The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 6 Dec 2007 10:59 On Dec 6, 8:20 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:d906490d-11e3-4795-8a33-2e5b7abe68ee(a)t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > > On Dec 6, 2:29 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Aw, come on, spoil my delusions. > > >> Show me where Einstein drinks of the Sue cup of aether. > > >> Show me where he recants. > > > I am not an Einstin worshiper so it matters not to me. > > I don't worship Einstin nor Einstein, but we HAVE been discussing some > effects he is famous for predicting, that have been later observed. > > > > > But since you seem to be of the opinion anemomemters > > work whether indoors or outdoors > > You can't honestly believe I ever said any such thing. But I will state > "anemometers work, whether indoors or outdoors". You see, in the late > 70's, early 80's I worked for Kemron Environmental services. I did board > repair on the Data General Micro Nova computers they used to gather data > in the field and I fixed instruments. Their usual field site included > equipment to monitor wind speed, wind direction,RH, temperature, SOx, NOx, > Ozone, Particulates and PaH. I have repaired and calibrated anemometers. > We had thermal and cup types. They work just fine indoors. Of course, they > measure the wind speed INDOORS in such a case. Well... I got you attention. >:-) If the same stuff that sets the propagation speed of light from de Sitter's double-stars is blowing through an interferometer, the doppler effect will be evident. Inside the craft, it won't be blowing. Pilots don't stop navigating with air speed and a compass for fear someone will accuse them of using or not using an absoule reference. The Fizeau light clock I described, was slowing as the ISM blew between the reflectors. It works, because we don't see scrambled double stars. It is detectable, because it is hydrogen and helium. Since ether has never been detected. It is not ether. > > I have never seen an anemomemter but perhaps the extra m is the reason > yours doesn't work. > > > perhaps you can > > suggest an air density where a laser anemometer > > will stop working. > > They cease to work when the anemo ends, of course. Spelling +5 points Quality of argument -5 points. :o) > > But meanwhile, back to the point or more likely, Sue's avoidance of it: > > > Hints: > > "Propagation in a dielectric medium" > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > > [quote] > Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic waves through a > dielectric medium are the same as Maxwell's equations for the propagation > of waves through a vacuum (see Sect. 4.7), except that $c\rightarrow c/n$, > [unquote] > In other words, EM moves slower in a dielectric medium than through a > vacuum. > > Nothing there to indicate that space itself is to be considered a static > dielectric medium. I never said it was static. http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > [...] > Nothing there to support any of Sue contentions. I am not intimidated by > intersteller medium and they say nothing to support Sue's contention that a > clock on a ship departing earth at relativisitic speeds would stay in sync > with an earthbound clock. Put the Fizeau light clock outside the ship. Put the Long corded synchronous motor clock inside the ship. (Forget your brainwashing that all clocks must slow with motion so you can calculate again) ....and see if this is not the correct formula for relating the two. http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~mbarbato/Remote%20Sensing_files/page0003.htm Does is look familar? > > Have you ever seen one of those movie scenes where a car full of keystone > kops is chasing an old truck full of junk and Laurel or Hardy, in the > truck keeps throwing junk into the road to slow down the kops? When ever I > read one of your posts, I get the impression that you are throwing out > citations like Laural and Hardy threw out junk. The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. --Mark Twain Sue... > > -- > bz
From: bz on 6 Dec 2007 10:34 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:2a3dedc2-94b9-4750-ae48- 824559486b50(a)o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > You and Henri and Androcles can look for loopholes > in Einstein's holy words that permits particle light > moving as tho influenced by inertia. > And you can keep (or stop) beating your wife. -- 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 6 Dec 2007 15:39 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:9421309e-a73a-40d7-9504-022184df5373(a)y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 6, 8:20 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:d906490d-11e3-4795-8a33-2e5b7abe68ee(a)t47g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> > On Dec 6, 2:29 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> > [...] >> >> >> Aw, come on, spoil my delusions. >> >> >> Show me where Einstein drinks of the Sue cup of aether. >> >> >> Show me where he recants. >> >> > I am not an Einstin worshiper so it matters not to me. >> >> I don't worship Einstin nor Einstein, but we HAVE been discussing some >> effects he is famous for predicting, that have been later observed. >> > But since you seem to be of the opinion anemomemters >> > work whether indoors or outdoors >> >> You can't honestly believe I ever said any such thing. But I will state >> "anemometers work, whether indoors or outdoors". You see, in the late >> 70's, early 80's I worked for Kemron Environmental services. I did >> board repair on the Data General Micro Nova computers they used to >> gather data in the field and I fixed instruments. Their usual field >> site included equipment to monitor wind speed, wind direction,RH, >> temperature, SOx, NOx, Ozone, Particulates and PaH. I have repaired and >> calibrated anemometers. We had thermal and cup types. They work just >> fine indoors. Of course, they measure the wind speed INDOORS in such a >> case. > > Well... I got you attention. >:-) If you had stuck to the subject, it would have been so unusual that it would have gotten my *complete* attention. > If the same stuff that sets the > propagation speed of light from de Sitter's double-stars is > blowing through an interferometer, the doppler effect will > be evident. Inside the craft, it won't be blowing. I prefer to believe that Ritz was wRong and that de Sitter and der Stander aka Herr EinStein were right. > Pilots don't stop navigating with air speed and a > compass for fear someone will accuse them of using > or not using an absoule reference. But they make sure their pitot tube hasn't been piton'd 'cause they know that air does certain things under pressure. There is NO indication that motion through the 'dielectric medium of space' has any influence on light. All we know for sure is that the relative velocity of source and observer effects 1) frequency observed 2) wavelength observed 3) energy observed But NOT velocity observed. You seem to disagree with part of that, but I am not sure which part. Which part do you disagree with? > The Fizeau light clock I described, was slowing > as the ISM blew between the reflectors. The only Fizeau light clocks I know anything about run on earth and are thus shielded from any possible motions of the ISM. > > It works, because we don't see scrambled double stars. That is not because of the ISM but because light propagation is ALWAYS observed to be c by any observer. > It is detectable, because it is hydrogen and helium. hydrogen and helium are detected. Yes. They are part of the ISM. ThAT ISM does NOT 'unify the velocities' of light leaving the double star because the velocity has always been c, ever since it left the dense medium around the star (where it was going c/n). > Since ether has never been detected. It is not ether. That is what I have been saying. But you insist on something with aether like properties that makes light clocks (but nothing else) run slow. > >> >> I have never seen an anemomemter but perhaps the extra m is the reason >> yours doesn't work. >> >> > perhaps you can >> > suggest an air density where a laser anemometer >> > will stop working. >> >> They cease to work when the anemo ends, of course. > > Spelling +5 points > Quality of argument -5 points. :o) I thought the argument was very cogent and succinct. > >> >> But meanwhile, back to the point or more likely, Sue's avoidance of it: >> >> > Hints: >> > "Propagation in a dielectric medium" >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html >> >> [quote] >> Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic waves >> through a dielectric medium are the same as Maxwell's equations for the >> propagation of waves through a vacuum (see Sect. 4.7), except that >> $c\rightarrow c/n$, [unquote] >> In other words, EM moves slower in a dielectric medium than through a >> vacuum. >> >> Nothing there to indicate that space itself is to be considered a >> static dielectric medium. > > I never said it was static. > http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html You indicated that it was movement wrt IT that slowed [only] light clocks. That kinda implies it gotta be static, especially when you ALSO insist that time is absolute, or didn't you realize the implications of your ideas? >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >> > > [...] >> Nothing there to support any of Sue contentions. I am not intimidated >> by intersteller medium and they say nothing to support Sue's contention >> that a clock on a ship departing earth at relativisitic speeds would >> stay in sync with an earthbound clock. > > Put the Fizeau light clock outside the ship. > Put the Long corded synchronous motor clock inside the > ship. > > (Forget your brainwashing that all clocks must > slow with motion so you can calculate again) I tried the LE time transform again but I get the same numbers out for tau when I put a 'light' subscript on 't' or I put an 'ponderable mass' subscript on t > > ...and see if this is not the correct formula for relating the two. > http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~mbarbato/Remote%20Sensing_files/page0003.htm > Does is look familar? Looks fine for Doppler shift. Doesn't say anything about transforming time readings from my iFoR to the ship's iFoR. > >> >> Have you ever seen one of those movie scenes where a car full of >> keystone kops is chasing an old truck full of junk and Laurel or Hardy, >> in the truck keeps throwing junk into the road to slow down the kops? >> When ever I read one of your posts, I get the impression that you are >> throwing out citations like Laural and Hardy threw out junk. > > The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that > the lightning ain't distributed right. > --Mark Twain -- 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 21:16 On Dec 6, 3:39 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > > Well... I got you attention. >:-) > > If you had stuck to the subject, it would have been so unusual that it > would have gotten my *complete* attention. > > > If the same stuff that sets the > > propagation speed of light from de Sitter's double-stars is > > blowing through an interferometer, the doppler effect will > > be evident. Inside the craft, it won't be blowing. > > I prefer to believe that Ritz was wRong and that de Sitter and der Stander > aka Herr EinStein were right. I was beginning to wonder with some of your posts. > > > Pilots don't stop navigating with air speed and a > > compass for fear someone will accuse them of using > > or not using an absoule reference. > > But they make sure their pitot tube hasn't been piton'd 'cause they know > that air does certain things under pressure. > > There is NO indication that motion through the 'dielectric medium of > space' has any influence on light. Gee... It did't take you long to throw de Sitter under the railcar. > All we know for sure is that the > relative velocity of source and observer effects 1) frequency observed > 2) wavelength observed > 3) energy observed > But NOT velocity observed. That is exactly what dielectric paths do. If a Kansas City townhouse dweller hears the thunder of hoof beats, should he conclude it a heard of zebra is on the street below? > > You seem to disagree with part of