The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 7 Dec 2007 04:50 On Dec 7, 3:05 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:198759ca-6789-4e33-959d- > aa9f47680...(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. Now you are obfuscating. Order pizza and cool your heels for 4 years. The transport of information, energy or it mass equivalent is limited to the speed of light. The ability to synchornise spatially separate points does not violate that. The Coulomb force exist before and after the experiment and so does the generating plant and a cord full of cycles. Feynman (or anything in the Coulomb gauge) uses this type of clock quite successfully. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 You need to grow up, put your H.G. Wells books away and accept Einstein's not-so-clear statement that a moving clock is *judged* to slow and must include a light path (or a Newtonian ether) in its mechanism to avoid absurdities in the resultant equations of motion. ....or Fiitzpatrick's clearer statement. <<the particle's clock *appears* to run slow, by a factor gamm(u).>> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html ....or Einstein's immutable statements: <<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light >> "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Sue... > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Sue... on 7 Dec 2007 13:17 On Dec 7, 9:26 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:257095c5-c636-4f87-8019-6b42d63e5963(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:54 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:fa01e81c-a4df-4adf-862e-7cf069420cd1(a)e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [...] > > > No... it transmits frequency information. > > It transmits power but it take 4 years for the signal to travel from one > end to the other. At 60 Hz, that is 4.544 x 10^10 degrees because there > are 360 degrees per Hz. If you start the experiment 4 years before you > launch the ship, then those degrees are 'pre-loaded' into the pipeline. > But when you end the round trip, after 8 years since launch time, there is > still power on the cord. It take 4 MORE years for the cord to empty. > So, you have 16 years of ac flow and an 8 year trip. > Connecting AC powered clocks when they are needed then diconnecting them, is not how they are normally used. For world's first "Green" thought-experiment +5 points. For world'd dumbest thought experiment -5 points. > > > > > >> > Feynman (or anything in the Coulomb gauge) uses this type of > >> > clock quite successfully. > > >> Coulomb gauge does NOT transport light or charged particles at super-c > >> velocity. > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > [...] > > What Einstein said may be 'clealy' in conflict with what Sue claims a > synchronous > clock motor could do if fed over a fixed length cord. But I am inclined to > believe Einstein, Fitzpatrick and other experts rather than Sue and 'her' > peculiar slant on physics. > > > Do you have the terms phase and frequency confused? > > No confusion here. > Do you understand that phase and frequency are closely related? > > A cumulative phase shift is a frequency shift and vice versa. > > 60 Hz is 21600 deg/s. 59 Hz is 21240 deg/s. The difference is 360 deg/s. Sorry... Abacus beads on a wire work just as well so you just wasted your calculator batteries. Why not learn where you can really apply the Lorentz factor and maybe you'll gain some spin off knowledge that prevents you from setting your house on fire with your new impedance bridge. http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Near&Farfield ....And unless you are the only one living in the house PLEASE stop unplugging the clocks when you are not looking at them. They don't work well that way and you'll drive the other memebers of your houshold crazy if your notions of time travel have not done so already. :o) Sue... > bz-
From: bz on 7 Dec 2007 13:55 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:e91023eb-11b6-43f5-b53a-03b750b43327(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 7, 9:26 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:257095c5-c636-4f87-8019-6b42d63e5963(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 7, 5:54 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> >> innews:fa01e81c-a4df-4adf-862e-7cf069420cd1(a)e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.c >> >> om: > [...] >> >> > No... it transmits frequency information. >> >> It transmits power but it take 4 years for the signal to travel from >> one end to the other. At 60 Hz, that is 4.544 x 10^10 degrees because >> there are 360 degrees per Hz. If you start the experiment 4 years >> before you launch the ship, then those degrees are 'pre-loaded' into >> the pipeline. But when you end the round trip, after 8 years since >> launch time, there is still power on the cord. It take 4 MORE years for >> the cord to empty. So, you have 16 years of ac flow and an 8 year trip. >> > > Connecting AC powered clocks when they are needed then > diconnecting them, is not how they are normally used. Nor is running them through 4 LY long extension cords. > > For world's first "Green" thought-experiment +5 points. > For world'd dumbest thought experiment -5 points. YOU devised the experiment in the first place. I was perfectly happy with a quartz crystal wrist watch, but NO, you had to go out and buy a special synchronous AC clock. And then tell ME I have to drag along an extension cord to run YOUR clock. THEN *you* have the nerve to say 'For world's dumbest thought experiment -5 points'. How many dumb points does THAT deserve, half a googol, at least. >> >> >> >> > Feynman (or anything