The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 03:20 On Dec 3, 12:44 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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: > > >>> 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. Actually there is, but the H.G. Wells fans don't put it in the nearfield where it belongs. << 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 -Strauss http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html -Urban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force That is why they love the chapter about the relativity of simultaneity. The particle propagation is comfortable to a layperson's view of light and the problems switching from Lorenz to Coulomb gauge are only evident to someone who has studied electromagnetism on an advaned level. << Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, a ppealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Overview - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 04:54 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:0aa9fe63-60c3-4495-838b-eabbedb9f13f(a)o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > 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 >> : >> ..... >> >> > 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). You didn't ask them in the article to which I was responding. > > 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 So far, we have not developed a unified field theory that does this. Does that mean that nature also fails to do so? > 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? Not being a cult member, I don't know. I am ALSO not a member of your accult group which seems to ascribe the longevity of rapidly moving radio- active particles to some kind of as-of-yet-unrecognized math. How you can happily ignore the fact that the Lorentz-Einstein transformations CORRECTLY predict the behavior seen, well, I don't know. How you can ignore the fact that transmission of a 60 Hz signal along a LONG extension cord [with a fixed length] is fundamentally different from what happens to em radiation, I don't know. Let us weave a conductive material into a bungee cord, and then create two conductors and insulating material likewise constructed. Now, We have a better model. We connect that synchronous clock via this stretchy cable and we send it on its time keeping round trip. We now find that Doppler shift takes place, just as with em carried through space. We find the clock slows, just as the quartz clock, the light clock and the balance wheel clock we carry on our trip. As for vector addition, I seem to be better at it than you are. Understanding the complex subject of reactive power works fine when I use vector addition rather than complex numbers and it avoids falling into the error to which you subscribed: that the imaginary numbers used in complex math implied that the power was imaginary. I think you still feel like the use by Einstein of complex math means that the time factor in space-time is somehow 'imaginary'. Chant your mantra all you like. It doesn't make the muons in the storage ring die faster. Remember those nuclear forces are very tightly bound. It is very difficult for anything 'external' to have much effect on them. Oh, we can line them up with a magnetic field, and ping them with a pulse and watch the precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the magnetic field, but that does not effect their half life. If it did, we could store radium in a strong magnetic field rather than using a lead box. So, why do busy muons live longer than those that retire from the rat-race? -- 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 3 Dec 2007 06:33 On Dec 3, 4:54 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > .... > > >> > 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). > > You didn't ask them in the article to which I was responding. > > - > 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? > > So far, we have not developed a unified field theory that does this. > Does that mean that nature also fails to do so? The absence of a theory does not imply the presense of a connection. "If I stick a vodoo doll with a pin; you will scream ouch". Are you going to accept that statement because there is no theory to dispute the connection? > > > 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? > > Not being a cult member, I don't know. I am ALSO not a member of your > accult group which seems to ascribe the longevity of rapidly moving radio- > active particles to some kind of as-of-yet-unrecognized math. > How you can happily ignore the fact that the Lorentz-Einstein > transformations CORRECTLY predict the behavior seen, well, I don't know. I take the view that the muon has to conserve its energy to exist. When its motion is out of phase with its background it decays. That is not strange maths. It is plain vanilla spin dynamics. If you try to call it a clock, you have to include the background particles as part of the clock. (air, magnets etc.) > > How you can ignore the fact that transmission of a 60 Hz signal along a > LONG extension cord [with a fixed length] is fundamentally different from > what happens to em radiation, I don't know. Oh? It is EM in a waveguide or fiber optic but something else on 300 ohm twin lead or coaxial cable? You have Newton's corpuscles beteeen your ears. :o) > > Let us weave a conductive material into a bungee cord, and then create two > conductors and insulating