The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 5 Dec 2007 17:04 On Dec 5, 12:39 pm, bz <bz+na...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] > > > 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. -- << Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star in a double-star system would usually have an orbit that caused it to have alternating approach and recession velocities, and light emitted from different parts of the orbital path would then travel towards us at different speeds. For a nearby star with a small orbital velocity ( or whose orbital plane was almost perpendicular to our line of view) this might merely make the star's orbit seem erratic, but for a sufficient combination of orbital speed and distance (and inclination), the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an image that was scrambled and out of sequence. De Sitter made a study of double stars (1913) and found no cases where the stars' images appeared scrambled. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment So you may want to lend a bit of support to Henri Wilson's notions. Sue... [...] > -- > bz >
From: Daryl McCullough on 5 Dec 2007 19:14 colp says... >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. There is no paradox. You're mistaken. What is seen by the observer is unambiguously predicted by Special Relativity. You can use any *inertial* frame to describe what is seen by a *noninertial* observer. What more do you want? I don't think you remember any longer what your point is. You thought you could show SR was inconsistent, but you can't. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 5 Dec 2007 19:20 colp says... > >> In SR: >> >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html > >That page is about the Lorentz Transformation, not the Lorentz factor. You seem not to understand that time dilation is a *derived* consequence of the Lorentz transformations. You have to actually *understand* that derivation in order to know under what circumstances it applies. In other words, you have to actually *think* about what you are saying. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: bz on 5 Dec 2007 17:18 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:067542fb-326f-468e-817e-b974532d2f19(a)r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 5, 12:39 pm, bz <bz+na...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > [...] >> >> > 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. > -- > > > << Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star > in a double-star system would usually have an orbit that > caused it to have alternating approach and recession > velocities, and light emitted from different parts of the > orbital path would then travel towards us at different > speeds. For a nearby star with a small orbital velocity ( > or whose orbital plane was almost perpendicular to our > line of view) this might merely make the star's orbit > seem erratic, but for a sufficient combination of orbital > speed and distance (and inclination), the "fast" light > given off during approach would be able to catch up with > and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would > present an image that was scrambled and out of sequence. > > De Sitter made a study of double stars (1913) and found > no cases where the stars' images appeared scrambled. >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > So you may want to lend a bit of support to Henri Wilson's > notions. > No way do I support Henri's c+v and c-v light. But what does THAT have to do with there being NO such thing as Sue's dielectric medium?[aka aether] I say that light is alway MEASURED to travel at c with respect to the equipment doing the measurement, provided that THAT equipment is moving at a constant velocity. In other words light is measured to move at c in all inertial frames of reference. Amazingly enough, all data we have indicates that so long as we don't 'jump frames' while making our observations, all the data ever collected is consistent with this. Of course, if we do 'jump frames' or need to use a frame that is not truely inertial, we can use the L-E transforms to compensate for the motion. In such a case, the data is STILL consistent. As Einstein said in his 1905 paper, "The introduction of a �luminiferous ether� will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an �absolutely stationary space� provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." On the other hand, you seem to be working to introduce just such a concept. Why go back to pre 1905 science? -- 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 6 Dec 2007 00:04
On Dec 5, 5:18 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:067542fb-326f-468e-817e-b974532d2f19(a)r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 12:39 pm, bz <bz+na...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > [...] > > >> > 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. > > -- > > > << Willem de Sitter argued that if this was true, a star > > in a double-star system would usually have an orbit that > > caused it to have alternating approach and recession > > velocities, and light emitted from different parts of the > > orbital path would then travel towards us at different > > speeds. For a nearby star with a small orbital velocity ( > > or whose orbital plane was almost perpendicular to our > > line of view) this might merely make the star's orbit > > seem erratic, but for a sufficient combination of orbital > > speed and distance (and inclination), the "fast" light > > given off during approach would be able to catch up with > > and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would > > present an image that was scrambled and out of sequence. > > > De Sitter made a study of double stars (1913) and found > > no cases where the stars' images appeared scrambled. >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > So you may want to lend a bit of support to Henri Wilson's > > notions. > > No way do I support Henri's c+v and c-v light. But what does THAT have to > do with there being NO such thing as Sue's dielectric medium?[aka aether] > > I say that light is alway MEASURED to travel at c with respect to the > equipment doing the measurement, provided that THAT equipment is moving at > a constant velocity. In other words light is measured to move at c in all > inertial frames of reference. Did the double star space aliens make those measurements and call them to you on their Captain Fantastic communicator rings? > > Amazingly enough, all data we have indicates that so long as we don't > 'jump frames' while making our observations, all the data ever collected > is consistent with this. Of course, if we do 'jump frames' or need to use > a frame that is not truely inertial, we can use the L-E transforms to > compensate for the motion. In such a case, the data is STILL consistent. > > As Einstein said in his 1905 paper, > "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous > inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely > stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a > velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic > processes take place." > > On the other hand, you seem to be working to introduce just such a > concept. Why go back to pre 1905 science? Well Eintein said something much different at a later time but I won't look it up and risk knocking you time machine off of 1905 and spoiling your delusions. Sue... > > -- > bz |