relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sorcerer on 16 Dec 2006 01:34 "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166241452.587064.29800(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... | | Sorcerer wrote: | > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166237844.433976.104830(a)t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Mike wrote: | > | | > | [...] | > | > | > No he didn't, you did. | | Give it a rest, Androcles. | Grow up, little boy. You have much to learn and will never get it from sheep, all bleating "baa".... "if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged 10 years" --- Dork Van de psycho, fumble mumbler. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html He's not about to admit his error.
From: lkoluk2003 on 18 Dec 2006 03:58 Sorcerer yazdi: > <lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166089679.248549.246580(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | > | Sorcerer yazdi: > | > <lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1165919683.448586.288430(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > | > | It seems that the assumption that the maximum distances between the > | > | twins during inbound and outbound part are equal is not generally true. > | > | I.e. the most general formula is t1=x1/v1 and t2=x2/v2 where x1 is not > | > | equal to x2. In this case, the only explanation is that the clock rates > | > | of both twins are the same even from the point of view of the twins. > | > | > | > | On the other hand, the relativity principle is fully compatible with > | > | this. I copied the following from my text in another threat. > | > | "Each tick in a clock is an event and an event's observed time can be > | > | different from time dilation. For example one can set a clock by using > | > | a light pulse > | > | and two mirrors. > | > > | > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. > | > > | > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html > | > > | > See anything about setting a counter with two mirrors? > | > > | > Send a caesium atom to Proxima Centauri and back, COUNTING transitions. > | > > | > The count will match an identical caesium atom that remains here. > | > > | > During the journey it will *appear* not to match due to > | > > | > transitions being "in flight", aka Doppler shift. > | > > | > There are no missing or additional counts, hence no count dilation, > | > | Ok. But what is the mechanism behind this light emmitting? > > Strike a match. That emits light. > > > Does the > | frequency relate to distance/speed relation? > > No, frequency relates to the inverse time law, f = 1/t. > Blind Poe can explain inverse laws to you. > > > | For example is the > | frequency proportional to (d1-d2)/(v1-v2) where d1&v1 is the radius of > | an orbital and the speed of an electron in this orbital respectively > | and d2&v2 is the radius&electron speed at the orbital where the > | electron drops to after it emits a photon? > > No. > > | > | > > | > hence no time dilation. > | > > | > Einstein was an idiot. > | > > | > | I don't think > > Of course you don't. Nobody ever said you did. That's > why I have to tell you Einstein was an idiot, you can't work > it out for yourself. You are an idiot too, you CAN'T think. > > | so. > > Exactly. > > > > | His mistake > > If he made a mistake he was an idiot. > > | was to assume the light speed is the same > | for all inertial frames > > > Einstein never said it was. That's your mistake. > > > > | and the others vary respectively in the > | relation light speed=distance/duration. However, the relativity > | principle requires that the duration is the same for all inertial > | frames and the others vary respectively. > > > What relativity principle? > > Read this, published in the British Journal of Theoretical Physics > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm > > It seems that you are either an idiot who does not have an ability to grasp what I am asking or your purpose of writing here is different than mine. In either case, discussion is a loss of time. Lokman Kolukisa
From: lkoluk2003 on 18 Dec 2006 04:10
lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com yazdi: > > > > > > It seems that the assumption that the maximum distances between the > > twins during inbound and outbound part are equal is not generally true. > > I.e. the most general formula is t1=x1/v1 and t2=x2/v2 where x1 is not > > equal to x2. In this case, the only explanation is that the clock rates > > of both twins are the same even from the point of view of the twins. > > > > On the other hand, the relativity principle is fully compatible with > > this. I copied the following from my text in another threat. > > "Each tick in a clock is an event and an event's observed time can be > > different from time dilation. For example one can set a clock by using > > a light pulse > > and two mirrors. The pulse is reflected between the mirrors and the > > time interval between the reflection times of mirror 1 can be > > considered as one tick of this clock. If the light speed is source > > dependent then the duration of each tick is the same regardless of the > > speed of the clock and the time delation." > > > > Assume there is a platform with the clock mentioned above and two > > observers A&B. The tick time of this clock would be t=2.x/c where x is > > the distance between the mirrors. > > > > Now let the platform carrying the observer B is moving with a constant > > speed v with respect to the observer A. The clock is placed in such a > > way that the light pulse movement is in the same direction with the > > platform's speed. Assume there is a time dilation B. I.e. t'=t.B where > > t' is the time measured by observer B and t is the time measured by the > > observer A. Since according to the observer B, there is nothing > > changed, so (s)he will observe the tick time as t'=2x'/c or 2.x'=c.t'. > > > > The relativity principle requires that the light speed is source > > dependent. Let this relative speed is k(v). Then the tick time for > > observer A would be > > t=2.x'/k(v) = c.t'/k(v ) = c.t.B/k(v) > > > > >From here we deduce k(v)=B.c. On the other hand x'/t'=x/t must be true. > > Yep! There is something wrong here. This relation must be true to make > tick times identical. I.e. it comes from the twin paradox experiment. > The correct derivation should be as follows. > > Let the observer A has an identical clock. The tick time of this clock > is found as ta=2.x/c. On the other hand, the observer A finds the tick > time of B's clock as tb=2.x'/k. So we find k=c.B as shown above. From > the twin paradox experiment we know ta=tb. From here, we obtain > 2.x'/k=2.x/c. So there must be a length dilation such that x'=x.B. Also > actually, the clock direction need not to be the same with the > direction of the relative speed. This means that the same factor must > be applied to all dimensions. > > Lokman Kolukisa > > > I.e. x'=x.B. So from here > > > > t=2.x'/k(v) = 2.x.B/(c.B) = 2.x/c > > > > same with if the speed was zero. As seen the observed tick time is > > independent from the speed and from the dilation factor. The same thing > > is true for any event including the movement of someting or at least > > any event whose time is measured by distance/speed. This is a perfect > > result because the twin paradox is fully resolved now(assuming the time > > measure always involves something which has a movement) and the > > dilation factor can be choosen without considering it. > > > > Best regards, > > Lokman Kolukisa Just another correction: x'/t'=v is not true generally. The correct equations here are x'/k=x/c and hence x'=x.B and k=c.B. On the other hand, it seems that the only solution to the twin paradox is that of a Galilean universe(B=1) as long as the following axiom is true: "If two lengths are equal with respect to an observer, then they are equal with respect to all inertial observers" Lokman Kolukisa |