The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 17:33 On Dec 3, 5:22 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. It is *you* who said they were differnt ages. That doesn't mean the rules should change for a faulty theory. > > 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? Well... if the traveler has a funny clock it might look that way. Why should he use a funny clock? He can take a synchronous motor clock on a long extension cord. Extension cords don't swallow ticks. Sue... > > It can't. You (as always) don't know what you are talking > about. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 17:23 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:599997ad-8389-4620-97b4- 3b7b8a733c38(a)l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > 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. > I don't have ether responsive clocks, we have travel through space-time from point 1 in space time to point 2 in space time. (x1,y1,z1,t1) --> (x1,y1,z1,t2) Both twins make that journey, but one of them (A) covers zero distance in x,y,z and t2-t1 years. The other (B) travels great distances in x,y,z and less distance in t. This is consistent with SR, consistent with GR and consistent with ALL currently accepted theories. Invariant travel through space time implies that sqrt((delta t)^2-((delta x)^2+(delta y)^2+(delta z)^2))subA = sqrt((delta t)^2-((delta x)^2+(delta y)^2+(delta z)^2))subB Are you telling me that delta t is not real? Are you telling me that the equations written above are wrong? Are you telling me that those equations only apply to light clocks but not to the pilot traveling along with the clock? -- 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: bz on 3 Dec 2007 17:40 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > 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. Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR imply that events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] seen as simultaneous in other iFoRs. This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks collocated with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that every point in the iFoR can have its own clock and all are synchronized within that iFoR. What part of this do you disagree with? It is all rather standard SR1905 or SR1920 both have the same explanations. Einstein never recanted. He never withdrew SR. GR reduces to SR in zero g and zero acceleration. -- 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 18:33 On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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. > > Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR imply > that: Bz sez: "events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] seen as simultaneous in other iFoRs." Sue... sez: "events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen as simultaneous in other FoRs." There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling to light so I removed the "i" from FoR. > > This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks collocated > with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that every point in the > iFoR can have its own clock and all are synchronized within that iFoR. When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of time skew and reordering are expected. Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand we use funny clocks? Sue... > > What part of this do you disagree with? It is all rather standard SR1905 > or SR1920 both have the same explanations. > > Einstein never recanted. He never withdrew SR. GR reduces to SR in zero g > and zero acceleration. > > -- > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 19:12
On Dec 3, 5:23 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:599997ad-8389-4620-97b4- > 3b7b8a733...(a)l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > > 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. > > I don't have ether responsive clocks, we have travel through space-time > from point 1 in space time to point 2 in space time. I know how space-time is formulated. It is with *virtual* motion sensitive clocks. I look forward to your insight how such a coordinate system contributes to resolution of SR's postulates. I have a question about the scenario you are offering in the subthread. Kind regards, Sue... [...] > 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 |