The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 2 Dec 2007 21:38 On Dec 2, 5:16 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:6c37bff6-2a61-4b85-948b-57b3d24b834b(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 3:14 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:873636c4-2a93-4f87-88a4-19394f1d85f3(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > >> > SR *does* address clocks that are moving toward each other. > >> > "General results of the Theory" > > >> random citation by Sue, only relevance is that it mentions SR > > >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html > > >> [quote] > > >> Sue says that ONLY light clocks obey Einstein-Lorentz time > >> equation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time[which 'she' has cited > >> recently as a source of wisdom] > >> show the equations of SR and how they can be derived using GR. > > >> It also shows the so-called twin paradox, and how it can be worked. > > >> There is no hint that 'proper time' only applies to light clocks. > >> In fact, such a suggestion would seem to be highly 'improper', to me. > > > Are you offering argument that the semantic operator > > should be acceptable in mathematics? > > So, you are anti semantic? Semantics IS a math. But, I was just trying to > make an appropriated pun. > > > I think you know > > that it isn't. > > > When using *time* in an expression, it is meaningless > > without a process. Read the NIST definition of *second*. > > I am well aware that modern science is based upon operational definitions. > That does NOT mean surgery is required to understand that more than one > kind of clock should show the rate predicted by E-LT when viewed from > another iFoR. > > >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > > > I won't even defend my statement in the > > context you offer it because you failed to port relevant > > context with your quotes. > > Perhaps too much port on your part? Try two points to starboard, on your > next tack. > > > I think you know better. (I am not > > sure Einstein did know better, at least in 1905) > > In this Hyperphysics page approprate context IS > > included: (pictures too) > > > << A clock in a moving frame will be seen to be > > running slow, or "dilated" according to the Lorentz > > transformation. The time will always be shortest as > > measured in its rest frame. The time measured in the > > frame in which the clock is at rest is called the > > "proper time". >> > >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html > > All the calculations on that page seem to support my contention and refute > yours. Where does it say 'these calculations only apply to a light clock'? The word *seen* implys a light path. > > > > > Is it clear to you that the light-path is the > > only element which can change to conform to > > the equations? > > Light-path and light clock are different animals. > > Information is conveyed via light paths but the information can be > from a balance clock, a quartz clock, an atomic clock, an hour glass, > decaying radioactive particles or a light clock [but not a sundial, it is > too heavy to be a light clock]. > > Atomic clocks are NOT light clocks although they use light from the atomic > transition to tick off the time. Yet they appear to tick slower as they > move faster. OK... Forget the atomic clock. Use a synchronous motor clock with a verrrrry long cord. > > If your theory were right, a light clock oriented parallel to the > direction of travel and one oriented perpendicular to the direction of > travel, built into the same clock case, carried on a space ship, would > each give the SAME time to someone riding on the ship but would > report different times to someone 'at rest' with respect to the moving > ship. > This clearly is not going to happen. Vector additon is not a theory and it is not my idea. Ya never did get the correct solution to the round trip airplane in the wind did ya? A good job you are not an airplane pilot. http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html > > > > Whether the clock moves away from the observer > > or the observer moves away from the clock, > > the same equations should work. Eh ? > > Yep. As long as they are in iFoRs. Who said any thing about inertia? Light is massless. > > > That is not the case if we > > allow a balance clock to respond to > > an accelerating force. > > (The force is balanced on the wheel) > > That, of course, requires leaving an iFoR and going from SR to GR (for > easy math). No it doesn't. It requires a bicycle. With the crank horizontal, apply equal force on each pedal. Loan me your credit card 'till the crank responds to your force by turning. > > Then, it does, IF the balance wheel is correctly built and the > acceleration is constant. My watch keeps good time, no matter what > direction gravity is pulling on it. Exactly! I'll even bet it stays close to a synchronous motor clock too. > > > That is not the case for the Fizeau > > light-clock moving in dielectric media. > > (the dielectric provides a preferred frame of > > reference) > > So, you really