in the Coulomb gauge) uses this type of >> >> > clock quite successfully. >> >> >> Coulomb gauge does NOT transport light or charged particles at >> >> super-c velocity. >> > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 >> > [...] >> >> What Einstein said may be 'clealy' in conflict with what Sue claims a >> synchronous >> clock motor could do if fed over a fixed length cord. But I am inclined >> to believe Einstein, Fitzpatrick and other experts rather than Sue and >> 'her' peculiar slant on physics. >> >> > Do you have the terms phase and frequency confused? >> >> No confusion here. >> Do you understand that phase and frequency are closely related? >> >> A cumulative phase shift is a frequency shift and vice versa. >> >> 60 Hz is 21600 deg/s. 59 Hz is 21240 deg/s. The difference is 360 >> deg/s. > > Sorry... Abacus beads on a wire work just as well so Not as far as I can see. > you just wasted your calculator batteries. I see that the right answer just doesn't phase you at all. > > Why not learn where you can really apply the Lorentz factor > and maybe you'll gain some spin off knowledge that prevents > you from setting your house on fire with your new impedance bridge. > > http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Near&Farfield > > ...And unless you are the only one living in the house > PLEASE stop unplugging the clocks when you are not > looking at them. Well, you leave 4 LY long extension cords laying around the house. Did you calculate the VOLTAGE you must supply to that cord? Let's assume the resistance is .001 ohms per foot, you want to supply .01 ma at 110 vac to the clock. You will need 1,242,000,000 VAC. Now would YOU want to leave a cable with that kind of voltage on it laying around, plugged in????? > They don't work well that way and you'll > drive the other memebers of your houshold crazy if your > notions of time travel have not done so already. :o) You get to pay the electric bill for 1,742,000 KW-hrs. And that is just for the 16 years needed by your experiment. (and doesn't include the cost of the copper or insulation that can stand long term exposure to vacuum and remain flexible.) -- 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 7 Dec 2007 23:04 On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] [Green Beans and Spinach] http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html > > You get to pay the electric bill for 1,742,000 KW-hrs. > And that is just for the 16 years needed by your experiment. > (and doesn't include the cost of the copper or insulation that can stand > long term exposure to vacuum and remain flexible.) Feynman used a infinite number of paths like that. Just think what his electric bill must have been. :o) << Any two detailed configurations in the same equivalence class are related by a gauge transformation, equivalent to a shear along unphysical axes in configuration space. Most of the quantitative physical predictions of a gauge theory can only be obtained under a coherent prescription for suppressing or ignoring these unphysical degrees of freedom. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing The cord's constant length path plays that part in the problem for folks that lack the tools to do it in mathmatics. There is no shame it that if you have ever delved into QED beyond the simple overview of a particle exploring all paths with a clock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097 To make a magnet work you have to consider an infinite number of paths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications If the magnet moves, You have to consider an infinite number of paths AND the finite speed of light. ===> That is Special Relativty !!! <=== Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.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 So pick your poison. 1. How to make a parlor trick: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html 2. How magnets gravity and inertia works: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: bz on 8 Dec 2007 21:27
f"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:683e2ea6-a55b-4428-af65-ade526fbfc10(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > [...] > > [Green Beans and Spinach] > > http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html Near field/far field boundary still remains where I suggested it did. The thesis supports my figures. There is nothing in that thesis to support you. > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html A complete 'intermediate course' in Classical EM. You have yet to convince me that ANYTHING there supports you. [quote] In special relativity, we are only allowed to use inertial frames to assign coordinates to events. .... the most general transformation between two inertial frames consists of a Lorentz transformation in the standard configuration plus a translation (this includes a translation in time) .... [unquote] He does not eschew inertial frames of reference, nor does he claim that the Lorentz time transform only applies to light clocks. He does note that time, unlike space, is NOT isotropic. (ya can't go back-wards in time) [as if that were news] [quote] The distribution of signs in the metric ensures that the time coordinate $x^4$ is not on the same footing as the three space coordinates. Thus, space-time has a non-isotropic nature which is quite unlike Euclidian space, with its positive definite metric. According to the relativity principle, all physical laws are expressible as interrelationships between 4-tensors in space-time. [unquote] But he DOES not say anything to support your absurd contentions. > http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm Pretty pictures but they do nothing to