The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 24 Dec 2007 07:38 On Dec 24, 6:02 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: > Sue... wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > > [...] > >> So retract all that nonsense you wrote about how we need > >> to consider a bunch of different clock types, and even > >> specific biological mechanisms. *All* temporal phenomena > >> are similarly effected by relative inertial motion. Once > >> again your references agrees with me and contradicts > >> yourself. > > > Newton's ether is required to compute any effect. > > > 0 = 0 > > > I only stated that a light_clock could detect motion > > if it included a path through the dielectric of free space. > > The reference you offered for you light clock did not say > anything about such a thing. > > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html > > And no, Sue, you did not only state that much. You were on > about a bunch of different kinds of clocks. Go save NASA's soul if you don't believe it. http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/sumo.html > > > (Doppler effect) Einstein says the same in his 1920 paper. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > >http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > > Once again Sue's links do not say what she says implies they do. You can forget what I say if you like. But don't mistate what the theory says. > > > That is not an inertial effect because light is massless and > > it is not a violation of PoR as Fitzpartick explains: > > > <<...where and are physical constants which can be > > evaluated by performing two simple experiments which > > involve measuring the force of attraction between two > > fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying > > wires. According to the relativity principle these > > experiments must yield the same values for and in > > all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must > > be the same in all inertial frames. >> > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html > > So none of those can detect inertial motion of the > experiment. Now where does he say that your mechanism can? Go push your car if you want to detect inertial coupling. > > >>> Citing what you were taught in a class carries no weight > >>> in science. > >> Hey, I referenced university curricula just because you > >> did, and I checked out the ones you chose to cite. I showed > >> the very schools you named teach as science what you called > >> myth. If you did not think what MIT teaches to be relevant, > >> maybe *you* should not have brought it up. > > > There is plenty of old teaching material still using the > > *twins paradox* and even Newton's corpuscular light. > > The quiz was from 2005. There's some more recent material too, > but the quiz was a good example because it came with the > answers. > > > You might inquire directly of the institutions why > > Fitzpatrick's course differs from Guth's material with > > regard to the twin's paradox. > > I found that already. Where Fitzpatrick teaches, it's covered > in a different course. > > > Fitz's stuff is subject > > to intense peer review because is it used both [...] > > One thing Fitzpatrick's stuff does not do, at least as far > as you've been able to cite here, is side with your "twins > myth" position. Real experiment supports with my twins-myth position. GPS and Pound-Rebka demonstrates that clocks slow near a mass. Einstein and Mach say gravity there causes inertia here. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html If you are traveling far from any mass, half the masses that could slow your clock are moving toward you; half the masses that could slow your clock are moving away from you; Net change in the inertial field is 0. (+1/2) + (-1/2) = 0 There is no inertial/gravitational force that can alter an experiment. (Spatially or temporally) http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm That is consistiant with Einstein's *stronger* interpretation of the Principle of Relativity "ALL inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of *ALL* physical experiments. " [spatially and *temporally* as mathpages points out] http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html Sue... > > -- > --Bryan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bryan Olson on 24 Dec 2007 15:16
Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> Sue... wrote: >>> Newton's ether is required to compute any effect. >>> 0 = 0 >>> I only stated that a light_clock could detect motion >>> if it included a path through the dielectric of free space. >> The reference you offered for you light clock did not say >> anything about such a thing. >> >> http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html > >> And no, Sue, you did not only state that much. You were on >> about a bunch of different kinds of clocks. > > Go save NASA's soul if you don't believe it. > http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/technical/grp/sumo.html Near as I can tell, the test of relativity described there has not yet run. You relativity-deniers might not want to get your hopes up to high. >>> (Doppler effect) Einstein says the same in his 1920 paper. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space >>> http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html >> Once again Sue's links do not say what she says implies they do. > > You can forget what I say if you like. > But don't mistate what the theory says. I'll go with Einstein on what the theory says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [...] > Go push your car if you want to detect inertial > coupling. Let's try to stay on topic. > Real experiment supports with my twins-myth position. > > GPS and Pound-Rebka demonstrates that clocks > slow near a mass. GPS also finds the SR effect at issue in this thread, and Pound-Rebka at least does not refute it. No support for your notion of the twins paradox being myth. > Einstein and Mach say gravity there causes inertia here. > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html > If you are traveling far from any mass, > > half the masses that could slow your clock > are moving toward you; > > half the masses that could slow your clock > are moving away from you; The twins setup is formulated so that the SR effect dominates. > Net change in the inertial field is 0. > > (+1/2) + (-1/2) = 0 > > There is no inertial/gravitational force > that can alter an experiment. (Spatially or temporally) > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > > That is consistiant with Einstein's *stronger* > interpretation of the Principle of Relativity > > "ALL inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of *ALL* physical experiments. " > [spatially and *temporally* as mathpages points out] > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html Thus inertial motion must effect a light clock and an atomic clock identically; otherwise an experiment that compares their rates would turn out differently when run in different inertial frames. -- --Bryan |