is *not* a paradox, why it's perfectly consistent. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |