The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bryan Olson on 5 Dec 2007 14:52 colp wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: >> 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. When the effect of changing frames is explained to colp, his story is different: You had to use 2 legs to get a sensible result. A single leg demostrates the paradox. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/da5f15528be6e030?dmode=source Relativity of simultaneity is not relevant because the paradox can be demonstrated from a single frame of reference http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/500050f7671b0908?dmode=source -- --Bryan
From: Cosmik de Bris on 5 Dec 2007 15:06 Bryan Olson wrote: > colp wrote: >> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>> 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. > > When the effect of changing frames is explained to colp, his > story is different: > > You had to use 2 legs to get a sensible result. A single > leg demostrates the paradox. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/da5f15528be6e030?dmode=source > > > Relativity of simultaneity is not relevant because the paradox > can be demonstrated from a single frame of reference > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/500050f7671b0908?dmode=source > > > > > Yes, he changes his story all the time. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 13:47 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:5c155825-296a-40d4-b881-5c12c360f4e4(a)e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > 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.c >> >> om: >> >> >> > 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. I think you have just gone off on another wild tangent. An isotropic source radiates energy equally well in all directions. It has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles (which are rarer than hens teeth, for sure). Of course, there may have been some monopoles during the early phases of the big wump. [Hens, {in case you didn't know it} DO have teeth. They just have one tooth and they use it to open the egg. It is called an egg tooth. Turtles have eggzactly the same thing.] > >> >> > 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. Don't be too anxious, I am waiting until you publish your so I can refute it. >> >> 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. >> No comments? >> >> >> >> 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 Since he doesn't cover absolute aether, absolute time, nor imaginary power, his lectures don't help me understand what you write. > >> >> >> > 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. And in the t to tau Lorentz-Einstein equation [and many other 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"'. > > They are covered in previous lectures but as an expert on > magnetic monopoles you won't need to bother with them. You seem to dream the impossible dream. Stop letting your dreams spill over onto spr. I just ordered one of these http://thedigitalham.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&pro ducts_id=34 so I can check to see if the impedance of my coax varies with time of day, as the earth's motion through Sue's aether {aka dielectric medium} REALLY makes a difference. -- 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 16:30 On Dec 5, 1:47 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] > > >> >> > 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. > > I think you have just gone off on another wild tangent. > An isotropic source radiates energy equally well in all directions. > It has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles (which are rarer than hens > teeth, for sure). Of course, there may have been some monopoles during the > early phases of the big wump. Then isotropic radiators of light must be as rare as hen's dental floss. http://web.njit.edu/~dgary/728/dipole.gif > > [Hens, {in case you didn't know it} DO have teeth. They just have one > tooth and they use it to open the egg. It is called an egg tooth. Turtles > have eggzactly the same thing.] Whatever it takes to keep you on the H.G. Wells team. > > > > > > > > >> > How much thought did you give that statement? > [...] > > > We anxiously await your replacement for Maxwell's equations. > > Don't be too anxious, I am waiting until you publish your so I can refute > it. > > > > > > >> >> 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) > [...] > > No comments? I have been commenting for years the gauge is wrong for a far field problem. > > > > > > > > >> >> 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 > > Since he doesn't cover absolute aether, absolute time, nor imaginary > power, his lectures don't help me understand what you write. > > Most are not terms I normally use so don't pin them on me. If you will find the imaginary power in the nearfield, you might be able to choose the correct gauge for the problem. The imaginary power from Z_0 can be seen vanishing in equation equation 45. << one inverse square distance term proportional to r-2 which is called the induction term and represents energy stored in the field during one quarter of a cycle and then returned to the antenna in the next. >> http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Your Lorenz gauge and Einstein's imaginary operator will fit perfectly there. But it will break your time-machine. > > >> > 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. > > And in the t to tau Lorentz-Einstein equation [and many other equations]. Whatevet it takes to keep your time machine in good working order. > > > > >> 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. > > You seem to dream the impossible dream. Stop letting your dreams spill > over onto spr. Uncle Al has the only response thus far. His brillant observation that f = 1/t did not seem to explain much. > > I just ordered one of these http://thedigitalham.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath... > ducts_id=34 so I can check to see if the impedance of my coax varies with > time of day, as the earth's motion through Sue's aether {aka dielectric > medium} REALLY makes a difference. <<Sorry, the product was not found.>> But you might have to order the deluxe model to see those things. http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/83800/12/ARCHI/none/News/Largest-ring-laser-gyroscope-lands-in-Bavaria Sue... > > -- > bz > - Show quoted text -
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 14:30
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:5893028b-1124-4a7a-860c-94c52b42ddae(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > 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.c >> >> om: >> >> >> >> 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. I fixed radars for a living. 1st class radiotelephone license and 2nd class radiotelegraph license with ship radar endorsement. > If the return signal is a different frequency > it means one of the structures is moving wrt > the dielectric. NO! it means that one of the structures (the transmitter) is moving wrt the reflecting structure.[That does NOT mean the transmitter is moving. It might be the reflecting structure.] There is no sign of a reflection off of the dielectric structure of free space. I have looked. If there were, an aircraft with doppler radar would see backscatter off of the 'dielectric structure of free space' and the backscatter from in front of the aircraft would be blue shifted while the backscatter from behind would be red shifted. These effects CAN be seen when flying through rain storms. They are NOT seen when flying in clear, stable air. Back scatter CAN be seen off of turbulent air(varying density) and is being used to detect downdrafts and wing tip vortexes. Once again, you are wading in deep waters, pretending you know where the rocks are but you keep stepping on turtles. In other words, your ideas are all wet. >> 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. The radar signals reflect off of the water droplets. They are NOT reflecting off of 'the dielectric medium of free space'. The rain is in motion wrt the transmitting station (or in the case of mobile radar, perhaps the radar is in motion with respect to the rain) In either case, it is the relative motion between the rain and the transmitter that shows up as a Doppler shift in frequency of the reflected signal. > Long live the science of 1905! The way you teach it, you seem to want to drive it back to 4000 BC. Do you believe in creationism too? -- 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 |