that, but I am not sure which part. > Which part do you disagree with? No... The part I disagree with is *failing* to recognise it as a medium where motion wrt to it, produces detectable doppler shift. > > > The Fizeau light clock I described, was slowing > > as the ISM blew between the reflectors. > > The only Fizeau light clocks I know anything about run on earth and are > thus shielded from any possible motions of the ISM. > > Then they would not slow with motion. But that is OK Einstein said the clock was *judged* from a relative moving frame, to slow. > > > It works, because we don't see scrambled double stars. > > That is not because of the ISM but because light propagation is ALWAYS > observed to be c by any observer. > > > It is detectable, because it is hydrogen and helium. > > hydrogen and helium are detected. Yes. > They are part of the ISM. > ThAT ISM does NOT 'unify the velocities' of light leaving the double star > because the velocity has always been c, ever since it left the dense > medium around the star (where it was going c/n). > > > Since ether has never been detected. It is not ether. > > That is what I have been saying. But you insist on something with aether > like properties that makes light clocks (but nothing else) run slow. Have it your way. There is no light clock outside. The clock inside the ship doesn't slow with motion Because it is shielded and has its own dielectic. > > > > >> I have never seen an anemomemter but perhaps the extra m is the reason > >> yours doesn't work. > > >> > perhaps you can > >> > suggest an air density where a laser anemometer > >> > will stop working. > > >> They cease to work when the anemo ends, of course. > > > Spelling +5 points > > Quality of argument -5 points. :o) > > I thought the argument was very cogent and succinct. > > > >> But meanwhile, back to the point or more likely, Sue's avoidance of it: > > >> > Hints: > >> > "Propagation in a dielectric medium" > >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > > >> [quote] > >> Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic waves > >> through a dielectric medium are the same as Maxwell's equations for the > >> propagation of waves through a vacuum (see Sect. 4.7), except that > >> $c\rightarrow c/n$, [unquote] > >> In other words, EM moves slower in a dielectric medium than through a > >> vacuum. > > >> Nothing there to indicate that space itself is to be considered a > >> static dielectric medium. > > > I never said it was static. > >http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > > You indicated that it was movement wrt IT that slowed [only] light clocks. > That kinda implies it gotta be static, especially when you ALSO insist > that time is absolute, or didn't you realize the implications of your > ideas? It isn't static on a grand scale. Edwin Hubble? Galaxies move wrt each other and gas clouds follow them around. > > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > > > [...] > >> Nothing there to support any of Sue contentions. I am not intimidated > >> by intersteller medium and they say nothing to support Sue's contention > >> that a clock on a ship departing earth at relativisitic speeds would > >> stay in sync with an earthbound clock. > > > Put the Fizeau light clock outside the ship. > > Put the Long corded synchronous motor clock inside the > > ship. > > > (Forget your brainwashing that all clocks must > > slow with motion so you can calculate again) > > I tried the LE time transform again but I get the same numbers out for > tau when I put a 'light' subscript on 't' or I put an 'ponderable mass' > subscript on t > Good. When the ponderable mass smacks into stayhome's swimming pool you will be able to calculte the temperature rise of the water. If the departing traveler wants to cook an egg by looking at stayhome's clock, it is useful for that too. > > > > ...and see if this is not the correct formula for relating the two. > >http://www.eden.rutgers.edu/~mbarbato/Remote%20Sensing_files/page0003... > > Does is look familar? > > Looks fine for Doppler shift. Doesn't say anything about transforming time > readings from my iFoR to the ship's iFoR. There is no inertia involved in cooking an egg. There is inertia involved if you heat stayhome's pool by crashing a ship into it. Einstein convers that here. General Results of the Theory <<The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz theory so plausible, that the latter would have been generally accepted by physicists even if experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favour. [...] If a body takes up an amount of energy E0, then its inertial mass increases by an amount E_0/c_0 the inertial mass of a body is not a constant, but varies according to the change in the energy of the body. The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html We have said all we need to about inertia because there is no Newtonian ether and: 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html See, It works much better if ya don't go out of your way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by inventing experiments that violate PoR. Sue... > > -- > bz
From: bz on 7 Dec 2007 03:05
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:198759ca-6789-4e33-959d- aa9f47680f73(a)d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > See, It works much better if ya don't go > out of your way to snatch defeat from the > jaws of victory by inventing experiments > that violate PoR. > Speaking of the jaws on my vice, I just tried your extension cord experiment. I started with a 4 LY long extension cord, and decided to set out on a trip to alpha centari at .9 c. I was using radio to talk to the pilot on the ship as he orbited the earth prior to starting the journey. T minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 BLASTOFF! I plug in the extension cord. Oops the clock must be broken. It isn't running at all. Pilot sez he can't start his trip until the clock starts working. I must scrub the mission because the ship doesn't have enough food to allow it to wait 4 years IN EARTH ORBIT before setting out on the trip. -- 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 |