material likewise constructed. > Now, We have a better model. We connect that synchronous clock via this > stretchy cable and we send it on its time keeping round trip. Now Newton's corpuscles are not just wagging your dog; They are shaking your dog like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" I hear your dog from here. "Yelp, yipe yipe yip yip yip whine" > > We now find that Doppler shift takes place, just as with em carried through > space. > We find the clock slows, just as the quartz clock, the light clock and the > balance wheel clock we carry on our trip. > > As for vector addition, I seem to be better at it than you are. > > Understanding the complex subject of reactive power works fine when I use > vector addition rather than complex numbers and it avoids falling into the > error to which you subscribed: that the imaginary numbers used in complex > math implied that the power was imaginary. I think you still feel like the > use by Einstein of complex math means that the time factor in space-time is > somehow 'imaginary'. I am taking him at his word. The nearfield components work out just as he states. No Ouji board required. << 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 -Strauss http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html -Urban << where the real part of impedance is the resistance and the ===> imaginary <=== part is the reactance . Dimensionally, impedance is the same as resistance; the SI unit is the ohm. The term impedance was coined by Oliver Heaviside in July 1886.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance > > Chant your mantra all you like. It doesn't make the muons in the storage > ring die faster. No mantra is required to perform vector additon where the situation requires it. Did you say ANY constant wind does NOT slow a round trip aeroplane the same amount, regardless of the direction? You were fussing about parallel path and inline path for the dielectric motion. If you will do the vector addition, instead of the false short cuts and your unfounded fear of complex numbers, you will find your mistake. Imaginary numbers make very real mistakes if you forget where they are. > > Remember those nuclear forces are very tightly bound. It is very difficult > for anything 'external' to have much effect on them. Oh, we can line them > up with a magnetic field, and ping them with a pulse and watch the > precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the magnetic field, > but that does not effect their half life. If it did, we could store radium > in a strong magnetic field rather than using a lead box. > > So, why do busy muons live longer than those that retire from the rat-race? ~1/4 of their mechanism is in the surrouning air or magnet. 1/2 of an electron's mechanism is in its surroundings. They want to unwind but the Coulomb force of matter zipping past keeps them wound up. What winds-up an electon, unwinds a muon and viceversa. ~~~sort of~~~ <:-) "What Holds it Together?" http://particleadventure.org/frameless/fermibos.html Is that inertial coupling? Probably almost if the nearby matter vanishes when the muon is moving at c relative to the nearby matter. ....in the same context you described. Nearby matter almost vanishes when stable atoms form. Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 08:10 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:5d325202-f9ae-4e58-9f30-9d2e26f0ee5b(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 3, 4:54 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> .... ..... > > 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? Neither of those statements support your claims that traveling clocks stay in sync with earthbound clocks. > >> >> So far, we have not developed a unified field theory that does this. >> Does that mean that nature also fails to do so? > > The absence of a theory does not imply the presense of > a connection. > > "If I stick a vodoo doll with a pin; you will scream ouch". > Are you going to accept that statement because > there is no theory to dispute the connection? I reject the theory that sticking a pin in the doll and you saying ouch implies that you are in pain. We need more data. Let me hook up an EEG to you and stick pins in the doll AND stick pins in you and see which gives reproducible results. ..... >> Not being a cult member, I don't know. I am ALSO not a member of your >> accult group which seems to ascribe the longevity of rapidly moving >> radio- active particles to some kind of as-of-yet-unrecognized math. >> How you can happily ignore the fact that the Lorentz-Einstein >> transformations CORRECTLY predict the behavior seen, well, I don't >> know. > > I take the view that the muon has to conserve its energy to exist. > When its motion is out of phase with its background it decays. Now you are starting to sound like HW. > > That is not strange maths. It is plain vanilla spin dynamics. > If you try to call it a clock, you have to include the background > particles as part of the clock. (air, magnets etc.) Didn't know your last name. SW. Yep HW's sister. >> How you can ignore the fact that transmission of a 60 Hz signal along a >> LONG extension cord [with a fixed length] is fundamentally different >> from what happens to em radiation, I don't know. > > Oh? It is EM in a waveguide or fiber optic but something > else on 300 ohm twin lead or coaxial cable? The fixed length makes a difference. > You have Newton's corpuscles between your