DO think that a clock oriented parallel to the direction of > travel will keep different time than ones perpendicular to the direction > of travel, AS SEEN BY someone riding with the clocks! I never said that. A constant wind from ANY direction slow the round trip time of an aircraft. (Fizeau moving media) http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html > > I doubt that anyone except HW, KS, and A few others would agree with you > on that idea. Google "ultrasonic anometer" > > > That would not be the case if light > > could move inertially. (many of Einstein's > > contemporaties and perhaps Einstein too thought > > that light did move inertially) > > [as far as I know] Einstein thought that the speed of light was > independent of the motion of the source. [as far as I know] Einstein (and > others) thought (and still think) that light carries 'inertia' Ahhhh HAAAA! <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Ya ever see a searchlight recoil when it is switched on? > or more > properly 'momentum' in the form of energy and even responds to the force > of gravity, but not as if it had 'mass equivalent to the energy' _and_ > traveled as Newton would have predicted. Light carries *angular* momementum. 360 degrees of it. http://particleadventure.org/frameless/fermibos.html Light matches every push with an equivalent pull. Result: Dipoles dosey-doe or spin. The trajectory of their CM is unaffected. > > > The speed of light would be violated) > > I think that is one too many ')' marks. Not sure where the opening '(' was > supposed. And not sure how the speed of light can be violated. Should we > call for a kit to investigate the violation? > > > Rather than play word games to *win* > > an argument or nurture a popular myth you > > can gain some insight to the paradox if > > you'll ask what role the light path plays > > with each scenario and each clock type. > > > If a clock is supposed to slow whether > > moving to or from the observer, only > > the Fizeau light clock has the necessary > > elements. An observer *receeding* with it > > > > clock and therefor indicating the > > *proper-time* at home. > > NO! An observer *receeding* with it will see the stay-at-home clock slowed > by doppler shift. It takes TIME for those pulses to travel from the > stay-at-home clock to the moving clock. The two clocks will definitely NOT > stay 'in-sync'. Not even clocks influenced by the dialectric of space can > do as you just described. > > Your statement requires the moving clock to slow in proportion to the > distance away from the stay at home clock AND the velocity. OOps! Apply the gamma correction to know the Proper Time at home. But the light-clock and the stay home clock appear in sync to the traveler. They are not in sync with his synchronous motor clock on the loooooong cord. Distance should not be involed but but my misplaced gamma may have made it seem that way in math-speak. > > You would have light clocks carried to the moon by slow transport slowed > by the trip, by about 1.283 seconds. That idea is so messed up I can't > politely describe it. > > Not even A would make such a suggestion. Gimme a gamma mulligan gosh durnit. > > > > > You may recognise, a moving clock is not > > even required to derive the equation: > >http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~mbarbato/Remote%20Sensing_files/page0003... > > ...but a light path IS required. > > Right. No clock at all required, but the equations derived are in t and > tau, which represent time, and unless I am mistaken, put NO restrictions > upon how time is measured [with the notable exceptions of the pendulum > clocks and sundials being excluded]. No mass involed AT ALL. It is all path effects. It is all angular momentum. > > No claim is made that the any apparent discrepancy in clock readings is > 'actual' UNLESS the clocks are brought back together. In such a case, the > claim, consistently made, and as far as I know, verified by all > experiments to date, is that the distance traveled through space-time is > 'invariant', therefor a clock that accumulates more 'mileage' on the > space-o-meter necessarily accumulates less 'mileage' on the time-o-meter. The light clock is *designed* to slow with speed wrt the dielectric, so no expection it would match the synchronoous motor clock ever again. And no way to catch up the ticks it looses. > > > What Einstein says about inertia in 1905 is not the same > > in 1920 and neither may be totally on-the-mark. > > Your claims seem to miss the mark, entire. > > > > <<One may define a quantity which is divergence free > > analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor > > of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent: i.e., > > it is not covariant under general coordinate transformations. > > Consequently the fact that it is divergence free does not > > yield a meaningful law of local energy conservation. > > Thus one has, as Hilbert saw it, in such theories > > `improper energy theorems.' >> > >http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html > > Interesting reading, but I have NOT read anywhere anything she appears to > have said that would back up your claims. My claims are: 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html 2 <<it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html Are those considered heretical statements in the cult of Einstein? Sue... > > -- > bz
