From: Sue... on
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

"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
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

"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
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