The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 11:59 On Dec 5, 8:33 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews: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 hairy twin opposite the youthful twin would be a bit hard to overlook as a violation. > > > > >> > 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. Exactly! "c" wrt the free_space dielectric within the Ewald Oseen extinction distance. > > >> > 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. According to you a twins hair is affected. I am not sure that is according to Einstein. > > > 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'. That is explained in Okun's article. > > > 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. Why don't you make your argument on sci.physics.research. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/459e2fb9f64293f0/b4e8f300d4743c5a#b4e8f300d4743c5a Perhaps someone else can explain it to you. > > >> > 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. I share you beliefs whenever I am watching a good sci-fi movie. :o) Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 12:39 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:49b71554-f9c3-4da8-9775-a8196c08be8b(a)y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > 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. There is NOTHING to indicate that there is ANY way to measure motion with respect to it. You, on the other hand seem to believe that there is. As far as I know, all we can measure is RELATIVE motion with respect to objects. With an object, we can determine its location and its velocity wrt our equipment. The dielectric of free_space does not qualify as an object. We can't determine its location because it is not localized. We can't determine its velocity (or we ALWAYS measure 'its velocity' as ZERO with respect to ANY object.) That makes free space as an object a useless concept. That makes free space as a reference 'a useless concept. > > At sunup or sundown the sun's true angle on the horizon will > not be measured. To what do you attribute this effect? Air distorts the path of light. It is unnecessary to measure an angle of zero. The sun is never on the horizon, it is alway 8 light minutes away from earth, if it were on the horizon, the earth would be vaporized. >> 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. I can't read something as bazaar as your mind. ..... >> >> 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) :) knot hardly. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 13:55 On Dec 5, 12:39 pm, bz <bz+na...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:49b71554-f9c3-4da8-9775-a8196c08be8b(a)y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > 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. > > There is NOTHING to indicate that there is ANY way to measure motion with > respect to it. You, on the other hand seem to believe that there is. You have probably never heard of doppler radar. If the return signal is a different frequency it means one of the structures is moving wrt the dielectric. > > As far as I know, all we can measure is RELATIVE motion with respect to > objects. With an object, we can determine its location and its velocity > wrt our equipment. > > The dielectric of free_space does not qualify as an object. We can't > determine its location because it is not localized. We can't determine its > velocity (or we ALWAYS measure 'its velocity' as ZERO with respect to ANY > object.) > > That makes free space as an object a useless concept. > That makes free space as a reference 'a useless concept. > Yeah... Those doppler weather pictures are just as fake as the men on the moon. Long live the science of 1905! Sue...
From: colp on 5 Dec 2007 13:59 On Dec 3, 8:04 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Dec 3, 11:41 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> On Dec 3, 4:08 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > >>>> colp wrote: > >>>>> It doesn't matter how long it takes for the tick signals to get from > >>>>> one twin to another. All that matters is that the rate that the ticks > >>>>> are generated by the other twin is slower becuase of the time dilation > >>>>> while they are in inertial frames. > >>>> In SR, a twin's observation of the other's clock ticking slowly > >>>> is based on "how long it takes for the tick signals to get from > >>>> one twin to another." > >>> Not according to delta t = gamma delta t_0 it isn't. > >> Not it colp-theory maybe, but I wrote "in SR". SR derives gamma > >> from the signal traveling at speed c in each frame. > > > There's nothing about signals in the Lorentz factor. > > In SR: > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html That page is about the Lorentz Transformation, not the Lorentz factor. It remains that the rate that the ticks are generated by the other twin is slower becuase of the time dilation while they are in inertial frames (as described by the Lorentz factor), and SR does not describe a correction for this which can avoid the paradox of the clocks showing the same time at the end of the experiment.
From: colp on 5 Dec 2007 14:02
On Dec 4, 3:43 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >When the ticks actually arrive isn't imporant to the paradox. The > >paradox is based on the fact that according to SR the ticks of the > >other twin are generated more slowly that the local ticks on both > >legs. To solve the paradox a description of the other twin generating > >ticks more quickly that the local clock is required. > > Hasn't this been explained to you numerous times? An argument based on observations made from a single frame is a straw man. The paradox described in the OP is evident from observations made by a signle observer in two frames. |