The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 15:17 On Dec 3, 11:52 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:20b4bed5-5a84-4708-bdd0-2107c8a153d1(a)r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > > On Dec 3, 8:10 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > [...] > >> >> So, why do busy muons live longer than those that retire from the > >> >> rat-race? > > > BTW... Einstein wanted to exclude pendulum clocks from his > > 1905 paper because they use the system they are > > responding to as an intrinsic component. > > > By the same standards, the muon is disqualified > > as a time standard. > > The coherence length of your postings approaches zero. > > Muons do NOT oscillate up and down along a path, exchanging KE with PE as > do pendulum. Pendulum periods depend on the length of the pendulum and the > strength of gravity at the particular location. > > Although muons are expected to be influenced by Sagnac effect, by the > strength of the swartzchild metric, and by their relativistic velocity, > this is no more than can be said of ANY clock. > > Muons are only part of the system being studied in the same way that any > part of reality is part of reality. > > You have yet to show ANY _relevant_ quote that would exclude clocks other > than light clocks from relativistic effects. Ond light clock inside the ship and one light clock outside the ship should make that perfectly clear. But not to a person who thinks light moves like a massive particle. It will be impossible for me to compare light clocks for a mode of propagation which exist only between your and probably Einstein's ears. <<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply that the Academy recognised the particle nature of light? The Nobel Committee says that Einstein had found that the energy exchange between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv . As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta (in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the law that an electron emitted from a substance by monochromatic light with the frequency has to have a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however, found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange. 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 When asked if light moves inertially you say no... ....then continue with your calculations as tho it were moving inertially (like a massive particle). If I say "Does like move inertially?" (like a massive particle) Can you say: 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 ??? If your understanding of EM and inertia leaves any doubt in your mind about Weinberg's statement above, (IOW you still assume Newton's inertial ether in calculations of light paths) then you will be misinterpreting any illustration I offer. It will be a total waste of your time and my time. A faster resolution is my second claim. If you say the traveler comes home to a hariy sibling, then the theory you are hawking (pun intended) must be bunk because I belieive: 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 Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 15:31 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:2d645ac9-58a2-4b0d-90de- 77ca81f9ddb1(a)a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > A faster resolution is my second claim. > If you say the traveler comes home to a > hariy sibling, then the theory you are > hawking (pun intended) must be bunk because > I belieive: > > 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 Since any round trip involves [at a minimum] changing from one inertial frame to another, the impossibility of performing a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental way between inertial frames is moot. There is nothing in that quote that implies one can freely jump from one inertial frame to another without consequences, but that is exactly what you seem to take it to mean. That strange idea IS in line with your statements indicating that the clock on an outbound relativistic ship would stay in sync with an earthbound clock, however. And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate you believe time is absolute. Since you seem to hold those beliefs, I don't understand how you can cite Einstein as an authority, when he has repeatedly pointed out the relativity of simultaneity and you are holding the idea that simultaneity is absolute, not relative at all In fact, I don't see how you can believe in any kind of relativity that has been developed since newton's relativity, which seems to be what you are holding for. -- 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 16:51 On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:2d645ac9-58a2-4b0d-90de- > 77ca81f9d...(a)a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > A faster resolution is my second claim. > > If you say the traveler comes home to a > > hariy sibling, then the theory you are > > hawking (pun intended) must be bunk because > > I belieive: > > > 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 > > Since any round trip involves [at a minimum] changing from one inertial > frame to another, the impossibility of performing a physical experiment > which differentiates in any fundamental way between inertial frames is > moot. > > There is nothing in that quote that implies one can freely jump from one > inertial frame to another without consequences, but that is exactly what > you seem to take it to mean. Then it is the theorist burden to show decreased hair growth is a consequence of physically reversing directions. > > That strange idea IS in line with your statements indicating that the clock > on an outbound relativistic ship would stay in sync with an earthbound > clock, however. Did you say "relativstic" ship? You really should learn how the equations differ for near and far fields. << 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 You will probably find that some of the equations differ. But you don't have a near and far field with light particles Eh? > > And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate you > believe time is absolute. > > Since you seem to hold those beliefs, I don't understand how you can cite > Einstein as an authority, when he has repeatedly pointed out the relativity > of simultaneity and you are holding the idea that simultaneity is absolute, > not relative at all > > In fact, I don't see how you can believe in any kind of relativity that has > been developed since newton's relativity, which seems to be what you are > holding for. You think the two statements I offerd are Newton's relativity but your ether responsive clocks are not? I think you have something backward; including how to interpret an anomalously aged twin at the end of the experiment. Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: Daryl McCullough on 3 Dec 2007 17:22 Sue... says... >If you say the traveler comes home to a >hariy sibling, then the theory you are >hawking (pun intended) must be bunk because >I belieive: > >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 The difference in ages of the two traveling twins does *not* allow for an experiment that will distinguish different inertial frames. Pick *ANY* inertial frame F. If, as measured in that frame, a traveler zooms off at speed .8c for 10 years, turns around, and comes back at .8c, then that traveler will only age 12 years, rather than 20. This prediction holds for *every* inertial frame, so how can it be used to distinguish different frames? It can't. You (as always) don't know what you are talking about. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 17:23
On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] > > And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate you > believe time is absolute. Can you convince me it is not? Assume clocks do not slow with motion. Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space. Assume this statement is true: 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 What causality violating scenario can you devise to show PoR conflicts with a constant speed of light in the dielectric of free space? I constantly see it refered to, but I can't imagine what it is. Sue... > -- > bz > |