Twins Paradox doesn't add up with light
in [Relativity]
|
From: Darwin123 on 15 May 2010 09:48 > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/k_frame.gif > Note that the frames are labelled and look at the axis labels. > Noted. I also note that one frame isn't an inertial frame. A frame rotating with respect to an inertial frame can't be an inertial frame. Rotation requires centripetal force. What is missing from your diagrams is force. Try drawing a force diagram for your system. Trying drawing a force diagram for all your scenarios. It would be informative. Even a Newtonian system would require a force diagram. Galilean invariance is not a given for all frames in Newtonian universe. A frame that accelerates relative to the "absolute space" can not be considered "an absolute space". You should really learn Newtonian physics better before you take on relativistic physics.
From: BURT on 15 May 2010 15:44 If the twin on the fast moving train sees the station's clock running slow as it passes how will it age more? Mitch Raemsch
From: Androcles on 19 May 2010 12:00 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dec648e9-dee6-4500-8362-fb7d0aabc436(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... The most definitive is a beautiful experiment performed at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1964.* The speed of time Ok, so it's beautiful, but what's "the speed of time", drosen?
From: BURT on 19 May 2010 13:59 On May 19, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:dec648e9-dee6-4500-8362-fb7d0aabc436(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > The most definitive is a beautiful > experiment performed at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1964.* The speed > of time > > Ok, so it's beautiful, but what's "the speed of time", drosen? The speed of time flow is related to the speed of light and Gamma. Mitch Raemsch
From: Darwin123 on 19 May 2010 15:39
On May 19, 12:00 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:dec648e9-dee6-4500-8362-fb7d0aabc436(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > The most definitive is a beautiful > experiment performed at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1964.* The speed > of time > > Ok, so it's beautiful, but what's "the speed of time", drosen? Sorry, you have thrown in a nonsequitor concerning Einstein's Second postulate. The discussion was on the twin paradox, but you challenged Einstein's interpretation of the MMX. If you want to get back to the discussion on the nature of time, you have to discuss the MMX experiment with this added information. The experiment cited shows that if c'=c+kv, where v is the velocity of the source in the unprimed coordinates, then |k| <1.3x10^-4. Thus, k=0 out to at least 3 decimal places. Your analysis of the MMX experiment requires that the velocity of the source adds precisely the same amount of speed to the light (k=1). Einstein's analysis of the MMX experiment requires that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source (k=0). Since k=0, it appears that Einstein started out with a better analysis. Also note that the experiment shows you how scientists usually interpret the English. Lets consider the photons that proceed the neutral pion that emits them. The speed in the laboratory frame is "c +kv". However, the speed of those same photons relative to the source is kv. The speed of light in any frame is the speed relative to the origin in the frame. In the CERN experiment of 1964, the laboratory frame consisted of the beryllium target and all objects traveling at zero velocity relative to the beryllium target. All the detectors were stationary relative to the beryllium target. The speed of light with respect to the detectors is c. However, the pions are not part of the laboratory frame because they are moving at a high velocity in this frame. If one wanted to perform an analog to the MMX system using these pions, one would have to examine the photons scattered from the charged pions that are moving along with the neutral pions. Basically, the charged pions replace the mirrors in the MMX experiment. If one did that, creating mirrors that move along with the source of photons, then maybe one would get results analogous to those of the MMX experiment. This was never done, so I can't be sure how it would turn out. Anyway, I would think that you would be very interested in the CERN 1964 experiment. I suggest that you look it up and critique it. I would love to know what you think of their upper limit on k. |