support your contentions and provide no surprises to any of us that have studied a bit about light and EM. > http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html Well, I must give you credit for finding something to do with hair. But nothing about the rate of GROWTH of hair. And, although you might have supposed it supported your contention that there are no isotropic radiators, you will notice they admit that isotropic radiation of energy is possible. [quote] Clearly then, we cannot realise an isotropic radiator in practice since there will be places on the unit sphere where we cannot specify a unique "polarisation direction" for the direction of the electric field. (For example, the lines of longitude on a sphere all meet at the poles, and the directions N and S are not defined at the poles). This is sometimes called the "hairy ball" problem. Can you comb a hairy ball so that there is no parting or point of baldness anywhere on the ball? No; there must be a discontinuity in hair direction somewhere. For this reason, it is impossible to construct, or even envisage, a perfect isotropic radiator. [emphasis mine](If one allows more than one polarisation mode, one can approximate an isotropic radiator for some practical purposes. [end emphasis] However, this can be argued to be a superposition of two antennas, and the polarisation properties are not isotropic even though the power summed over the two modes may be, approximately. To receive isotropic radiation from such an antenna over the sphere, one would have to construct a receive antenna whose polarisation properties depended on where it is located with respect to the source. An example of this dual-polarisation use is provided by the turnstile antenna, and tailored stacked turnstiles may be made a good approximation to an isotropic source in this sense.) [emphasis mine] It is however possible to have uniform radiation in all azimuth (see below) directions, or in all elevation directions at a particular azimuth plane.[end emphasis] [unquote] So, As far as I can tell, you have shot yourself in the foot with each reference you cited. >> >> You get to pay the electric bill for 1,742,000 KW-hrs. >> And that is just for the 16 years needed by your experiment. >> (and doesn't include the cost of the copper or insulation that can >> stand long term exposure to vacuum and remain flexible.) > > Feynman used a infinite number of paths like that. Just think > what his electric bill must have been. :o) Now you ARE being silly. The integral of all of those paths cancels out most of the power, just as integrating over a complete AC cycle cancels out the reactive power that you thought was imaginary. I'll tell you, the flow into and out of my checking account averages out to zero but the flow is quite real. Likewise the flow into and out of the reactive circuit components. Now, if I could just figure out how to introduce some resistive elements into my bank account to retain some of the money in it! > > << Any two detailed configurations in the same > equivalence class are related by a gauge transformation, > equivalent to a shear along unphysical axes in > configuration space. Most of the quantitative physical > predictions of a gauge theory can only be obtained under > a coherent prescription for suppressing or ignoring > these unphysical degrees of freedom. >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing > > The cord's constant length path plays that part in the > problem for folks that lack the tools to do it > in mathmatics. There is no shame it that if you > have ever delved into QED beyond the simple > overview of a particle exploring all paths with > a clock. You have yet to convince me that YOUR analogy has any relationship to any of the math I have seen. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9302097 Math works. What is new? Where on that page does it say that only light clocks are effected? > To make a magnet work you have to consider an > infinite number of paths. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applications [quote] The choice of the �post point� q(j) in the potential terms is not unique. A �prepoint�, �mid-point� or a �product-form�-expansion is also legitimate. However, changing from one to another formulation does not alter the path integral, [unquote] The path integral for motion from point A to point A gives tau = 1/2 vt^2/c^2 All your wiggling and firing smoke bombs can not hide the fact that tau from t does not exempt massive bodies from the ravages of time. > If the magnet moves, You have to consider an infinite number > of paths AND the finite speed of light. Consider if you wish. It changes the results by not one iota. SR works fine for magnets. No Feynman required. Magnets worked fine before he was born. > > ===> That is Special Relativty !!! <=== > > Time-independent Maxwell equations > Time-dependent Maxwell's equations > Relativity and electromagnetism > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.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_extend > ed Still nothing exempting any kind of clocks. Stop wasting my time and yours. > > So pick your poison. > > 1. How to make a parlor trick: > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html You keep trying to distract the eye from what your hand is doing. You keep trying to distract our minds from misleading statements you are making. > > 2. How magnets gravity and inertia works: > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015 > http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm My impedance bridge arrived. It gives clear answers. You don't. Why do you waste everyone's time like this? -- 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 |