The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jeckyl on 6 Dec 2007 00:27 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:10a66308-0644-4348-b598-a25b17cf09ea(a)b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 5:18 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> 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? Typical Sue nonsense .. she can't do the physics so either posts rubbish or links to articles that usualyl have no relevance to the topic being discussed.
From: Sue... on 6 Dec 2007 00:37 On Dec 5, 7:20 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. Might the nearfield where Lorentz force is effective be one of those "circumstances" where it applies? ....Kinda like in equation 511?: "Retarded Potentials" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended "Near and Far Fields" http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing Sue... > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY
From: Bryan Olson on 6 Dec 2007 02:42 colp wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> colp wrote: >>> Bryan Olson wrote: >>>> colp wrote: >>>>> 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, And it references the derivation, in the appendix of the same doc, which is probably what I should have linked: http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html > not the Lorentz factor. No idea what you're on about there. Did you somehow miss the Lorentz factor in the Lorentz Transformation? > 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. Except the one we've shown you over and over, right there in SR. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html -- --Bryan
From: bz on 6 Dec 2007 01:58 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in news:13lf21l2as1n960(a)corp.supernews.com: > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > news:10a66308-0644-4348-b598-a25b17cf09ea(a)b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... >> On Dec 5, 5:18 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> 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? > > Typical Sue nonsense .. she can't do the physics so either posts rubbish > or links to articles that usualyl have no relevance to the topic being > discussed. I think I have figured it out: 'She' is 'teaching relativity' using the Galilean method. Sue is taking the role of Simplicio. -- 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: bz on 6 Dec 2007 02:29
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:10a66308-0644-4348-b598-a25b17cf09ea(a)b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > 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 ..... >> 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? No. >> >> 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 Not all that different. He said that [quote http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html] ..... It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. ....According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space. As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. 1t may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. [this is exactly the properety that Sue wants to add back in] ..... The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. ..... More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity. ..... Generalising we must say this: There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether. ..... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. [end quote] > but > I won't look it up and risk knocking you time machine off of 1905 > and spoiling your delusions. Aw, come on, spoil my delusions. Show me where Einstein drinks of the Sue cup of aether. Show me where he recants. When does he withdraw his support for tau =1/2 tv^2/c^2 for ANY path through space-time from point A back to point A. Show me where he says that THAT tau does not effect anything but light clocks exposed to the dielectric medium of free space. Show me where he goes back to applying properties of 'parts that can be tracked through time' to aether. Spoil my delusions. -- 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 |