Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614997 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-11 09:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-13 02:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 09:14 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-11 13:19 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 12:19 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 14:31 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 12:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-11 16:03 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:41 +0200
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 00:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 02:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 02:38 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 12:12 +0200
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:00 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 00:13 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 22:11 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 08:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 16:44 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 17:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 17:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 18:00 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 18:05 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 18:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 18:21 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:11 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:01 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:11 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 23:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 00:03 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 09:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:46 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 15:41 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 16:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 17:35 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 17:49 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 17:53 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 18:30 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 18:33 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 22:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 19:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-13 19:38 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 19:58 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 02:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 04:45 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 14:22 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-14 18:21 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 16:28 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-15 19:48 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-15 16:54 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 08:34 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 08:42 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 16:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 16:49 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 22:17 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 00:15 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-17 01:44 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 22:57 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-17 02:50 -0400
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Mitchell Demas <letl@alliecim.he> - 2023-07-17 09:28 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 00:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Newton Patselas <nale@lsawttnp.no> - 2023-07-17 09:54 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:05 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 11:30 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 07:43 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:56 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 19:15 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 19:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 20:02 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 23:35 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 23:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-15 06:21 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:50 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 13:18 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 20:55 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:03 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:08 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:34 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-12 21:36 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 00:48 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-13 00:47 -0500
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Teofilo Totolos <tltt@tooioltt.lo> - 2023-07-12 13:58 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 14:29 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 19:04 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 19:09 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 21:23 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 22:20 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 22:58 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-11 23:10 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-12 20:37 +1000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 04:32 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 04:39 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 11:37 +0000
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 06:01 -0700
Re: Reconciling the Time Dilation and Relativistic Doppler Jack Liu <liuedy@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 02:42 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 02:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u92obv$12vkl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615507 |
On 7/17/2023 1:57 AM, patdolan wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:44:12 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/15/2023 7:54 PM, patdolan wrote: >>> Granted. We are then left to conclude that, as was the case with gravity in 1907, so too with the twins paradox; it is yet another falsification of SR. >> Except for that small detail that real world experiments equivalent to >> the traveling twin experiment (muons in a storage ring, the SR >> contribution to the GPS time difference) match the predictions of the >> twin gedanken, thus supporting SR. > Have you not read Richard Hertz's findings on SR's most sacred confirmations? Richard Hertz? The same nutjob Richard Hertz who blathers here? The only findings regarding Richard Hertz that could be believed is a medical diagnosis of a specific form of mental illness that he has. Next thing you know, you'll reference Pentcho Valev as a relativity expert... oh wait...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Demas <letl@alliecim.he> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u931j7$2k04s$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615513 |