ears. :o) Better than nothing. >> Let us weave a conductive material into a bungee cord, and then create >> two conductors and insulating material likewise constructed. >> Now, We have a better model. We connect that synchronous clock via this >> stretchy cable and we send it on its time keeping round trip. > > Now Newton's corpuscles are not just wagging your dog; > They are shaking your dog like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" > > I hear your dog from here. > "Yelp, yipe yipe yip yip yip whine" Those are echos you are hearing, of your own wine, echoing inside your scull. Well, whatever floats your boat. I have better things to do with my time than to trade japes and yaps. >> We now find that Doppler shift takes place, just as with em carried >> through space. >> We find the clock slows, just as the quartz clock, the light clock and >> the balance wheel clock we carry on our trip. You skip addressing the point. If the cord length is always equal to the distance, then the Sue effect disappears and we are left with standard Lorentz-Einstein effects. >> As for vector addition, I seem to be better at it than you are. >> >> Understanding the complex subject of reactive power works fine when I >> use vector addition rather than complex numbers and it avoids falling >> into the error to which you subscribed: that the imaginary numbers used >> in complex math implied that the power was imaginary. I think you still >> feel like the use by Einstein of complex math means that the time >> factor in space-time is somehow 'imaginary'. > > I am taking him at his word. The nearfield components work out > just as he states. No Ouji board required. Your problem is that you are misreading his words. > << 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 -Strauss > http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html -Urban > > << where the real part of impedance is the resistance > and the > > ===> imaginary <=== Use vectors or phasors. Then there are NO imaginary components. > part is the reactance . Dimensionally, > impedance is the same as resistance; the SI unit is the ohm. > The term impedance was coined by Oliver Heaviside in July 1886.>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance Use vector math. You recommend it to others, take a dose yourself. Then there are NO imaginary components when you use vectors. >> Chant your mantra all you like. It doesn't make the muons in the >> storage ring die faster. > > No mantra is required to perform vector additon where > the situation requires it. Right. So use vector math and integrate the computed power at each instant. You will find that you get the same answer as you did using RMS voltage and current and multiplying by the power factor. > Did you say ANY constant wind does NOT slow a round trip aeroplane > the same amount, regardless of the direction? Aether wind has not been detected. Hot air abounds. Show me evidence of the aether wind effecting the path of the aeroplane and I will give your words and random citations more credence. > You were fussing about parallel path and inline path > for the dielectric motion. > If you will do the vector addition, instead of the > false short cuts and your unfounded fear of > complex numbers, you will find your mistake. I am not afraid of complex numbers. But I don't mistake imaginary numbers for the unreality of time effects due to relativistic motion. > > Imaginary numbers make very real mistakes if > you forget where they are. And if you imagine that the quantities they represent are somehow 'unreal'. > >> >> Remember those nuclear forces are very tightly bound. It is very >> difficult for anything 'external' to have much effect on them. Oh, we >> can line them up with a magnetic field, and ping them with a pulse and >> watch the precession as their 'spin' fights to line back up with the >> magnetic field, but that does not effect their half life. If it did, we >> could store radium in a strong magnetic field rather than using a lead >> box. > > >> >> So, why do busy muons live longer than those that retire from the >> rat-race? > > ~1/4 of their mechanism is in the surrouning air or magnet. > 1/2 of an electron's mechanism is in its surroundings. > > They want to unwind but the Coulomb force of matter zipping > past keeps them wound up. > > What winds-up an electon, unwinds a muon and viceversa. > > ~~~sort of~~~ <:-) SW. > > "What Holds it Together?" > http://particleadventure.org/frameless/fermibos.html > > Is that inertial coupling? Probably almost if the > nearby matter vanishes when the muon is moving > at c relative to the nearby matter. > > ...in the same context you described. Nearby matter > almost vanishes when stable atoms form. > You have out "ad hoc'd" HW, KS, A, KW and even HHH. Congratulations! You just broke my pHandDeeper meter. -- 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 3 Dec 2007 09:18
On Dec 3, 8:10 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: You changed the subject back to a rambling rehash of minutia with little signifcance outside of a 300 year old concept of light propagation without answering my question. 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... Top-posting has its place. :o) > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:5d325202-f9ae-4e58-9f30-9d2e26f0ee5b(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > > On Dec 3, 4:54 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > [...] > -- > bz > |