The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bryan Olson on 22 Nov 2007 21:05 Sue... wrote: > Bryan Olson wrote: >> When my own trials of thought experiments yield >> conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask >> myself: Did I just refute the work of all those >> scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew >> more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities >> is quite a bit more likely than the other. > > Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used > by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920 > paper I'm not so into the historical minutia. > which only couples to inertia by mass > energy equivalence. > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > http://www.bartleby.com/173/ > Then you can debate with yourself whether > 'tis more likely Einstein was right in 1905 > or in 1920. I like the 1920 work, but reading it in an effort to find discrepancies with other explanations is unlikely to be helpful. Try putting aside what you think you know and reading purely for understanding. -- --Bryan
From: Cosmik de Bris on 22 Nov 2007 21:06 colp wrote: > On Nov 23, 2:30 pm, Cosmik de Bris > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >> colp wrote: >>> On Nov 23, 1:52 pm, Cosmik de Bris >>> <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >>>> colp wrote: >>>>> On Nov 23, 11:44 am, Cosmik de Bris >>>>> <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >>>>>> colp wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Dirk >>>>>>>>>> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the >>>>>>>>>> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be >>>>>>>>>> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! >>>>>>>>>> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? >>>>>>>>> A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well, >>>>>>>>> since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to >>>>>>>>> accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve >>>>>>>>> the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased >>>>>>>>> arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames. >>>>>>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox >>>>>>> Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought >>>>>>> experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment >>>>>>> descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this >>>>>>> thread. >>>>>> Nothing is ever perfectly symmetrical, >>>>> A circle is perfectly symmetrical. >>>>>> how far out of symmetrical does >>>>>> something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical? >>>>> A finite distance. >>>>>> Nothing magical >>>>>> happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it? >>>>> The paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on magic. >>>>> The paradox depends of the fact that (according to SR) a twin will >>>>> observe the other clock slowing down and never observe it speeding up, >>>>> and yet it must tell the same time as his own clock at the end of the >>>>> experiment. >>>> As Dirk has told you, and I have told you in the other newsgroup, you >>>> need to learn some basics. >>> What you and Dirk think I need is irrelevant. >> We, Dirk, Bryan, me, are only trying to help you understand, but you >> just don't want to know. Your poor understanding is the problem. What >> you think are marvelous arguments are naiive. You think we can't answer >> your questions and therefore we don't know anything, but your questions >> are bordering on silly. >> >>> Why are you unable to explain the paradox? >> Because there isn't one. > > By paradox I mean a proposition which contains an internal > contradiction. > > The proposition is described in the opening post. The contradiction is > that SR says that a twin sees the other clock showing an earlier time > than his clock at the end of the experiment, while symmetry says that > the twin sees both clocks showing the same time. For the symmetrical case which you seem to think is miraculous in some way, SR says that the clocks will read the same at the end of the experiment. You say they won't. You are wrong. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 21:10 Bryan Olson wrote: > colp wrote: > > Bryan Olson wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> Special relativity says that both > >>> clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is > >>> impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus > >>> the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. > > >> You've gotten several good explanations of where your > >> reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's > >> all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart. > > > > Wrong. The turnaround does not have to occur at relativistic speeds. > > Why ask the questions if you don't want to know the answers? Because I'm looking for truthful answers. > > >> More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute > >> relativity. > > > > Wrong again. A thought experiment which results in a paradox is a form > > of a reductio ad absurdum argument. > > Which you cannot get, SR's self-consistency is established > beyond doubt. Wrong. The contradiction described in the OP proves that it is not self consistent. > That much is mathematical, not physical. The contradiction depends on the nature of a mathematical transform fundamental to SR.
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 21:26 On Nov 23, 3:06 pm, Cosmik de Bris <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2:30 pm, Cosmik de Bris > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >> colp wrote: > >>> On Nov 23, 1:52 pm, Cosmik de Bris > >>> <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >>>> colp wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 23, 11:44 am, Cosmik de Bris > >>>>> <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> colp wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>>> Hello Dirk > >>>>>>>>>> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the > >>>>>>>>>> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be > >>>>>>>>>> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! > >>>>>>>>>> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? > >>>>>>>>> A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well, > >>>>>>>>> since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to > >>>>>>>>> accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve > >>>>>>>>> the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased > >>>>>>>>> arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames. > >>>>>>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... > >>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > >>>>>>> Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought > >>>>>>> experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment > >>>>>>> descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this > >>>>>>> thread. > >>>>>> Nothing is ever perfectly symmetrical, > >>>>> A circle is perfectly symmetrical. > >>>>>> how far out of symmetrical does > >>>>>> something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical? > >>>>> A finite distance. > >>>>>> Nothing magical > >>>>>> happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it? > >>>>> The paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on magic. > >>>>> The paradox depends of the fact that (according to SR) a twin will > >>>>> observe the other clock slowing down and never observe it speeding up, > >>>>> and yet it must tell the same time as his own clock at the end of the > >>>>> experiment. > >>>> As Dirk has told you, and I have told you in the other newsgroup, you > >>>> need to learn some basics. > >>> What you and Dirk think I need is irrelevant. > >> We, Dirk, Bryan, me, are only trying to help you understand, but you > >> just don't want to know. Your poor understanding is the problem. What > >> you think are marvelous arguments are naiive. You think we can't answer > >> your questions and therefore we don't know anything, but your questions > >> are bordering on silly. > > >>> Why are you unable to explain the paradox? > >> Because there isn't one. > > > By paradox I mean a proposition which contains an internal > > contradiction. > > > The proposition is described in the opening post. The contradiction is > > that SR says that a twin sees the other clock showing an earlier time > > than his clock at the end of the experiment, while symmetry says that > > the twin sees both clocks showing the same time. > > For the symmetrical case which you seem to think is miraculous in some > way, SR says that the clocks will read the same at the end of the > experiment. Like I said, the paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on magic (or miracles). > You say they won't. Wrong. I say that the results are contradictory. SR says that they won't read the same from the frame of reference of one of the twins.
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 21:38
On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Nov 22, 7:20 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...(a)nowhere.org> wrote: <snip> > > > When my own trials of thought experiments yield > > conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask > > myself: Did I just refute the work of all those > > scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew > > more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities > > is quite a bit more likely than the other. > > Perhaps you should compare the 1905 paper used > by proponents of the twins myth with the 1920 > paper which only couples to inertia by mass > energy equivalence. If there is one thing that science doesn't like, it is having to say that it can't explain the phenomena. |