Volney wrote: >> Have you not read Richard Hertz's findings on SR's most sacred >> confirmations? > > Richard Hertz? The same nutjob Richard Hertz who blathers here? The only > findings regarding Richard Hertz that could be believed is a medical > diagnosis of a specific form of mental illness that he has. Next thing > you know, you'll reference Pentcho Valev as a relativity expert... oh > wait... you whine like a woman. Your country is provable a terrorist state. Go pizda. Arrest that motherfucker terrorist of bidona. Civil arrest him. That clan family are criminals. Justice for Ukraine people (not government). All terrorists leaders (Biden , Olaf of Germany, Anabele , Ursula, Macron, the clown from UK - Boris, The clown from Australia - Morrison) needs to go in front of a real International Criminal Court (not the one in UE Corp). NATO needs to be dismantle. Anyone who helped this nazis needs to respond for their actions. Russian Foreign Ministry: "The US and Britain are managing a state-like terrorist structure,” Imagine such an attack on the bridges of London, George Washington or San Francisco. Russia must respond in the way the US- UK-NATO have no choice but to capitulate unconditionally like Japan was forced to do during WWII. I hope Putin this time around, doesn’t retaliate by only striking Ukraine but instead hit back at the US and UK in one way or another….perhaps where it hurts most, their pockets. Russia has finally accepted the fact that the whole world knew from the onset, this is an Anglo-Zionist/US war on Russia and the Kiev Jew cabal is mere conduit for terrorism and slaughter of Orthodox Slavic people. Ukraine is the new ISIS. Funded gain, by america, which is dirty capitalist. if it was not for NAZO intervention , Russians and Ukrainians will had reach an agreement 3 days after starting the conflict. NAZO terrorist cell. Biden, Olaf of Germany, Macron, Ursula, the incompetent Analena are war criminals and terrorists cells leaders. https://%72t.com/ru%73%73ia/579821-ukraine-terrorist-regime-moscow/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 00:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cf07302-29a3-4051-9fc8-59b8806099e3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615506 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 07:44:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/15/2023 7:54 PM, patdolan wrote: > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:48:15 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/14/2023 7:28 PM, patdolan wrote: > >> > >>> As Legion points out, I did a swap. I replaced "the earth" everywhere Legion typed "rocket ship". Why? To bring this thread to a close right where it started. Since it's inception, the twins paradox has been a relativity defeator. It has never been convincingly answered. Einstein didn't even try. Acceleration is the currently accepted reason. But nobody can explain why, in terms of the theory of relativity, in a convincing manner. See ChatGTP's response for the typical version. > >> I suppose I get what I deserve for jumping in the middle, but as Bill > >> points out, the situation is still not symmetrical. > >> > >> You start with a stationary spaceship (in some frame) while the earth > >> recedes at a high speed. So far so good. But some destination shows up > >> or a certain time lapses on the spaceship's clock and...now what? > >> > >> Either: > >> > >> a) The spaceship suddenly starts accelerating toward the receding earth > >> and chases after it (and nothing is now "stationary" any longer, the > >> spaceship is moving even faster than earth) OR > >> b) The spaceship magically framejumps into a *different* frame and is > >> now stationary in the *new, different* frame, a frame in which the earth > >> is /approaching/ (not receding) at a high speed, and the spaceship waits > >> until the earth arrives. > >> > >> Regardless of which you choose, the results are the same. It doesn't > >> matter whether the earth is stationary the entire time, the spaceship > >> suddenly accelerates to chase the receding earth or it magically > >> framejumps into a different frame. > >> > >> NEXT! > > > Wrong. The spaceship always has a co-moving frame in which the earth's path describes a specific trajectory, out and back. > But that co-moving frame is not inertial, it cannot be analyzed as But do you still believe that adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy is "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the average of your moronic church.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newton Patselas <nale@lsawttnp.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 09:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u9334i$2k04s$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615506 |
Volney wrote: >> Wrong. The spaceship always has a co-moving frame in which the earth's >> path describes a specific trajectory, out and back. > > But that co-moving frame is not inertial, it cannot be analyzed as > simple space contraction/time dilation. • Russian Economic Sanctions against the West 9 years ago, would have been sufficient to trigger capitulation & enforcement of the Minsk Agreements, but Russia never did that, why? • "Crazy That Russia And Ukraine Still Trade (Seymour Hersh)" – RT 24 Apr, 2023 – The fuel used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces is exported by Russian oligarchs to Ukraine – "I don’t know [whether] I should be giggling about it because it’s really quite a crazy situation," he concluded. • Had Russia temporarily ceased all exports upon Sanctions 16 months ago, and especially upon the terrorist attack of Nord Stream 1 & 2, the EU in fact would have frozen this past winter (see comments by CEO Gazprom, OPEC, German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, Bruegel News, etc..), and many believe today, as they did 9 years ago, that that would have forced the West to seek an immediate Peace — The Ukrainian conflict never had to happen. the putina is a traitor. Wants to destroy Russia. He is a 𝗪𝗘𝗙_"𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴_𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿". A bad motherfucker. If an westerner comes and say "come and suck my dick", the putina goes and suck his dick. A traitor since the anglo_saxon pigs bombed ships in Black Sea. The english pigs have nothing to do in Black Sea. Then giving the nazis from Azov to turkey etc, yet another proof the putina is a fucking traitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc814ece-827e-41ca-bec1-4977ba2d1c7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615425 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 01:48:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/14/2023 7:28 PM, patdolan wrote: > > > As Legion points out, I did a swap. I replaced "the earth" everywhere Legion typed "rocket ship". Why? To bring this thread to a close right where it started. Since it's inception, the twins paradox has been a relativity defeator. It has never been convincingly answered. Einstein didn't even try. Acceleration is the currently accepted reason. But nobody can explain why, in terms of the theory of relativity, in a convincing manner. See ChatGTP's response for the typical version. > I suppose I get what I deserve for jumping in the middle, but as Bill And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b384f5b3-0990-440f-a0f9-d238cb9f3f95n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615281 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 20:22:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/14/2023 7:45 AM, rotchm wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 5:51:00 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > > > >> For example, letting T denote the earth's elapsed time from origin to turn-around, > > > > No. The T was for the elapsed time on the rocket; it is the value displayed on the rocket's clock at the event of turnaround. > > > >> everyone agrees that, in terms of the rocket's standard inertial coordinates S, > > > > No. It was agreed on that S represents the earth's frame, that S' represent the outbound rocket's frame... > > > > <rest of confusions snipped> > Simplify things. Use T and x for time and distance in the S frame, T' And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f37ea5c-96c4-4d0a-9179-25eb2b7b7686n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615236 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:51:00 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > The objective facts can be expressed in terms of whatever system of coordinates you choose, and everyone agrees on all the objective facts. For example, letting T denote the rocket's elapsed time from origin to turn-around, everyone agrees that, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. Now, the earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, everyone agrees that the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. And we can trivially transform the coordinates of each event to S' or S", and all the elapsed proper times are unaffected, and everyone agrees on all of this. > > Letting T denote the earth's elapsed time from origin to turn-around... Again, the earth does not go to the turn-around event, so your statement makes no sense, but you could, if you like, specify the earth's elapsed time from the departure event to some earth event that is simultaneous with the turn-around event... However, you must then take the relativity of simultaneity into account. As carefully explained to you before, in terms of the inertial coordinate system S' of the rocket outbound, the earth at event e3 is simultaneous with the turn-around event, but in terms of the inertial coordinate system S" of the rocket inbound, the earth event at e4 is simultaneous with the turn-around event. Those are two different events, separated by an elapsed earth time of 2Tgv^2, so you have to specify which of those events you are referring to. Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ef3c3c9-91e7-43a8-8d7a-2357679d3dfcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615243 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:32:46 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:51:00 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > The objective facts can be expressed in terms of whatever system of coordinates you choose, and everyone agrees on all the objective facts. For example, letting T denote the rocket's elapsed time from origin to turn-around, everyone agrees that, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. Now, the earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, everyone agrees that the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. And we can trivially transform the coordinates of each event to S' or S", and all the elapsed proper times are unaffected, and everyone agrees on all of this. > > > > Letting T denote the earth's elapsed time from origin to turn-around... > > Again, the earth does not go to the turn-around event, so your statement makes no sense, but you could, if you like, specify the earth's elapsed time from the departure event to some earth event that is simultaneous with the turn-around event... However, you must then take the relativity of simultaneity into account. As carefully explained to you before, in terms of the inertial coordinate system S' of the rocket outbound, the earth at event e3 is simultaneous with the turn-around event, but in terms of the inertial coordinate system S" of the rocket inbound, the earth event at e4 is simultaneous with the turn-around event. Those are two different events, separated by an elapsed earth time of 2Tgv^2, so you have to specify which of those events you are referring to. > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you. Explain them again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca256633-7bbd-4259-8fba-01332f2a4c92n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615251 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:21 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:32:46 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket ... > Explain them again. Bill, at this point, he realizes that he completely misunderstands SR and that he was wrong. But being the mindless child he is, he can't admit it, so he just parrots & trolls. Such a looser...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e14755b5-a043-48f7-afe2-a9e81edd3f6bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615263 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:21 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:32:46 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket ... > > Explain them again. > > Bill, at this point, he realizes that he completely misunderstands SR and that he was wrong. > But being the mindless child he is, he can't admit it, so he just parrots & trolls. > Such a looser... rotchm you rascal, you explain first. Then we will compare your explanation to Legion's. Legion still has just over an hour until the SPEEA union lunch break at Boeing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <385259b7-4da9-4bdc-a5d2-6b84602b440cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615268 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:43:21 AM UTC-4, patdolan wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:32:46 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > > > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket ... > > > Explain them again. > > > > Bill, at this point, he realizes that he completely misunderstands SR and that he was wrong. > > But being the mindless child he is, he can't admit it, so he just parrots & trolls. > > Such a looser... > rotchm you rascal, you explain first. Then we will compare your explanation to Legion's. Legion still has just over an hour until the SPEEA union lunch break at Boeing. C'mon, rotchm! Give us your explanation. Are your bulging biceps too big to bend your elbows? Then push your chair back from your desk, straighten your arms and type at arm's length. You've got plenty of time. I fear the secretive Legion will not respond until well after the Boeing lunch hour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eda7168a-c986-4a5b-ab02-b1129908ebabn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615251 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you. > > [Okay, I see my mistake now, so I'm finally ready to actually read the explanation. Unfortunaterly, I can't figure out how to scroll up to read the explanations you kindly provided, so could you please] Explain them again.[?] Sure, using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. Now, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. The earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. > The point under discussion now is exactly how does acceleration, in and > of itself, save the twins paradox. Save the paradox? Do you mean how does the dynamical asymmetry resolve the alleged paradox? That was explained in the preceding paragraphs (and in the previous post, and the one before that, and...) Again, the classical newbie "paradox" is based on the assumption of symmetry, so when the dynamical asymmetry is pointed out, the paradox evaporates. It's like this: Newbie says the conditions are symmetrical but the results are asymmetrical -- paradox! (Or at least a violation of Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason!) The adult points out that the conditions are not symmetrical, and the asymmetry of the results is systematically related to the asymmetry in the conditions. End of "paradox". PD+50IQ wrote: > Well, okay, so there is no paradox, and all of special relativity, including all the relativistic effects that Newbie finds so baffling, follow unavoidably from the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. But can you tell me if there is some simple way of knowing the elapsed proper time along any arbitrary path, regardless of whether it is accelerating or not? Sure, in terms of ANY standard system of inertial coordinates x,t, the elapsed proper time along a given timelike path in flat spacetime between two events is simply the integral of sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path. In curved spacetime it is the integral of sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a55b4be-779a-49c3-93fb-363d4f882896n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615347 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:15:45 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you. > > > > [Okay, I see my mistake now, so I'm finally ready to actually read the explanation. Unfortunaterly, I can't figure out how to scroll up to read the explanations you kindly provided, so could you please] Explain them again.[?] > > Sure, using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. > > Now, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. The earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. > > The point under discussion now is exactly how does acceleration, in and > > of itself, save the twins paradox. > > Save the paradox? Do you mean how does the dynamical asymmetry resolve the alleged paradox? That was explained in the preceding paragraphs (and in the previous post, and the one before that, and...) Again, the classical newbie "paradox" is based on the assumption of symmetry, so when the dynamical asymmetry is pointed out, the paradox evaporates. It's like this: Newbie says the conditions are symmetrical but the results are asymmetrical -- paradox! (Or at least a violation of Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason!) The adult points out that the conditions are not symmetrical, and the asymmetry of the results is systematically related to the asymmetry in the conditions. End of "paradox". > > PD+50IQ wrote: > > Well, okay, so there is no paradox, and all of special relativity, including all the relativistic effects that Newbie finds so baffling, follow unavoidably from the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. But can you tell me if there is some simple way of knowing the elapsed proper time along any arbitrary path, regardless of whether it is accelerating or not? > > Sure, in terms of ANY standard system of inertial coordinates x,t, the elapsed proper time along a given timelike path in flat spacetime between two events is simply the integral of sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path. In curved spacetime it is the integral of sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]. So..uhm...I just see a repetition of the rocket-out-turn-around-back version. You you please address the other version wherein the earth travels out and back? Surely your last paragraph is not meant as an analysis of the latter, wherein you a wave a magic wand over these situation while chanting the incantation "not symmetrical"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e84cdabe-9834-4e0c-a34c-9be8c21f0f9cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615351 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:15:45 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you. > > > > > > [Okay, I see my mistake now, so I'm finally ready to actually read the explanation. Unfortunaterly, I can't figure out how to scroll up to read the explanations you kindly provided, so could you please] Explain them again.[?] > > > > Sure, using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. > > > > Now, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. The earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. > > > The point under discussion now is exactly how does acceleration, in and > > > of itself, save the twins paradox. > > > > Save the paradox? Do you mean how does the dynamical asymmetry resolve the alleged paradox? That was explained in the preceding paragraphs (and in the previous post, and the one before that, and...) Again, the classical newbie "paradox" is based on the assumption of symmetry, so when the dynamical asymmetry is pointed out, the paradox evaporates. It's like this: Newbie says the conditions are symmetrical but the results are asymmetrical -- paradox! (Or at least a violation of Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason!) The adult points out that the conditions are not symmetrical, and the asymmetry of the results is systematically related to the asymmetry in the conditions. End of "paradox". > > > > PD+50IQ wrote: > > > Well, okay, so there is no paradox, and all of special relativity, including all the relativistic effects