The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 07:41 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:c002d06b-df9a-4fb3-9045-8007a0da7ba0(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com: >> 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. If your idea were right, the test IS very necessary because it would invalidate several theories that our current sciences rest upon. It would be much more important than Uncle Al's experiment. > Aparently you do. Since I do NOT believe in an Aether, I certainly don't believe that the dielectric of space changes properties depending on our velocity through it. That would imply that it was an absolute frame of reference and, so far we have been unable to perform any experiment that indicates the presence of such. You, on the other hand, have declared your belief in a special absolute frame of reference, an aether, absolute time and instant propagation of phase information between earth and relativistic velocity spacecraft. Would you like to catalogue your beliefs for us so we don't have to try to deduce them from various statements you make? > > If Santa brings you one for Christmas, Oh, Sue also believes in Santa? I believe in Sandy Claws. He lives in the Bayou and brings bad dreams to those that eat too many crawfish. > 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) > I keep an open mind. Open on the sides (except for a retaining lip along the bottom edge) and top but not the bottom. It allows good ideas to be retained until replaced with evidence of better ideas. -- 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 08:09 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:f2822b4b-f897-44ca-a109-59a1cbe53e87(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > 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 "relativistic" 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 far field for any wavelength. > > There is no such thing as an isotropic source of light. Picture a white hot sphere, a few microns in diameter. Vola, isotropic source of light. There are many close approximations to isotropic sources. > How much thought did you give that statement? At least as much as you give to your usual post. > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html What does "This theorem demonstrates that light propagating through a dielectric medium is split into essentially two terms. One cancels out the primary wave. The other propagates at speed v=c/n as the refracted wave, where c is the speed of light and n is the index of refraction. " have to do with 1) isotropic light sources, 2) near field vs far field, 3) why Lorentz equations do/do not apply to inertial and ertial clocks? > http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html What do Gaussian Beams have to do with 1) isotropic light sources, 2) near field vs far field, 3) why Lorentz equations do/do not apply to inertial and ertial clocks? > http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Near/far field Finally, one that addresses part of the question at hand, albeit a Master's Thesis. Now, look at the chart that shows the division between near field and far field. You will notice that the division comes at lambda/(2 pi) times 10^0 It ranges from 10^-1 to 10^1 So the chart ranges from .1 half wave length through the dividing line at 1/2 wave and ends at 10 half waves (or five wave length. Where in that paper to show that anything I said was wrong? > >> >> 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 Here, at least is something 'in the ball park'. "Einstein's theory of wavefronts versus Einstein's relativity of simultaneity Authors: Dr Yves Pierseaux (Submitted on 27 Jun 2006) Abstract: The relativity of simultaneity implies that the image of a Lorentz transformed (LT) spherical (circular) wavefront is not a spherical (circular) wavefront (Einstein 1905) but an ellipsoidal (elliptical) wavefront (Moreau, Am.J.of Phys).We show firstly that the relativity of simultaneity leads to the consequence that the image of a Lorentz transformed plane wavefront is a tangent plane to an ellipsoid and not a tangent plane to a sphere (Einstein 1905). We deduce then a longitudinal component of the tangent vector to Poincare's ellipse which is directly connected to the relativity of simultaneity. We suggest finally that this violation of relativity of simultaneity is related to Einstein's implicit choice of the (non relativistic) transverse gauge in his theory of (rigid) wavefronts. " It would have helped if the writer had actually read Einsteins 1905 paper. "A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a sphere, therefore has in a state of motion�viewed from the stationary system�the form of an ellipsoid of revolution...." and later Einstein says: "We may therefore say that this surface permanently encloses the same light complex. We inquire as to the quantity of energy enclosed by this surface, viewed in system k, that is, as to the energy of the light complex relatively to the system k. The spherical surface�viewed in the moving system�is an ellipsoidal surface" .... He then develops some famous equations and says "It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law." So, the