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: Sam Wormley on 8 Aug 2010 14:43 Seto -- This phrase you banter about, "MUTUAL TIME DILATION" is indicative of the idea that you think you can have more than one perspective simultaneously. You can only have one and relativity theory predicts what you will measure EVERY TIME! Just because A and B, in relative motion will each measure time dilation in the others clock, DOES NOT mean you can observer both simultaneously. Pick one or the other and relativity is correct every time!
From: harald on 8 Aug 2010 14:43 On Aug 8, 7:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Let's take this point by point: > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; > if you are the one aging slower OK - Thus you are moving faster than the clock, according to you. > how can you see that it is aging more than you > but ticking slower than you at the same time? Because that is wrong: 1. What you say means that your measurements refer to a reference system in which you are moving faster than the clock. 2. Thus you will measure that it is aging LESS than you; as you said, you are aging SLOWER. > If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age any different than > the other. But one does. Time dilation is ONLY mutual between inertial reference frames; the symmetry is broken when a twin changes velocity. > Please prove that time only appears slower. To the CONTRARY: Langevin demonstrated with the "twin" example that "time dilation" is more than mere appearance. Our description of it however does depend on our perspective. - http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911 > I say to you that you will > see the station's clock always running faster and mutual is an excuse; > If you are the one that accelerated as the station did not. The > difference is you felt weight at acceleration that the station doesn't > know about. "Weight" doesn't generally matter, as experiments confirmed. Only the velocity matters, and a *change* in velocity is revealing. As Langevin put it: "Only a uniform speed relative to the ether cannot be detected, but any change of velocity, any acceleration has an absolute sense." Harald
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Aug 2010 14:46 On 8/8/10 11:32 AM, Hayek wrote: > > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides it. > No, there are no absolute inertial reference frames. Think about the word "relative" in the context of relativity theory.
From: Hayek on 8 Aug 2010 15:16 Sam Wormley wrote: > On 8/8/10 11:32 AM, Hayek wrote: >> >> There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides it. >> > > No, there are no absolute inertial reference frames. Think > about the word "relative" in the context of relativity > theory. That was not meant to "relative speeds" but to "relative to the (lab) frame". Glad you read the rest of the argument. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 17:27
On Aug 8, 9:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Gc wrote: > > On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> If you watched a clock that you are passing at high > >> speed; if you are the one aging slower how can you > >> see that it is aging more than you but ticking > >> slower than you at the same time? > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens > > when the twin in the spacecraft feels acceleration > > (it has to turn at some point if it comes back to > > earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just > > when the acceleration does. > > No, it does not. > > There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides it. > > There are three possibilies : > > 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute frame. > > 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns slower > wrt the absolute frame to a > > 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns faster > wrt absolute frame. > > first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on the > outward voyage and slower than a's on the way back. > > second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower that > a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's on the way > back, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic > term we will end up just as slow as in the first case. > > Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on the > outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on the way > back, and again, in total, because the gamma factor has > a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the > first case and in the second case. > > So no matter what case you choose : because there is > acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt to > absolute frame changes, and because of the quadratic > gamma factor, two way voyages always make the returning > twin age more, if not on the outward track, then it is > on the inbound track, or on both tracks. The > instantaneous clock rate is decided by the speed wrt to > the absolute frame, the average mass distribution of the > universe. > > SR-ians can make funny claims, and so can I, because > there is no way of verifying this, without Faster Than > Light transmission, which SR-ians exclude from their > theory, mainly because this would destroy SR, and > secondly because they do not know what proper time > exactly is. > They think it is "speed of passage through time", while > it actually is slowing the motion of objects and clocks > by increasing inertia. A clock is an inertiameter, or an > inertial field strength meter. If inertia becomes > stronger, the escapement of your clock is harder to move > back and forth, hence the clock slows. Because this > applies to any object moving in this higher inertia, we > think this is "time" we are measuring, while in fact it > does not much more than your freezer, alowing the motion > of the molecules. > > Uwe Hayek. > > > > > > >> If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age > >> any different than the other. But one does. > > > Notice that in SR only inertial coordinates are > > equivalent. > > >> Please prove that time only appears slower. I say > >> to you that you will see the station's clock always > >> running faster and mutual is an excuse; If you are > >> the one that accelerated as the station did not. > >> The difference is you felt weight at acceleration > >> that the station doesn't know about. > > >> Mitch Raemsch > > > Yes, like I said you see the station`s clock go > > slower, until you get out from inertial coordinates. > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When does one train have the chance to age faster than the other? Mitch Raemsch |