The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bryan Olson on 30 Nov 2007 00:39 kenseto wrote: > "Daryl McCullough" wrote: >> Sue... says... >> >>> The page shows a young twin beside an old twin after >>> one twin has traveled. >>> Does one of the twins have a medical disorder or is the page >>> it offering argument against the principle of relativity? >> One twin looks older because he is *older*. He has lived longer. >> The "time" that is important for physical processes is not >> coordinate time, but *proper* time. > This would mean that you are comparing twin A's clock second directly with > traveling twin B's clock second. Such comparison is not valid. In SR the > passage of A's clock second corresponds to the passage of 1/gamma B clock > second. No Ken; it means one twin has experienced more time passing than has the other. -- --Bryan
From: Sue... on 30 Nov 2007 01:55 On Nov 29, 4:06 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Sue... says... > > > > > > >On Nov 29, 3:41 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: - > >> I have no idea why you think that passage supports your claim. > >> Here's another article that explains what I was saying: > > >> http://www.iep.utm.edu/ancillaries/Proper-Time.htm > > >> "Proper time is also called clock time, or process time. > >> It is a measure of the amount of physical process that a > >> system undergoes. E.g. proper time for an ordinary mechanical > >> clock is recorded by the number of rotations of the hands of > >> the clock." << Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists. >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > >> As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. > > >The semantic operator is not functional in physics > >(or any other branch of science) > > Whatever. You don't understand anything at all about > physics, especially relativity. There is nothing *wrong* > with that, most people don't understand technical topics > in science. There is nothing particularly *technical* about the rigid co-ordinate system, necessary for the temporal values you derive. It follows from some basic relations known for over 2000 years and formally taught to middle school students today: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l1b.html It becomes more *technical* when the observed finite speed of light runs counter to the existence of such a coordinate system as a physical entity. << Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the special physical position of the states of motion of the inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. It makes the observable material bodies responsible for the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour of the material point but devises the cause for it (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically inadmissible although it is ===> unsatisfactory. <=== >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Simple abandon of Newton's light along with Newton's inertial ether removes the conflict. > But most people are not as thoroughly dishonest > as you are. They don't *pretend* to understand what they > clearly don't understand. One does not have to put on any great pretense to be credible at identifying the use of a rigid co-ordinate system where the theory which you are misrepresenting denies its existance. "It is middle school algegra." > > You are too lazy to actually learn what relativity says, > and too arrogant to realize that that makes your opinions > about it completely worthless. > Many thanks for the highest compliment a pseudo-scientist can offer. :-) http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bryan Olson on 30 Nov 2007 03:59 colp wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: >> Colp, if you want to complain about what Special Relativity >> says about the situation, you *MUST* understand what Special >> Relativity says. You can't just make stuff up and then complain >> that it doesn't make sense. > > What am I making up? > > SR says that time dilation is observed for a relativistically moving > clock when the observer is in an inertial frame. > That time dilation is observed regardless of whether the clock is > moving closer or moving away. > When A is moving away from B, A observes that B's time is dilated. > When A is moving towards B, A observes that B's time is dilated. > When A & B meet their clocks are the same. > For their clocks to be the same time, A must have observed that B's > time was compressed at some stage. > SR does not describe time compression. That you made up. According to SR, A's change it frames will result in A seeing B's age jump forward. You've made up other bits too, as we've pointed out. > Your descriptions of the events from the three frames appear to be > self-consistent and I do not contest them. The challenge for you is to *learn* from them. There's a broader lesson here than that relativity is consistent and you had some details wrong. >> In any *given* coordinate system, the facts are >> perfectly consistent. But if you try to mix and >> match facts from one coordinate system with facts >> from another coordinate system, you get nonsense, >> just as if you switched from using inches to using >> centimeters in the middle of a calculation. > > That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one > coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other > coordinate systems. That nonsense is all your own. > An example of the is clock synchronisation for GPS > sattelites. Where relativity is right yet again. -- --Bryan
From: Daryl McCullough on 30 Nov 2007 09:16 Sue... says... >http://www.iep.utm.edu/ancillaries/Proper-Time.htm >> >> >> "Proper time is also called clock time, or process time. >> >> It is a measure of the amount of physical process that a >> >> system undergoes. E.g. proper time for an ordinary mechanical >> >> clock is recorded by the number of rotations of the hands of >> >> the clock." > ><< Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which >many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions Which is exactly what you've done. The definition of "proper time" used by relativity is completely precise: tau = integral of square-root(g_uv dx^u dx^v) It has nothing to do with "distant clocks". You are a charlatan. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 30 Nov 2007 09:55
On Nov 30, 9:16 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Sue... says... > > >http://www.iep.utm.edu/ancillaries/Proper-Time.htm > > >> >> "Proper time is also called clock time, or process time. > >> >> It is a measure of the amount of physical process that a > >> >> system undergoes. E.g. proper time for an ordinary mechanical > >> >> clock is recorded by the number of rotations of the hands of > >> >> the clock." > > ><< Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which > >many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions > > Which is exactly what you've done. The definition of "proper > time" used by relativity is completely precise: > > tau = integral of square-root(g_uv dx^u dx^v) > > It has nothing to do with "distant clocks". It CAN have to do with both distance clocks and near clocks. << Figure 3: The wave impedance measures the relative strength of electric and magnetic fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >> Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html But you will have to give up light particles or take up QED if you hope to resolve your paradox without resort to the supernatural. I suggest you walk befor you run: Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html > > You are a charlatan. There is only ONE issue in the original post. You don't need to withdraw you argument THREE times. :o) Sue... > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY |