The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jeckyl on 18 Dec 2007 22:53 "G" <gehan_ameresekere(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:39f5bc69-8a82-438b-a2da-d744ed9a9217(a)d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 19, 4:16 am, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "G" <gehan_ameresek...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b27f63a7-4e95-4425-805b-3c71f932e8b8(a)d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Assume the case where two spaceships leave the earth at exactly the >> > same time, accelerate at 1g for 10 hours, and pass by two "space >> > buoys" SpaceBouy 1 and 2 >> >> Putting acceleration into account really makes it unnecessarily >> complicated. >> For the sake of what you're saying, you can just have the ships moving at >> constant velocities and that at some time the both pass the earth, and >> then >> some time later they go past the space buoy. Then you can regard the >> buoys, >> earth, spaceship etc as all inertial frames. > > Yes, I thought of that, but I thought it unnecessarily complicated :) >> >> > SpaceBuoy 1 Ship1<<< Earth >>>Ship2 SpaceBuoy2 >> >> > at the time ship 1 and 2 pass the space buoys 1 and 2, a signal is >> > sent to space buoy 1 and 2 giving the exact time shown by the on board >> > clocks of each spaceship. Each clock will be dutifully running slower >> > than the earth clock, and will indicate Ship1t1 and Ship2t1 >> >> > Ship1t1 = Ship2t1 and << Spacebouy and earth clock times >> >> Yeup .. relative to the earth .. as both have the same time dilation >> effect >> in the earth iFoR >> >> > However since Ship1 is moving relative to Ship2 >> >> > Ship1_t1 <> Ship2t_1 >> >> Yes .. for the iFoR of each of the ships >> >> > One may raise the objection that Ship1_t1 = Ship2_t1 only in the >> > "stationary" earth frame of reference. >> >> Yes.. that is exactly what one argues. >> >> > However the times are communicated to the space buoys at the exact >> > same instant for all the bodies concerned > > No : You are disagreeing with yourself there :):):) > the point of the experiment is that the time that the ships reach > the bouys in their own respective reference frames can be calcuated > using the time dilation equation. > This will be the actual times on > each spaceship in their own reference frame. Then the times will be the same, as each ship travels with the same speed relative to the buoys (and vice versa) > Is there an instant that is common to all frames? No > If not, is there a > time value that is equivalent in magnitude in each frame? No > In which > case you will still have the inequality. Yes .. there is inequality. > Why doesnt someone calculate the values? Which ones? Can't you do it yourself using the Lorentz transforms .. its not that difficult (if you do not use the more complicated acceleration case) > You cannot have two different > times in space ship1 and sapceship2 No reason why not > Also, EA EA? > hinted at "memorylessness" which may mean that when a > historical trace of all events is taken and compared, there are > contradictions. What contradictions? >> No .. this is a different situation, and there is no paradox when you >> consider relativity of simultaneity > > Simultaneity beleiving that "Information/ reality is limited by the > speed of light" . Obviously you don't understand what is meant by relativity of simultaneity > When you take historical tracking of physical > phenomena this disappears, I think. No
From: Bryan Olson on 17 Dec 2007 15:03 Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: > [...] >>> You have offered no argument of your own >>> to dispute this: > <<All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html >> I not refuted it because it's a point on my side. > > << with respect to an inertial frame, an object or > body accelerates only when a physical force is applied,>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial > > So you must be attributing the difference in > the way relative moving candles burn to > magic or telekinesis if you share Daryl's > view that they will not be the same > length after some period of inertial motion. You make the mistake Tacitus explained almost 2000 years ago: Omne ignotum pro magnifico. What you do not understand, you take to be magic. >>> It would seem to prohibit the detection of absolute >>> motion by a twins life processes or a clock with >>> moving mass in its mechanism. >> Or any other mechanism; SR, the same theory that implies the >> twins paradox, asserts that nothing any motion as absolute. >> >>> All the references I have offered are consistant with that >>> interpretation. >> Just in your head. That's why your work would get a big red X >> through it in a physics class. > > You seem to be describing magic and ignoring what PoR > clearly states. Your argument is the same as Jeckly's. > Faith based or ~~It is what the book says~~~ The book I've been citing *derives* time dilation from the PoR. Check it out, no magic: http://www.bartleby.com/173/ http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html > You will be assured of a passing grade in parrot class > if any school ever ofers it. Was it ostrich class where you mastered hiding your head in the sand? Sorry to break it to you, but that one is myth. You brought up course material at MIT and U Texas. It turned out the particular pages you cited did not take your side; they did not explicitly take mine either, but other materials from those curricula did. At MIT there's a quiz on-line, with answers, that hits exactly the topic here. Check out problem one, question e: http://web.mit.edu/8.01/www/Spring05/exams/qs12-s05.pdf -- --Bryan
From: Jeckyl on 17 Dec 2007 18:41 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fk6ea602oru(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Jeckyl says... >> >>"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >>> Daryl was able to argue that his half burned candle >>> did not violate that statement by interpreting the >>> statement so that it not falsifiable. >> >>You misundersatnd it then > > In general, if Sue is not telling what someone says > verbatim, she is misquoting them. She never accurately > paraphrases anything. > > I have explained to Sue why the differential aging > predicted by the twin paradox does not violate the > principle of relativity --- it was *derived* from > the principle of relativity. Sue is an idiot. A fine and accurate summary :)
From: Bryan Olson on 20 Dec 2007 01:04 Sue... wrote: > <<From the scientific point of view, the important > thing is to understand the clearly defined meaning > of "proper time", based on the concept of an > "ideal clock" corrected for all local sensible > conditions, justified by the empirical fact that > all physical phenomena are affected identically - > including their rates of temporal progression - > by their state of inertial motion (which is not a > locally sensible condition). >> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm I believe that by "not a locally sensible condition" he means it is not what we would expect. I do not think he is saying the theory is logically inconsistent, or even absurd. I'm not clear on what Sue was trying to show with this quote. > What is the factual material you were introduced to > where two experiments did not have identical results > (temporal aspects as well) and the difference could be > traced to inertial motion between the experiments? The same theory that implies the twins paradox rules out two experiments differing in the way you ask. Sue, by now you should have noticed that I am on side of Einstein's theory of relativity, which I would not be had I such "factual material" as you request. If you want to ask a relativity denier, you are a distance of zero from one, regardless of the frame from which we measure it. Or maybe I misunderstood the question. Certainly two observations may differ on how Jupiter's moons move, due to being observed from different states of inertial motion. The catch is that Jupiter's moons are part of the two experiments, so the two differed in thiere motion relative to their subject, and not merely in "inertial motion between the experiments". Sue has messed up on that distinction many times. -- --Bryan
From: Jeckyl on 17 Dec 2007 20:47
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1358935a-bd41-4fdb-b01c-1ac555c9dd4f(a)e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > So you must be attributing the difference in > the way relative moving candles burn There is no difference in the way they burn. Gees you're slow on the uptake. > to > magic or telekinesis if you share Daryl's > view that they will not be the same > length after some period of inertial motion. They will burn the same length after the same amount of time in their respective frames. >> Just in your head. That's why your work would get a big red X >> through it in a physics class. > > You seem to be describing magic and ignoring what PoR > clearly states. Your argument is the same as Jeckly's. > Faith based or ~~It is what the book says~~~ No.. its based on physics .. an understadning of which you clearly lack [now Sue talks aout her own faith...] > <<Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. > Instead of bothering to consult reference works or > investigating directly, its advocates simply spout > bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often > central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. > Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first > edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the > last, even though the book remains in print for > decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious > mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may > be reprinted as is, over and over. >> > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Yeup .. what you describe is exactly what you do. > Discoveries are make by skeptics. > http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html I doubt that :) |