The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 15:45 On Nov 23, 6:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote in messagenews:47446186$0$27132$9b4e6d93(a)newsspool1.arcor-online.net... > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> schrieb > > im Newsbeitragnews:tWT0j.217820$gM5.12435682(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > >> "colp" <c...(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. > The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 22 Nov 2007 15:53 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082-89f9-40c64df6ef3b(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 6:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> See my reply to colp. >> > > The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an > indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. I don't understand what you mean with "The "other there!" response." I also have not seen "a request for an argument". I agree that "Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run slower than each other" But "when the clocks are in the same frame of reference", they don't move with respect to each other, so they are also not "observed to run slower than each other". Have you tried drawing that diagram? Dirk Vdm
From: Sue... on 22 Nov 2007 16:03 On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082-89f9-40c64df6ef3b(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 23, 6:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> See my reply to colp. > > > The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an > > indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both > > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is > > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus > > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. > > I don't understand what you mean with > "The "other there!" response." > > I also have not seen > "a request for an argument". > > I agree that > "Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run > slower than each other" > But "when the clocks are in the same frame of reference", they > don't move with respect to each other, so they are also not > "observed to run slower than each other". > << Have you tried drawing that diagram? >> "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was already present when he borrowed it." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html Learn what a space-time interval represents: << Note: if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. >> http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html Did the math quizzlers group trip you up on the missing dollar paradox again ? Sue... > > Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 22 Nov 2007 16:08 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:bb3238a1-8f98-4ce0-8723-cb30072f8e8b(a)s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 5:16 am, Mike Fontenot <mlf...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> >> > [...] Special relativity only covers inertial frames, not the >> > turnaround. >> >> That's a common misconception. Special relativity is perfectly >> capable of handling all situations involving any kind of motion, >> provided there are no large masses involved. > > Link, please. For instance http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/AccelTwinViewpoints.html etc. > >> >> > What has the separation distance got to do with observed time >> > variations? >> >> My CADO equation (that I described in my previous response) answers >> that question. > > Well your equation can't be based on special relativity then. > Separation distance is not a factor in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald time > dilation equation. It is, when you use special relativity to describe motion as seen from an accelerating frame, by using the instantaneously comoving inertial frames. It is complicated, difficult, and pretty advanced, but it works. See http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/AccelTwinViewpoints.html But having looked at your other contributions, I think you should first try to understand the basic stuff. [copy and follow-up to sci.physics.relativity] Dirk Vdm
From: Bryan Olson on 22 Nov 2007 16:53
Ken Seto wrote: > [...] 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. On the other hand, a second observer, in the frame of the 'moving' clock, sees the first observer's clock running slow. So what's the deal on this "absolute time"? In one frame, clock A's second contains "a larger amount of absolute time" than clock B's second, while in another frame, clock B's second contains more of this "absolute" time than clock A's. At best, "absolute" seems a poor word choice. -Bryan |