The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 04:02 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:599997ad-8389-4620-97b4-3b7b8a733c38(a)l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > 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? > Anything past about 10 wavelengths away from an isotropic source is going to be farfield for any wavelength. As far as I know, the Lorentz-Einstein equations apply in both near and far field, but even if they don't apply in near field, they certainly would in far field. Once light has traveled several wavelengths from the emitter, it is traveling under far field conditions. Show me where the LE equations don't apply to light under far field conditions[or even under near field conditions]. Show me where the LE equations don't apply to massive objects [as far as I know, neither 'near' nor 'far field' applies to massive bodies, if those terms do apply, which term applies and why and what does near or far field have to do with anything related to the LE transforms?] -- 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 5 Dec 2007 04:14 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:324a99f9-3f86-46a0-81ca-c227108785c0(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > 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. Show me why I should accept your guage and reject Lorenz's? > 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. Most of his photon paths cancel. > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22coulomb+gauge%22+&btnG=S > earch > > 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. Are you saying that we mistake plasma for photons? > Infalling hydrogen is found where light isn't suppose to > escape a *black hole*. Are you saying we mistake hydrogen for photons? > > IMHO for every correct prediction that method makes, there > is an incorrect prediction that goes unnoticed. What are these 'incorrect predictions'? Point them out [correctly] and you have your Nobel sewed up. > > I prefer light that isn't confused with gas. It seems to > lead to a better mechanism for gravity and inertia. Far reaching assertion. Prove your point. > > And it doesn't require twins to have funny birthdays and > violate PoR. -- 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 5 Dec 2007 05:39 On Dec 5, 3:58 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:2d645ac9-58a2-4b0d-90de-77ca81f9ddb1(a)a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > One 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. No test is required unless you belive an ultrasonic anemometer outside your car will behave the same as an ultrasonic anemometer inside your car. Aparently you do. If Santa brings you one for Christmas, you can make it last longer by keeping it in your house. Pay no attention to the instructions that might suggest putting it outdoors. :o) > > 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. Now you have Newton's ether between your ears. > > > > > 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. At least half are. I think L.B. Okun would call it an epidemic of empty-headedness, off the record. His relevant papers are kinder than that, however. > > .... > > > 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. No doubt about it. I seem to recall your mention of photons flying off your 80 metre dipole. IMHO, no atomic emission is involved. > I > hold that only particles with 'zero rest mass' can travel at c. I have no > idea WHAT you believe. I hold that light has no rest mass or relativstic mass. It is not matter. > > > 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: http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > 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" There is something you are missing. Or you truly believe ultrasonic anemometers will work if you install the sensor indoors. << Free space, with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a mathematical idealization. For example, in the "vacuum" of outer space, there are small quantities of matter (mostly hydrogen), and cosmic noise. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space The light clocks I am refering to are not mathematical idealisations. They have real dielectric moving in the *farfield* region between the reflectors. They slow! Just as surely as Big-Ben will be seen to slow if you move through the dielectric of air away from it. Reflectors inside the ship have no motion wrt the dielectric, so the path between them is unaffected by the ships motion. > > > (IOW you still assume > > Newton's inertial ether > > I disagree. I think YOU assume Newtonian physics. What were Newton's terms for dielectric or permittivity or permeability ? > > > 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. Perhaps I did, above. > > > It will be a total > > waste of your time and my time. > > I tend to agree with your last sentence. Indeed, When you pocket that Nobel prize for particle-light then I'll reconsider. Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 06:16 On Dec 5, 4:14 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:324a99f9-3f86-46a0-81ca-c227108785c0(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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. > > Show me why I should accept your guage and reject Lorenz's? J.D. Jackson can explain better than I. His paper is linked at the Gauge_fixing wiki page. But in short, the twins experiment has nothing to gain from its use. =========================== Feynman derives Snell's law in the Coulomb gauge. Bz predicts violation of PoR in the Lorenz gauge. =========================== What is wrong with this picture? > > > 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. > > Most of his photon paths cancel. Indeed. But there is no sloppy conversion to make it happen. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 > > > > > > 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. > > Are you saying that we mistake plasma for photons? Without question, in the case of Bertotti's Cassini experiment. But AFAIK infalling hydrogen is seldom eliminated when massive bodies are refered to as "black holes". (singularities) It is sometimes mentioned as a producer of radiation. > > > Infalling hydrogen is found where light isn't suppose to > > escape a *black hole*. > > Are you saying we mistake hydrogen for photons? I am saying SR seems to loose sight of the difference by its association of light with dielectrically insignificant moving particles. The Fresnel-Fizeau media is significant. A moving atom that you consisider additive to the speed of the light which it emits is insignificant. > > > > > IMHO for every correct prediction that method makes, there > > is an incorrect prediction that goes unnoticed. > > What are these 'incorrect predictions'? > > Point them out [correctly] and you have your Nobel sewed up. > 1. A violation of the PoR for starters. 2. Falling photons instead of nuclear resonance affected by gravity. If there is a Nobel in it I'll share it with Okun and Jackson. :O) > > > > I prefer light that isn't confused with gas. It seems to > > lead to a better mechanism for gravity and inertia. > > Far reaching assertion. Prove your point. It was *you* who made the point. SR is tricked up so particle light can work in the nearfield. But it goes bonkers in the farfield. Very useful for subatomic interactions. Absurd for macroatomic interactions. QED achieves both. (with equivalent sleight of chalk on the blackboard) Sue... > > > > > And it doesn't require twins to have funny birthdays and > > violate PoR. > > -- > bz
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 06:37
On Dec 5, 4:02 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:599997ad-8389-4620-97b4-3b7b8a733c38(a)l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > > > 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? > > Anything past about 10 wavelengths away from an isotropic source is going > to be farfield for any wavelength. There is no such thing as an isotropic source of light. How much thought did you give that statement? http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Near/far field > > As far as I know, the Lorentz-Einstein equations apply in both near and > far field, but even if they don't apply in near field, they certainly > would in far field. > > Once light has traveled several wavelengths from the emitter, it is > traveling under far field conditions. > > Show me where the LE equations don't apply to light under far field > conditions[or even under near field conditions]. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 > > Show me where the LE equations don't apply to massive objects [as far as I > know, neither 'near' nor 'far field' applies to massive bodies, if those > terms do apply, which term applies and why and what does near or far field > have to do with anything related to the LE transforms?] I can't show they don't apply. I can show how to apply them correctly. Relativistic particle dynamics http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |