The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 09:56 colp says... > >On Nov 28, 8:40 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* >> and a pop science description? > >A mathemaitcal derivation is an abstract symbolic represenatation of >the relationships which are the essence of the idea, while a pop >science desciption is an interpretation of the idea in common >language. Well, you are basing your arguments about Special Relativity on pop science, not the actual mathematics of relativity. That makes your arguments bullshit. If you want to prove that Special Relativity is inconsistent, start with the postulates of relativity, and derive an inconsistency. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 10:02 colp says... >> 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. > >Straw man. No, it's not. Your understanding of relativity is at the comic book level. You don't *actually* know what relativity says, or how to derive anything from the postulates of relativity. Your arguments are therefore completely worthless. *Completely* worthless. If you actually took the hour or so it would take to learn what relativity *actually* says, you would see that your arguments are nonsense. The problem is that you are either unwilling to do any actual work, or are unable to do the high school level mathematics necessary to understand relativity. Try working through the derivation of the Lorentz transformations from Einstein's postulates. Try working through the derivation showing that the Lorentz transformations lead to time dilation. If you want to overthrow the physics establishment, you have to actually do some *work*. Crackpots like you are a sad combination of lazy and arrogant. They are too lazy to actually learn any real science, and too arrogant to realize that this makes their opinions worthless. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 28 Nov 2007 12:49 On Nov 27, 10:24 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). << As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day. >> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html The sign of this shift has been a source of confusion in much of the literature because it can be taken as a shifting photon in experiments like the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment where their is actually atomic absorbtion and emission. << The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift, is described in the literature essentially in two ways: on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the clock. On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed (even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive body. This second approach operates with notions such as the "gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and we assert that it is misleading. We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially a pedagogical one. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 <<In order to directly demonstrate that in static gravitational field the rate of clocks increases with their distance from the source a simple thought experiment is proposed. >> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0010256 Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (April 1, 1960). "Apparent weight of photons". Physical Review Letters 4 (7): 337-341. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v4/i7/p337_1 ^ Pound, R. V.; Snider J. L. (November 2, 1964). "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters 13 (18): 539-540. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/p539 Sue...
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 14:23 On Nov 29, 4:02 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >> 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. > > >Straw man. > > No, it's not. It is a straw man because the theory of relativity is not a mystery and the university article is not from a picture book for eight year olds.
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 14:28
On Nov 29, 3:56 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > >On Nov 28, 8:40 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* > >> and a pop science description? > > >A mathemaitcal derivation is an abstract symbolic represenatation of > >the relationships which are the essence of the idea, while a pop > >science desciption is an interpretation of the idea in common > >language. > > Well, you are basing your arguments about Special Relativity > on pop science, not the actual mathematics of relativity. Wrong. delta t = gamma delta t0 is relativistic mathematics. The formula is used the same way as I use it as in the worked example of the classic twin paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Specific_example |