colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: colp on 23 Jun 2010 02:38 On Jun 23, 3:17 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, > >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock > >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by > >considering the transit time of a light signal. > > Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions > about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox was real or there is a preferred frame of reference. Since paradoxes do not exist in reality the only remaining conclusion is that there is a preferred frame reference.
From: whoever on 23 Jun 2010 02:58 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:1fe24a04-f80f-4491-b1ff-96211f2092d8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 3:17 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, >> >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock >> >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by >> >considering the transit time of a light signal. >> >> Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions >> about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. > > I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox > was real There is no symmetric twin paradox > or there is a preferred frame of reference. There is no preferred frame of reference >Since paradoxes > do not exist in reality the only remaining conclusion is that there is > a preferred frame reference. Wrong --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: colp on 23 Jun 2010 03:47 On Jun 23, 6:58 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:1fe24a04-f80f-4491-b1ff-96211f2092d8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 23, 3:17 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > wrote: > >> colp says... > > >> >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, > >> >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock > >> >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by > >> >considering the transit time of a light signal. > > >> Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions > >> about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. > > > I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox > > was real > > There is no symmetric twin paradox > > > or there is a preferred frame of reference. > > There is no preferred frame of reference If there is no preferred frame of reference, then you are left with the problem of simultaneity that Daryl and I were discussing. Can you resolve that problem?
From: Daryl McCullough on 23 Jun 2010 06:48 colp says... > >On Jun 23, 3:17=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, >> >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock >> >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by >> >considering the transit time of a light signal. >> >> Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions >> about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. > >I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox >was real or there is a preferred frame of reference. But there is no paradox. You have disagreement between two different coordinate systems about which events are simultaneous. Disagreement between coordinate systems is *not* a paradox. >Since paradoxes do not exist in reality the only remaining conclusion >is that there is a preferred frame reference. Arbitrarily calling one frame the preferred frame makes no difference, whatsoever, to the issue of whether there is a paradox or not. In the twin paradox, you have the paradoxical situation where (1) In the coordinate system of the stationary twin, the traveling twin is younger. (2) In the coordinate system of the traveling twin, the stationary twin is older. You could introduce a preferred frame, and *arbitrarily* say that the stationary twin's coordinate system is the preferred one, and that the traveling twin's coordinate system is bogus. How does that change anything? You want to call one twin's perspective correct, and the other twin's perspective deluded? Fine. So you change the words, to: (1) The traveling twin is *actually* younger than the stationary twin. (2) The stationary twin *appears* to be younger then the traveling twin, when viewed from a bogus coordinate system. That change is just words. It has made *no* difference to the physics. One can state the principle of relativity in the following way: There is no experiment that can allow us to determine which coordinate systems is preferred, and which coordinate system is bogus. Unless you have such an experiment, we must always consider the possibility that whatever coordinate system we are using happens to be the bogus one. So, for practical purposes, we need a physics that tells how things look from the point of view of a bogus coordinate system, without knowing what the preferred coordinate system is. Special Relativity *is* that physics. There *is* no difference between saying "there is no preferred frame" and saying "there is a preferred frame, but we have no way of ever finding out what it is". The theory of the preferred frame is *identical* to SR, in all of its testable predictions. So from the point of view of physics, they are the *same* theory, just in different words. Neither one is any more or less paradoxical than the other. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 23 Jun 2010 07:03
In article <1fe24a04-f80f-4491-b1ff-96211f2092d8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, colp says... > >On Jun 23, 3:17=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, >> >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock >> >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by >> >considering the transit time of a light signal. >> >> Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions >> about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. > >I'm not making any assumptions. You have to actually go through the calculation of transit times to see where the assumptions show up. How do you propose calculating transit times? -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |