The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 1 Dec 2007 03:25 On Dec 1, 9:11 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > 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. The application of that techniques in the example would lead to absurdity - eg radio signals that had already been sent would have to change in order to represent the observed time of the remote twin after the twin had changed frames. The bottom line is that relativity can't account for the time dilation observed by a twin when the twins clocks must agree at the end of the experiment.
From: Sue... on 1 Dec 2007 03:44 On Nov 30, 7:29 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. > > > > > An observer can move between inertial frames, and the logic and math > > must apply equally in one frame as is does in another. > > Follow the proper rules when changing from one to another. > Daryl showed you the figures. Daryl's rules are derived from the assumption of Newton's ether. If we follow them there should be a violation of PoR. Oh yeah... There was! One of his twins had longer hair than the other. > > >> 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. > > But it does require that you wear the same watch OR you change watches OR > you change the watches settings when you change time zones. > > Changing direction of travel in your example is much like changing time > zones. Yes... It is like changing zones IF you assume Newton's absolute space. I didn't realise that Einstein supported that notion. > > You want to keep your watch set the same even though you changed time > zones, > > AND THEN you complain when you end up missing your appointments and blame > the watch. > > It isn't the watches fault. > > Reality does NOT require that observations only be made from a particular > frame of reference, but logic and math requires that you take the fact you > have change iFoRs into account. Science requires we use the same kind of light when comparing frames. This becomes very difficult when Einstein uses a type of light which exists only between his ears. <<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html > > You refuse to take the change into account and then complain about the > results you get. > > >> The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither > >> remarkable nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity. > > > It is a problem for relativity because relativity is supposed to > > describe what happens in reality. > > It does, when you follow the rules. > > When you break the rules don't expect the results to describe what happens > in reality. > > >> 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? > > > Apparently. > > No. Not a paradox. A failure to understand perspective. It IS a *paradox* (MATH ERROR) just as surely as the missing dollar paradox. You can't formally account for time using simple algebra, when wave and point-particle models are mixed . We are still waiting to hear if ball players from Brussells are as good as ball players from Russia. ;-) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 Pierseaux http://www.ulb.ac.be/homepage_uk.html (For Bz) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 Jackson http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 Okun This is no slight issue. Jackson and Okun have written numerous papers in the past 20 years where there is widespread misunderstanding in the physics community. But they seem to fall on blind eyes where the H.G Wells sect is concerned. > > > But if I travel to the mountain (by changing my frame of > > reference) I notice that the poles appear to get smaller compared to > > the mountain > > It gets bigger! It gets SMALLER when you travel away from the mountain. > > > and I become aware of perspective effects. > > You have to PASS the pole before it gets smaller, in your rear view mirror. > > But the mountain looking closer does NOT mean that you have traveled toward > it. > > You might be looking through a telescope. > > You see the mountain as bigger [the pole is bigger too, but you ignore that > fact] and then complain about the paradox that the mountain is closer but > you haven't moved an inch. > > That is exactly the same kind of 'mixing and matching' of facts that you > keep doing in order to sustain the illusion that there is a paradox. > > >> Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light > >> traveling in 'straight lines'. > > >> Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? > > > If only delta t = gamma delta t0 is applied to the paradox in the OP > > then the paradox is real because gamma is always greater than one. > > If you try to drive by looking in the rear view mirror, you will have > paradoxes too. You are trying to restrict the tools that can be used. > > Why complain when that hammer doesn't do a good job of putting those wood > screws into place when there is a perfectly good screw driver sitting right > next to the hammer? You can use the hammer to START the screw and then use > the screwdriver, or you can predrill the screw hole with a countersink bit. > > The wood you are using is really TOO hard for driving in screws with a > hammer, yet you persist in banging away and complaining that the hammer is > poorly made and the screws are bending and breaking. > > You skipped the sudden jump in counts when you jumped from one iFoR to the > other. Daryl has pointed it out to you and you ignore it. > > >> Only to those ignorant of > >> the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through > >> time-space. > > > So what is it that you think that I am ignorant of? > > I begin to think you are feigning. Colp obviously realises that a 3 legged stool is always level and a 4 legged stool in never level. > > > I am told that I can't 'mix and match' observations which are made > > from different inertial frames of reference. Yet reality does not > > limit observers from changing frames and making conclusions based on > > their observations. > > They are free to change frames, as long as they take into account the fact > that they have 'changed time zones' when they do change frames. > You continue to refuse to do that. > > What joy do you get out of the game you are playing? Are LiGO and GP-B and Tevatron games? You should be writing your government; not posting to usenet. :o) Kind regards, Sue... > > -- > bz
From: Bryan Olson on 1 Dec 2007 03:54 colp wrote: > On Dec 1, 9:11 pm, Bryan Olson wrote: >> 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. > > The application of that techniques in the example would lead to > absurdity - > eg radio signals that had already been sent would have to > change in order to represent the observed time of the remote twin > after the twin had changed frames. In an odd time-reversal phenomenon, I responded to the above almost a week ago: Yeah, your situation is absurd alright. So let's use SR instead: I get the same signal, the same photos, regardless of my direction. When I change inertial frames, I change the frame in which I observe light moving at c. The frames agree about what signal is currently arriving, but disagree about how long ago that signal left my twin. > The bottom line is that relativity can't account for the time dilation > observed by a twin when the twins clocks must agree at the end of the > experiment. SR can. You, well, not while you're trying so hard to stay ignorant. -- --Bryan
From: Sue... on 1 Dec 2007 04:56 On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] BTW... There is a recent, well informed post on sci.physics.research that discusses some of the causes of errors in the GPS. I realise you would take the opposite view but it left me no confidence that the 7us/day correction can be attributed to predicted motional effects wrt earth. Even if a science quality geostationary oscillator was avalible as we discussed it might take a Ouji board to pull the signal out of the system's phase noise. Where is Tom Roberts with his error bars when ya need him? ;-) The Sagnac interferometer at Wettzell http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/G/LaserGyros.html is now integrated with GPS so might be a good source of data to settle that sort of issue without need for a dedicated SV or heaven-forbid you and I have to take your 100Khz crystal calibrator up there ourselves and show 'em how it's done. ;-) Sue... > -- > bz
From: Dono on 1 Dec 2007 12:10
On Nov 30, 11:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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 http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node59.html |