How does mutual time dilation work with one twin aging faster?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
Next: Why relativity and other theories do not work in small scale?
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Aug 2010 13:33 On Aug 10, 1:09 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 9, 7:52 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > What is the significance of this? > > Establishing his reference system, in order to correctly understand > the meaning of the words "you are passing at high speed". His next > words "you are the one aging slower" are consistent with that meaning, > so I wrote "OK". I still fail to see any significance of your sentence Thus you are moving faster than the clock, according to you. <shrug> > > In another words, you dont trust any of your experimental results. > > Well, might as well to live to the fantasy world. <shrug> > > No, you merely don't take for "real" what you arbitrarily pretend (at > least, if you are sane of mind!). You are saying that you have observed someone aging slower than you are and have advised not to take that as reality. How can you judge who is sane and who is not? > > This is hand-waving and thus bullshit. > > Instead it is explained in the link that I gave below. No, it does not. See the link below. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/95cd7cf159ff807b?hl=en > > You call Langevins word salad as a resolution to the twins paradox. > > No, that is a "twin" EXAMPLE - what "paradox" do you see there? You are twisting reality with word salad. Langevin tried to explain why there is no such paradox with word salad, and you have agreed. There is no need to confuse the issue by calling a resolution to the twins paradox as a twin EXAMPLE. <shrug> > > Without mathematics backing it up, some scholars of physics would call > > that bullshit. <shrug> > > He talked to physicists who were able to do the math themselves. Who did he talk to? And where is Langevins math to resolve the paradox? > > What is the significance of Langevins saying? > > He pointed out that motion relative to the ether is the physical cause > of "relativistic" effects at constant velocity; and he explained how > this can be demonstrated by "absolute" effects due to a change of > velocity, as also Newton did before him. There is no absolute frame in Newtonian world. Newtonian physics is based on the principle of relativity. So, what you are saying above makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, correct me if I am wrong. Absoluteness is forbidden in SR and GR. So, why are you supporting both the principle of relativity and its contradictory axiom --- absoluteness --- at the same time? Have you ever concluded that you are the one who is indeed going insane? <shrug> > Here the "relative" effect is the phenomenon of mutual time dilation > at constant relative speed, and the "absolute" effect is a true > difference in age of two people who first had the same age. So, you model your world with relativity and no absoluteness but solve application problems with model of absoluteness and no relativity. How can you call yourself sane? <shrug> > > Never mind. You are > > free to worship farce as usual. <shrug> > > No worship, just lucidity. If you cannot tell relativity from absoluteness and vice versa, how can you judge yourself in worshipping or just lucidity? One of the differences between an engineer and a self-styled physicist is that the engineer will stick to the same mathematical model from concept to finished product. A self-styled physicist, on the other hand, love to show models that explain everything even if contradictory results. In the final stage, they would proudly show off their models as the jack of all trade. <shrug>
From: spudnik on 10 Aug 2010 13:56 what is the difference between spacetime & a 3d movie? I don't believe that Einstein ever thought that there was any paradox of the twins, other than, "wow, Sis, you've really aged!" thus: teeheehanson, what is your problem with relativity?... I could see from the outset of Dingle's book, that he is in a quandary over "which clock is slower," and that is a very simple thing, the same as the strawman paradox of the twins. thus: it's simpler to say that, it is rational, iff the decimal part (after a finite number of places) repeats, *including* a tail of zeroes or nines. thus: you only have your toe in it. the surface of the sphere is pi*d*d, and it is four times the surface of the great circle -- a thing that Bucky apparently didn't know, oddly enough. it is pretty laughable, that you'd think that you are dysproving F"L"T, because it is clear from the available stuff that it was the key to his method (along with the fact that he basically created numbertheorie, dood .-) --les ducs d'Enron! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 10 Aug 2010 14:32 of course, no-one knows whether Universe is finite (but we might have a handle on Olber's paradox .-) now, if the angular momentae of atoms are limited to the velocity (not speed) of lightwaves, then it isn't hard to see that there'd be effects of "going" at fractions of that velocity. thus: so, presumably, iodine-131 is a daughter of cesium-137; eh? anyway, the whole thing was a wash, as adequately shown by the UNSCEAR 2000 report; or, this historical treatment: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Summer-2009/Fear_radiation.pdf thus: what's the difference between spacetime & a 3d movie? I don't believe that Einstein ever thought that there was any paradox of the twins, other than, "wow, Bro; you've really aged!" thus quoth: Max Born first heard of the theory through attending the lectures of Minkowski, in which 'we studied papers by Hertz, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincare and others, but also got an inkling of Minkowski's own ideas'. Later, 'I went in 1907 to Cambridge', where he heard nothing of Einstein, and afterwards (how long afterwards he does not say) he returned to Breslau, 'and there at last I heard the name of Einstein and read his papers ... Although I was quite familiar with the relativistic idea and the Lorentz transformations, Einstein's reasoning was a revelation to me.'7 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Gifts_de_Broglie.pdf thus: what is your problem with relativity?... I could see from the outset of Dingle's book, that he is in a quandary over "which clock is slower," and that is a very simple thing, the same as the strawman paradox of the twins. thus: it's simpler to say that, it is rational, iff the decimal part (after a finite number of places) repeats, *including* a tail of zeroes or nines. thus: you only have your toe in it. the surface of the sphere is pi*d*d, and it is four times the surface of the great circle -- a thing that Bucky apparently didn't know, oddly enough. it is pretty laughable, that you'd think that you are dysproving F"L"T, because it is clear from the available stuff that it was the key to his method (along with the fact that he basically created numbertheorie, dood .-) --les ducs d'Enron! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com
From: kenseto on 10 Aug 2010 14:35 On Aug 10, 10:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/10 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > What causes the different observations if the physics are the same? Is > > it because the observer and the observed object are in a state of > > individual motion? > >   Consider two inertial observers, A and B at different distances >   from a lightning strike, LS, such that > >   A--------------LS------------------------------B > >   All the laws of physics are identical for A and B, but they >   OBSERVE the lightning strike at different times. Of course, they are at different distances from the LS. But this does not mean the laws of physics are the same. > >   In another scenario A and LS have a relative velocity of >   zero, but B is receding from A and LS at velocity, v. > >   A--------------LS------------------------------B >      0           v > >   A measures the duration of the Lightning Strike as ât_LS >   whereas B measures the duration of the lightning strike >   as γ ât_LS, where v is the relative velocity between LS >   and B, and γ = 1/â(1-v^2/c^2) This is wrong...A measure the strike to have a duration of Delta(t_A)and B measure the strike has a duration of Delta(t_B). I think what you are trying to say is: The strike happened in A's frame and A measures the duration of the strike to be Delta(t_LS) and you want to transform this interval of time into the B frame and it becomes Delta(t_LS)/gamma Ken Seto > >   The physics is the same for A and B, but the observations of >   A and B are quite different.
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Aug 2010 14:43
On 8/10/10 1:11 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Nothing ages in proper time. Instead, everything ages in its local > coordinate time. And you wrote this because? |