The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 30 Nov 2007 13:29 "paparios(a)gmail.com" <paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:b4955e4e-63a4-4b86-bbe3-c4c661540c97(a)t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > On 30 nov, 06:36, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote >> innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> > 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. An example of the is clock synchronisation for >> > GPS sattelites. >> >> But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent' >> under certain sets of circumstances. >> >> Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the >> logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'. >> >> The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither >> remarkable nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity. >> >> It is only indicative of a lack of understanding. >> >> I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole. >> The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than >> the pole. >> >> Paradox? >> >> Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light >> traveling in 'straight lines'. >> >> Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? Only to those ignorant of >> the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through >> time-space. >> >> -- >> bz >> >> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is >> an infinite set. >> >> bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > > While totally agreeing with your comments, I would also indicate that, > in many cases, those misunderstandings of SR and/or GR are mostly due > to poor or incomplete explanations from people who are assumed to know > the stuff. > For instance, when we say that time dilation or length compression is > seen from the point of view of an observer at rest (a kind of > perspective "illusion"), the logical question arises to whether this > view is or not "real" for the moving observer, thus producing more > confusion. Indeed, we add more confusion by indicating that the moving > observer will see nothing of this during the trip (he will not notice > this time dilation or length compression on himself). > Of course, the traveling twin (in my example going at v=0.6c) is > watching his surroundings and when he reaches his destination (for > instance a star at 6 light years) he will notice less time has passed > than the one calculated according to the rocket speed (8 years > according to his clock instead of 10 years) and so verifying the time > dilation experienced. > So regarding the twin paradox, while indicating that there is no > paradox at all, we should emphasize that the final result is as real > as it gets, and so the traveling twin is really younger than his > brother when he returns to Earth, the strange result not being just a > matter of perspective or geometry. well said. You might enjoy this article I found today. It seems apt. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/Galileans.html -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: colp on 1 Dec 2007 02:03 On Dec 1, 6:58 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > colp wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> What am I making up? > [...] > >>> 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. > > > Wrong. SR has nothing to say about non-inertial frames. > > > Special relativity (SR) (aka the special theory of relativity) is the > > physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference > > proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article "On the > > Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity > > Reading the page you cite, we find: > > Special relativity does not account for gravity, but > it can deal with accelerations. How does special relativity deal with accelerations? Cyclotron experiments have shown that, even at accelerations of 10^19 g (g = acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface), clock rates are unaffected. Only speed affects clock rates, but not acceleration per se. http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
From: colp on 1 Dec 2007 02:32 On Dec 1, 10:56 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >An observer can move between inertial frames, and the logic and math > >must apply equally in one frame as is does in another. > > >> Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the > >> logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'. > > >Reality does not require that observations only be made from a > >particular set of circumstances. > > I made this point in another post: You need to clearly > distinguish an *observer* from a *coordinate system*. If I described the experiences of an observer as a frame of reference then that is my mistake for not being clear. > The fact that an *observer* is accelerating, and changing > frames does not mean that a noninertial coordinate system > must be used. There is no problem in using an inertial > coordinate system to describe what is seen by an > accelerating observer. The question then becomes: Are the descriptions able to account for the time dilation of the inertial frames?
From: colp on 1 Dec 2007 02:35 On Dec 1, 1:29 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:caf344e3-e0e0-40dc-a6e3-06c0382cdac9(a)d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > On Nov 30, 10:36 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote > >> innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com > >> : > > >> > 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. An example of the is clock synchronisation for > >> > GPS sattelites. > > >> But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent' > >> under certain sets of circumstances. > > > I assume that you mean from within a single inertial frame of > > reference. > > Or follow the proper rules when changing frames. What are the rules for determining time dilation when changing frames?
From: Bryan Olson on 1 Dec 2007 03:11
colp wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> colp wrote: >>> Bryan Olson wrote: >>>> colp wrote: >>>>> What am I making up? >> [...] >>>>> 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. >>> Wrong. SR has nothing to say about non-inertial frames. >>> Special relativity (SR) (aka the special theory of relativity) is the >>> physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference >>> proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article "On the >>> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity >> Reading the page you cite, we find: >> >> Special relativity does not account for gravity, but >> it can deal with accelerations. > > How does special relativity deal with accelerations? In the way that I and other have been citing and explaining over and over and over. When changing frames, account for the difference in synchronization between the old frame and the new frame. Different frames have different views of the ordering of distant events. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > Cyclotron experiments have shown that, even at accelerations of 10^19 [...] > http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp You had just cited an article saying SR can deal with acceleration, even though you were claiming, "SR has nothing to say about non-inertial frames." More arbitrary web pages that you do not understand are unlikely to help, be they right or wrong. There's a good explanation by Einstein himself, right where I've been telling you. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is SR and what you are spewing is not SR. As Harry told you: When you finally open your mind and look into relativity of simultaneity, you may finally "get it". Otherwise, you won't. Ever. -- --Bryan |