From: bz on 2 Dec 2007 21:12 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:fe8303b9-2949-4f98-9760-443ea6e63fe8(a)j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 2, 4:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:082bfdf7-28b0-46c5-9d09-26cb2f790bf3(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 2, 1:48 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in >> >> news:6bad4ee2-091c-4c19-baa3- >> >> ba76f89af...(a)e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> Put pencil to paper before you make such silly statements. >> >> > My pencil isn't that sharp. >> >> >> Due to the speed of light, a 7 us / day represents an error of ~ >> >> 2.099 km / day in apparent satellite location. >> >> > OK thanks for the calc. Well... maybe it wouldn't take a Ouji board >> > with the geostationary control. >> >> >> The ACTUAL satellite location (it travels at about 3.47 km/s) would >> >> only be off by about 1 inch but it be saying it was 2 km away from >> >> its actual location. >> >> >> Somehow, I suspect that a 2 km per day error in satellite position >> >> [or a 7 us error in the time it reports] would be noticeable. >> >> > I think it is all lumped into the pre-launch correction and servo'd >> > thereafter. >> >> BBBBut, according to sue or her relatives (relativity according to >> sue), the on board clock should run at the same rate it sees the ground >> based clock running. > > > > My view is: > Motion far from a planet will not affect an atomic clock. My view is that THAT view is WRONG. Remember, Einstein's theory is criticized because it is only 'truly valid' in empty space. Gravity and other masses add other effects that can often be ignored (such as gravity can often be ignored when the g field is constant over the area of the experiment). That would imply to me that 'Motion far from a planet' would be MORE likely to affect an atomic clock [and all other clocks]. Motion near a planet might add complications, NOT subtract the Einstein effects. > A nearby planet will slow an atomic clock. > (Pound-Rebka-Snider) Yep. But it doesn't prevent relativistic slowing to ALSO take place near or far from a planet. > > A nearby spinning planet *may* slow an atomic clock even more. > (Neil Ashby, Cliff Will) Yep. But it doesn't prevent relativistic slowing from also taking place, near or far from a planet. > Even tho the cesium clocks are not *designed* as > Sagnac interferometers they can resond to the Sagnac effect. > That complicates the issue even more. Having several effects that add algebraically is NOT particularly 'complicated'. People walking around the edge of a merry-go-round (at a constant speed wrt the 'fixed' frame in which the merry-go-round turns) exhibit the Sagnac effect. [quote http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm] Hence equation (5) is exact only for continuously specified paths, such as are given by an optical fiber (or people walking along a continuous path painted on a rotating platform). [unquote] ANY kind of moving clock will do so. You argue very persuasively AGAINST your thesis. You have convinced me that if relativity works in the Earths G field it will definitely work is space, far away from Earth. [conversely, you convince me that IF relativity fails in deep space, matter must also lose its inerta.] Maybe there is a 'slight' effect toward that end and we call the results of that effect 'dark matter'. But, doesn't 'dark matter' make things respond MORE inertially, rather than less inertially? Oh well. That is food for another thread. -- 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: Sue... on 2 Dec 2007 22:23 On Dec 2, 9:12 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:fe8303b9-2949-4f98-9760-443ea6e63fe8(a)j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 4:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:082bfdf7-28b0-46c5-9d09-26cb2f790bf3(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com > >> : > > >> > On Dec 2, 1:48 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > >> >> news:6bad4ee2-091c-4c19-baa3- > >> >> ba76f89af...(a)e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> Put pencil to paper before you make such silly statements. > > >> > My pencil isn't that sharp. > > >> >> Due to the speed of light, a 7 us / day represents an error of ~ > >> >> 2.099 km / day in apparent satellite location. > > >> > OK thanks for the calc. Well... maybe it wouldn't take a Ouji board > >> > with the geostationary control. > > >> >> The ACTUAL satellite location (it travels at about 3.47 km/s) would > >> >> only be off by about 1 inch but it be saying it was 2 km away from > >> >> its actual location. > > >> >> Somehow, I suspect that a 2 km per day error in satellite position > >> >> [or a 7 us error in the time it reports] would be noticeable. > > >> > I think it is all lumped into the pre-launch correction and servo'd > >> > thereafter. > > >> BBBBut, according to sue or her relatives (relativity according to > >> sue), the on board clock should run at the same rate it sees the ground > >> based clock running. > > > My view is: > > Motion far from a planet will not affect an atomic clock. > > My view is that THAT view is WRONG. Remember, Einstein's theory is > criticized because it is only 'truly valid' in empty space. > Gravity and other masses add other effects that can often be ignored (such > as gravity can often be ignored when the g field is constant over the area > of the experiment). > > That would imply to me that 'Motion far from a planet' would be MORE likely > to affect an atomic clock [and all other clocks]. > Motion near a planet might add complications, NOT subtract the Einstein > effects. > > > A nearby planet will slow an atomic clock. > > (Pound-Rebka-Snider) > > Yep. But it doesn't prevent relativistic slowing to ALSO take place near or > far from a planet. > > > > > A nearby spinning planet *may* slow an atomic clock even more. > > (Neil Ashby, Cliff Will) > > Yep. But it doesn't prevent relativistic slowing from also taking place, > near or far from a planet. > > > Even tho the cesium clocks are not *designed* as > > Sagnac interferometers they can resond to the Sagnac effect. > > That complicates the issue even more. > > Having several effects that add algebraically is NOT particularly > 'complicated'. > > People walking around the edge of a merry-go-round (at a constant speed wrt > the 'fixed' frame in which the merry-go-round turns) exhibit the Sagnac > effect. > > [quotehttp://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm] > Hence equation (5) is exact only for continuously specified paths, such as > are given by an optical fiber (or people walking along a continuous path > painted on a rotating platform). > [unquote] > > ANY kind of moving clock will do so. > > You argue very persuasively AGAINST your thesis. > > You have convinced me that if relativity works in the Earths G field it > will definitely work is space, far away from Earth. > [conversely, you convince me that IF relativity fails in deep space, matter > must also lose its inerta.] > > Maybe there is a 'slight' effect toward that end and we call the results of > that effect 'dark matter'. > > But, doesn't 'dark matter' make things respond MORE inertially, rather than > less inertially? Oh well. That is food for another thread. Well... we disagree on just about every detail. But you didn't answer the most important question(s). My claims are: 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html 2 <<it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html Are those considered heretical statements in the cult of Einstein? Kind regards, Sue... > > -- > bz
From: colp on 3 Dec 2007 00:44 On Dec 3, 11:41 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Dec 3, 4:08 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> papar wrote: > >>>> None of the twins can (realistically) see anything from the other twin > >>>> but the signals he receives. > >>> These signals can be described as clock ticks. According to SR, while > >>> the twins are in inertial frames the ticks that are sent by the other > >>> twin will be sent at a slower rate than the ticks that are sent from > >>> the twin's local clock. > >>> It doesn't matter how long it takes for the tick signals to get from > >>> one twin to another. All that matters is that the rate that the ticks > >>> are generated by the other twin is slower becuase of the time dilation > >>> while they are in inertial frames. > >> In SR, a twin's observation of the other's clock ticking slowly > >> is based on "how long it takes for the tick signals to get from > >> one twin to another." > > > Not according to delta t = gamma delta t_0 it isn't. > > Not it colp-theory maybe, but I wrote "in SR". SR derives gamma > from the signal traveling at speed c in each frame. There's nothing about signals in the Lorentz factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Overview
From: Bryan Olson on 3 Dec 2007 02:04
colp wrote: > On Dec 3, 11:41 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: >> colp wrote: >>> On Dec 3, 4:08 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: >>>> colp wrote: >>>>> It doesn't matter how long it takes for the tick signals to get from >>>>> one twin to another. All that matters is that the rate that the ticks >>>>> are generated by the other twin is slower becuase of the time dilation >>>>> while they are in inertial frames. >>>> In SR, a twin's observation of the other's clock ticking slowly >>>> is based on "how long it takes for the tick signals to get from >>>> one twin to another." >>> Not according to delta t = gamma delta t_0 it isn't. >> Not it colp-theory maybe, but I wrote "in SR". SR derives gamma >> from the signal traveling at speed c in each frame. > > There's nothing about signals in the Lorentz factor. In SR: http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html -- --Bryan |