author of the paper you cited could have saved a lot of time by just reading what Einstein said. >> >> 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. Then do so. You have NOT done so, so far. > > Relativistic particle dynamics > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html The ONLY occurrence of 'time' on this page is as 'dt' in the denominator of several equations. NOTHING about 'time to tau transformations only apply in Sue space to light clocks, all others "jus keep on keepin on in sync with earthbound clocks of similar design"'. -- 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 08:33 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:d68eccbb-bbe8-47cc-a448-7fab0e7b7265(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > 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 gauge and reject Lorenz's? > > J.D. Jackson can explain better than I. > His paper is linked at the Gauge_fixing wiki page. I read the wiki page before I asked my question. > > 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? First, I don't predict a violation of PoR. The PoR does not apply when non symmetric accelerations are applied. Second, once the law is derived, it can be used in all gauges or without a gauge. > >> >> > 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. Put in the conversion, most paths still cancel out. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606233 Same elliptical quote as before. Here is a more appropriate quote from "Crosbie's Book of Punned Haiku" "They say love's fickle The truth is, like kissing hair, It's elliptical." >> > I think I have finally figured out why Einstein's theories I think I have figured it out: Sue is 'teaching relativity' using the Galilean method. Sue is playing Simplicio. >> > 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. That does NOT mean there is confusion between the in-falling mass and the emitted light. So, you don't believe that things can be so grave that not even light can escape? >> > 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. Mass has electric and/or magnetic fields. That makes sure that there is no such thing as a dielectrically insignificant moving particle. > > The Fresnel-Fizeau media is significant. > A moving atom that you consisider additive to > the speed of the light which it emits > is insignificant. But I don't consider it additive to the speed of the light. Composition does not allow adding ANY velocity to c and getting an answer other than c. >> > 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. No violation is predicted within the bounds of applicability of the theory. > 2. Falling photons instead of nuclear resonance > affected by gravity. We see falling photons effected by gravity. We also see nuclear resonance effected by gravity. You imply an 'either one or the other but not both'. > If there is a Nobel in it I'll share it with > Okun and Jackson. :O) If you can SHOW real experimental data for that clock-on-extension-cord, you will deserve the prize. >> > 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. That is your interpretation. > > Very useful for subatomic interactions. > Absurd for macroatomic interactions. > > QED achieves both. > (with equivalent sleight of chalk on the blackboard) 166 more lines and no nearer to understanding why Sue clings to her beliefs. -- 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 11:35 On Dec 5, 7:41 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:c002d06b-df9a-4fb3-9045-8007a0da7ba0(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > >> 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. > > If your idea were right, the test IS very necessary because it would > invalidate several theories that our current sciences rest upon. It would > be much more important than Uncle Al's experiment. > > > Aparently you do. > > Since I do NOT believe in an Aether, I certainly don't believe that the > dielectric of space changes properties depending on our velocity through > it. That would imply that it was an absolute frame of reference and, so > far we have been unable to perform any experiment that indicates the > presence of such. > > You, on the other hand, have declared your belief in a special absolute > frame of reference, an aether, absolute time and instant propagation of > phase information between earth and relativistic velocity spacecraft. I used the dielectric of free_space as a locally absolute reference. It exist, so it must be considered. At sunup or sundown the sun's true angle on the horizon will not be measured. To what do you attribute this effect? > > Would you like to catalogue your beliefs for us so we don't have to try to > deduce them from various statements you make? > You will do better if you catalog your own beliefs tho the offer suggest mind reading may be one of yours. > > > > If Santa brings you one for Christmas, > > Oh, Sue also believes in Santa? I believe in Sandy Claws. He lives in the > Bayou and brings bad dreams to those that eat too many crawfish. > > > 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) > > I keep an open mind. Open on the sides (except for a retaining lip along > the bottom edge) and top but not the bottom. It allows good ideas to be > retained until replaced with evidence of better ideas. Hopefully not open to the dielectric of free space. That establishes the velocity of light and I know you can think faster than that. :o) 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
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 11:44
On Dec 5, 8:09 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:f2822b4b-f897-44ca-a109-59a1cbe53e87(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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 "relativistic" 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 far field for any wavelength. > > > There is no such thing as an isotropic source of light. > > Picture a white hot sphere, a few microns in diameter. > Vola, isotropic source of light. > There are many close approximations to isotropic sources. Is that what Maxwell used? I wonder why he included an equation to prohibit magnetic monopoles. > > > How much thought did you give that statement? > > At least as much as you give to your usual post. > > > > >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.... > > What does > "This theorem demonstrates that light propagating through a dielectric > medium is split into essentially two terms. One cancels out the primary > wave. The other propagates at speed v=c/n as the refracted wave, where c > is the speed of light and n is the index of refraction. " have to do with > 1) isotropic light sources, 2) near field vs far field, 3) why Lorentz > equations do/do not apply to inertial and ertial clocks? > > >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html > > What do Gaussian Beams have to do with 1) isotropic light sources, 2) near > field vs far field, 3) why Lorentz equations do/do not apply to inertial > and ertial clocks? > > >http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.htmlNear/far field > > Finally, one that addresses part of the question at hand, albeit a > Master's Thesis. Now, look at the chart that shows the division between > near field and far field. You will notice that the division comes at > lambda/(2 pi) times 10^0 It ranges from 10^-1 to 10^1 > So the chart ranges from .1 half wave length through the dividing line at > 1/2 wave and ends at 10 half waves (or five wave length. > > Where in that paper to show that anything I said was wrong? We anxiously await your replacement for Maxwell's equations. > > > > >> 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 > > Here, at least is something 'in the ball park'. > "Einstein's theory of wavefronts versus Einstein's relativity of > simultaneity Authors: Dr Yves Pierseaux > (Submitted on 27 Jun 2006) > > Abstract: The relativity of simultaneity implies that the image of a > Lorentz transformed (LT) spherical (circular) wavefront is not a > spherical (circular) wavefront (Einstein 1905) but an ellipsoidal > (elliptical) wavefront (Moreau, Am.J.of Phys).We show firstly that the > relativity of simultaneity leads to the consequence that the image of > a Lorentz transformed plane wavefront is a tangent plane to an > ellipsoid and not a tangent plane to a sphere (Einstein 1905). We > deduce then a longitudinal component of the tangent vector to > Poincare's ellipse which is directly connected to the relativity of > simultaneity. We suggest finally that this violation of relativity of > simultaneity is related to Einstein's implicit choice of the (non > relativistic) transverse gauge in his theory of (rigid) wavefronts. > " > It would have helped if the writer had actually read Einsteins 1905 > paper. > > "A rigid body which, measured in a state of rest, has the form of a > sphere, therefore has in a state of motion--viewed from the stationary > system--the form of an ellipsoid of revolution...." > > and later Einstein says: > > "We may therefore say that this surface permanently encloses the same > light complex. We inquire as to the quantity of energy enclosed by this > surface, viewed in system k, that is, as to the energy of the light > complex relatively to the system k. > The spherical surface--viewed in the moving system--is an ellipsoidal > surface" .... > > He then develops some famous equations and says > > "It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex > vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same > law." > > So, the author of the paper you cited could have saved a lot of time by > just reading what Einstein said. > > > > >> 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. > > Then do so. You have NOT done so, so far. > > Convert it to ascii yourself if you can't read it in that form: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html > > > > Relativistic particle dynamics > > > The ONLY occurrence of 'time' on this page is as 'dt' in the denominator of > several equations. Exactly! And that is where it belongs. > NOTHING about 'time to tau transformations only apply in Sue space to light > clocks, all others "jus keep on keepin on in sync with earthbound clocks of > similar design"'. They are covered in previous lectures but as an expert on magnetic monopoles you won't need to bother with them. 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 - |