The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 4 Dec 2007 11:54 On Dec 4, 10:37 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:dc9f06c0-c525-4d92-9e78-45e5ea5300cc(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 4, 8:09 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:5d2cac2e-2244-452b-b4e1-cd72dfad444d(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com > >> : > > >> [...] > > >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > >> >> He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to > >> >> electrons and to all ponderable masses. > >> > We of course know that is not true. > >> > Light beams would replace thrusters if it were. > > >> 'WE' do NOT know that. > > > I am betting on Newton's third law. > > >> first, the statement I gave above says NOTHING about imponderable > >> masses such as light exerting pressure so your response is off target. > >> second, light DOES exert pressure. finally, the use of high intensity > >> light beams as a rocket thruster (as opposed to using ground based > >> lasers to push payloads into space) is prohibited by two laws: > >> 1) the law against using > >> high energy beam weapons to destroy launch pads (the ship would > >> vaporize the launch pad) and > >> 2) the batteries to drive the laser are kind of > >> heavy. > >> I have worked with a 500 Watt CW laser. It would take a small > >> moving van to move it with another for the 20,000 volt at 20 amp power > >> supply. > > >> It would only produce 500 Newton meters/second of thrust, or 369 > >> ft lbf/s of force. > > >> Hardly enough to accelerate the power supply plus laser plus > >> sue-bungee- type extension cord. > > >> Yes, nuclear fusion could supply enough power to make it worth while, > >> but we might as well use the laser and the fusion reaction to push the > >> 'ash' [helium] away and gain even more of a boost. > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressurehttp://www.u.arizona.edu/ > >> ~lilley98/ > > >> [quotehttp://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=694] > >> The existence of light pressure was demonstrated as theoretically > >> possible by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. Confirming laboratory > >> experiments waited until the turn of the century. [unquote] > > >> [quotehttp://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html] > >> Physicists know that the heat of lasers can move liquid. But this test > >> found that the light itself, not heat, did the pushing. [unquote] > > >> [quotehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/rx72j316032p4148/] > >> Summary Attention is paid to the effect of light pressure, completely > >> ignored in the present explanations on the energetics of dynamical > >> processes in atmosphere. It seems even to be of great importance and > >> play a great role, especially in the upper atmosphere. It seems there > >> are three phenomena produced probably by this process: 1) Appearing of > >> the earth atmosphere tide on the night side. 2) Presence of strong west > >> winds on the great altitude. 3) Vertical oscillations of the upper > >> atmosphere density. [unquote] > > >> [quotehttp://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/Library/Journals/J.Conf.Abs./1/222.html] > >> Contrary to bigger meteoroids which are controlled by gravitational > >> interactions dynamics of submicron-sized particles is dominated by > >> radiation pressure and by electromagnetic interactions with the > >> interplanetary magnetic field. [unquote] > > >> Finally, to see light pressure in action, just observe the tails of > >> comets. They always point away from the sun because the pressure of the > >> light drives them away from the sun. [that is not to say that the solar > >> particle 'wind' has no effect, but the effect seen is the sum of > >> several effects INCLUDING light pressure]. > > >> .... > > > None of these ~possibilities~ excuse the errors in gauge > > selection and transformation. Making light a function of > > inertia also makes it difficult to make inertia a function > > of light. > > *observables*, not ~possibilities~. > Light is OBSERVED to push things. That is unfortunate. Gravity and inertia is OBSERVED to pull things. It is so common an observation that article writers would scarcely consider it a worthy subject. Repuslsion is not predicted when these fairly common structures illuminate each other. http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html > > >> > Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy > >> > the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations. > > >> > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. > >> > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? > > >> Causality is only violated by the transmission of information faster > >> than light. This has never been observed. > > > No such possibility was considered. > > Right. The Lorentz-Einstein time transform give results that are > consistent with all known experimental data [once other effects such as > delta G and Sagnac are also factored in]. > > > > >> Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference > >> for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for understanding. > > > There is no evidence that uniform motion affects hair growth. > > So I am not "going aginst experimental evidence". > > No one has traveled long enough, far enough and fast enough for the > difference in hair growth to be noticeable, yet. It may be that none ever > will. But GPS and muons and radioactive ions and excited ions all show > effects consistent with those that would lead to differences in hair > growth. > No one has ever loaned me more money than I could repay either. I'll give you a shipping address if you'd like to be the first. :o) The effects are also consistant with violation of PoR. Why are you not arguing that possibility? > > > >> The Nobel prize lecture says nothing about light clocks acting > >> differently than ponderable clocks, nor does it say that light exerts > >> no pressure, nor does it say that the Lorentz-Einstein transforms for > >> time have no reality. > > > True but it does give some insight that is not expressed > > in the formalism of GR. The induction A.E. mentions is > > not accessable with his formalism. > >> Nothing you have cited make any statement that support your contentions > >> that time is absolute. > > > The descripion of the Coulomb gauge makes that case well and > > QM and QED attest to its accuracy. > > You read something into the coulomb gauge that I don't. That is why I suggested a synchronous motor clock with a long cord. So you won't have to read about it. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > > > > >> And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy' > >> signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals > >> transmitted through the dielectric medium of space. > > > But I didn't make the extension cord stretchy. > > Then you are performing an experiment that nature prohibits us from > performing. My vacuum cleaner has no stretchy cord. Nature has yet to complain about it. I will find a place to hide, just it case the Nature police search my house. I don't my vacuum cleaner confiscated just for lack of a stretchy cord. :o) > > > It is just a > > way to insist on operation in the Coulomb gauge for folks > > that don't know the rules. They have heard clocks have to > > slow with motion so will consider no other possibiltiy. > > I don't see how suppositions of instant communications over a distance, > or communications with a constant delay over a variable distance > have any application to reality. > Neither occur in nature. I think perhaps you don't even understand how extension cords work. "Transmission Lines" http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/4.html Sue... > > > You have shown no conflict with the statements from > > Weinberg and Fitzpatrick. You have only shown that it > > was *convenient* for Einstein and didn't present a > > severe conflict with his particle light. > > > You have the Noble committee's opinion on that. > > -- > bz >
From: bz on 4 Dec 2007 12:11 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:084f4238-295e-4c4f-ba5f- 77ca4a80638e(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > I think perhaps you don't even understand how extension cords work. > > "Transmission Lines" > http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/4.html > Oh, I have a pretty good idea how a transmission line works. How about this: we use an long length pair of lines and sliding contacts somewhat similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun Do you still think your moving synchronous clock will stay in sync with the earth bound one? -- 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 4 Dec 2007 12:38 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:084f4238-295e-4c4f-ba5f-77ca4a80638e(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: >> *observables*, not ~possibilities~. >> Light is OBSERVED to push things. > > That is unfortunate. > Gravity and inertia is OBSERVED to pull things. > It is so common an observation that article writers > would scarcely consider it a worthy subject. > > Repuslsion is not predicted when these fairly > common structures illuminate each other. > http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html > ..... >> >> Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference >> >> for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for >> >> understanding. >> >> > There is no evidence that uniform motion affects hair growth. >> > So I am not "going aginst experimental evidence". >> >> No one has traveled long enough, far enough and fast enough for the >> difference in hair growth to be noticeable, yet. It may be that none >> ever will. But GPS and muons and radioactive ions and excited ions all >> show effects consistent with those that would lead to differences in >> hair growth. >> > > No one has ever loaned me more money than I could repay either. > I'll give you a shipping address if you'd like to be the first. :o) Send it. I am sure I can find SOMETHING to send you. I guarantee it will be a first. :) > > The effects are also consistant with violation of PoR. > Why are you not arguing that possibility? Because we have never observed a violation of PoR. ..... >> >> > The descripion of the Coulomb gauge makes that case well and >> > QM and QED attest to its accuracy. >> >> You read something into the coulomb gauge that I don't. > > That is why I suggested a synchronous motor clock > with a long cord. So you won't have to read about it. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > >> >> >> >> >> And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy' >> >> signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals >> >> transmitted through the dielectric medium of space. >> >> > But I didn't make the extension cord stretchy. >> >> Then you are performing an experiment that nature prohibits us from >> performing. > > My vacuum cleaner has no stretchy cord. > Nature has yet to complain about it. Make your vacuum travel far and fast enough and I guarantee that nature WILL complain. As well as your neighbors. > I will find a place to hide, just it case the > Nature police search my house. I don't > my vacuum cleaner confiscated just for lack of > a stretchy cord. :o) You move it fast enough and your lack of a stretchy cord will come back and bite you. I was on board a ship tied to the doc, when the suction from the wake of a passing ship started our ship moving upriver. Lines started slipping on the winches and people started running to get under cover, in case a rope or cable broke. The 'snap' when that happens will cut right through anyone that is standing in the wrong place. Your long extension cord has the same problem. The snap back, when the ship reaches the end of the cord, is going to cut your theory right in half. -- 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 4 Dec 2007 16:29 On Dec 4, 12:11 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:084f4238-295e-4c4f-ba5f- > 77ca4a806...(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > I think perhaps you don't even understand how extension cords work. > > > "Transmission Lines" > >http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/4.html > > Oh, I have a pretty good idea how a transmission line works. > > How about this: > we use an long length pair of lines and sliding contacts > somewhat similar tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun > > Do you still think your moving synchronous clock will stay in sync with the > earth bound one? This concept was reduced to abacus beads on a piano wire and you were considering beads that vanish to preserve a violation of PoR that you have been brainwashed into accepting. The synchronous motor clock on a long cord is the same one Feynman straps on his photon that explores all paths. It works just fine. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22coulomb+gauge%22+&btnG=Search I think I have finally figured out why Einstein's theories assume interaction with light and gravity... and then it is found somewhere. It is the bit which treats light and matter similarly in an inertial frame of reference. So Plasma appears where photons are supposed to curve into the sun. Infalling hydrogen is found where light isn't suppose to escape a *black hole*. IMHO for every correct prediction that method makes, there is an incorrect prediction that goes unnoticed. I prefer light that isn't confused with gas. It seems to lead to a better mechanism for gravity and inertia. And it doesn't require twins to have funny birthdays and violate PoR. Sue... > > -- > bz > > bz+...@
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 03:58
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:2d645ac9-58a2-4b0d-90de-77ca81f9ddb1(a)a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > 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 should make it perfectly clear to any scientist, IF the light clock outside the ship acts differently that the one inside the ship. That test can be done in earth orbit at the ISS. If I can [and I can] tell the difference between a piece of coax that is 1 meter long and one that is 1.01 meters long using a TDR[time domain reflectometer] then it should be very easy. In fact, all one needs is an MMX apparatus with one leg of the apparatus 'unshielded' from the motion of the 'dielectric of space' and the other leg inside a can that shields it from the motions of 'the dielectric of space. > > 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. HM. Everyone that has STUDIED SR and GR must, from your point of view, seem just as empty headed. ..... > When asked if light moves inertially you say no... > ...then continue with your calculations as tho it > were moving inertially (like a massive particle). I am afraid that your idea of the distinction between the motion of 'massive' and 'zero mass' particles is somewhat different than mine. I hold that only particles with 'zero rest mass' can travel at c. I have no idea WHAT you believe. > 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, Weinberg mentions the cosmological constant and Einsteins mistaken belief he was mistaken in proposing it. He mentions Einsteins dislike for quantum theory. To put your above quote back into context: [quote] It is a pity that Einstein gave up on the Kaluza�Klein idea. If he had extended it from five to six or more spacetime dimensions, he might have discovered the field theory constructed in 1954 by C. N. Yang and Robert Mills, and its generalizations, some of which later appeared as parts of our modern theories of strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions.4 Einstein apparently gave no thought to strong or weak nuclear forces, I suppose because they seem so different from gravitation and electromagnetism. Today we realize that the equations underlying all known forces aside from gravitation are actually quite similar, the difference in the phenomena arising from color trapping for strong interactions and spontaneous symmetry breaking for weak interactions. Even so, Einstein would still probably be unhappy with today's theories, because they are not unified with gravitation and because matter�electrons, quarks, and so on�still has to be put in by hand. Even before Klein's work, Einstein had started on a different approach, based on a simple bit of counting. If you give up the condition that the 4 � 4 metric tensor should be symmetric, then it will have 16 rather than 10 independent components, and the extra 6 components will have the right properties to be identified with the electric and magnetic fields. Equivalently, one can assume that the metric is complex, but Hermitian. The trouble with this idea, as Einstein became painfully aware, is that there really is nothing in it that ties the 6 components of the electric and magnetic fields to the 10 components of the ordinary metric tensor that describes gravitation, other than that one is using the same letter of the alphabet for all these fields. 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. This purely formal approach, unlike the Kaluza�Klein idea, has left no significant trace in current research. The faith in mathematics as a source of physical inspiration, which had served Einstein so well in his development of general relativity, was now betraying him. [unquote] There is NOTHING in there to indicate that Sue:"time is absolute" or Sue: "clocks on a ship receeding from earth stay in sync with the earthbound clock" or Sue: "a light clock outside the ship will keep different time from one inside the ship" > (IOW you still assume > Newton's inertial ether I disagree. I think YOU assume Newtonian physics. > in calculations of light paths) > then you will be misinterpreting any > illustration I offer. Make clearer illustrations. Show the results BOTH ways and explain why you choose to reject the results that are consistent with SR and GR. > It will be a total > waste of your time and my time. I tend to agree with your last sentence. -- 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 |