that Newbie finds so baffling, follow unavoidably from the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. But can you tell me if there is some simple way of knowing the elapsed proper time along any arbitrary path, regardless of whether it is accelerating or not? > > > > Sure, in terms of ANY standard system of inertial coordinates x,t, the elapsed proper time along a given timelike path in flat spacetime between two events is simply the integral of sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path. In curved spacetime it is the integral of sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]. > So..uhm...I just see a repetition of the rocket-out-turn-around-back version. You you please address the other version wherein the earth travels out and back? Surely your last paragraph is not meant as an analysis of the latter, wherein you a wave a magic wand over these situation while chanting the incantation "not symmetrical" Justify this expression T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)] Why isn't it Tsqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T[(1+v)/(1-v)] instead?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1eb34a06-9034-4c90-9814-2fb07ebaea2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615352 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > Using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. > > Sorry, I'm still utterly clueless... could you explain, v e r y s l o w l y, the > formula for the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth? Sure. As long as the light reaching the telescope on earth is coming from the rocket prior to the rocket's turn-around event, it is red-shifted by the factor sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], whereas the light emitted after the rocket's turn-around event arrives at the earth blue-shifted by the factor sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)]. Now, the light emitted from the rocket at the turn-around event reaches the earth at the time T'(1+v), so for the entire earth time from t=0 to t=T'(1+v) it is seeing the rocket red-shifted. Then for the remainder of the time, which is of duration T'(1-v), the earth sees the rocket blue-shifted. Hence the total rocket time observed by the earth telescope from departure to reunion is given by the formula above. As you can see, the patterns of redshift and blue shift observed by rocket and earth are quite different, even though they are reciprocal for intervals in which both are inertial. > Why isn't it Tsqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T[(1+v)/(1-v)] instead? For the same reason it isn't Q*(x+3)^6 @ v^3/sqrt(1+v^3). > > Now, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. The earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. > > Can you please address the other version wherein the earth travels out and back? Again, the earth is in (essentially) inertial motion during the entire path from departure event to reunion event, and that path has the maximum elapsed proper time for any path between those two events. There is no standard system of inertial coordinates in which "the earth travels out and back". Of course, there are infinitely many standard inertial systems in terms of which the earth is moving, but it is moving at uniform speed in a straight line in terms of each of them, and hence it has the maximum elapsed proper time between those two events. Remember, the elapsed time along any path is the integral of sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path, where x,t is any standard system of inertial coordinates. This is invariant under Lorentz transformation. (Try it and see!) Of course, if you like making things difficult for yourself (as you clearly do), you could describe things in terms of an accelerating coordinate system, but the equations of physics do not take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of such coordinates, they take a form that is modified by the introduction of fictitious accelerations that compensate for the accelerations of the coordinates, so in effect you are making the same calculations, you are just doing it in a ridiculously convoluted way. Changing the the coordinates labels for events doesn't change the invariant quantities, such as elapsed proper times. Relativity is not a relational theory of motion, such as dreamt of by Leibniz, Berkely, Mach, etc. It is, just like Newtonian mechanics, based firmly on the dynamical principle of inertia, hence the emphasis on inertial coordinate systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 23:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d7068ac-9b22-4d97-8e3c-885838086b55n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615364 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 08:35:38 UTC+2, Bill wrote: > Again, the earth is in (essentially) inertial motion during the entire path from departure event to reunion event, and that path has the maximum elapsed proper time for any path between those two events. There is no standard system of inertial coordinates in which "the earth travels out and back". Of course, there are infinitely many standard inertial systems in terms of which the earth is moving No, poor halfbrain, you don't have any. 10 or alike years after discovering their wonderful properties your idiot guru discovered that they don't exist. What a surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e3430fa-4374-4cdb-bd3f-e2f0ec3f2bcbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615352 |
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:02:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:15:45 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote: > > > On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > > Again, mindlessly trying to transpose the earth and the rocket (the most common newbie mistake of all) is not valid, because, as explained to you before, the earth is at rest in a single system of inertial coordinates S for the entire scenario, whereas the rocket is at rest first in terms of one such system S' and then in terms of another such system S", and this has the physical implications that have been patiently explained to you. > > > > > > > > [Okay, I see my mistake now, so I'm finally ready to actually read the explanation. Unfortunaterly, I can't figure out how to scroll up to read the explanations you kindly provided, so could you please] Explain them again.[?] > > > > > > Sure, using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. > > > > > > Now, in terms of the earth's standard inertial coordinates S, with the departure event "e0" at x=0,t=0, the rocket's turn-around event "e1" is at x=Tvg, t=Tg, and the reunion event "e2" is at x=0, t=2Tg. The earth event "e3" that is simultaneous in terms of the outbound system S' with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1-v), and the earth event "e4" that is simultaneous in terms of the inbound system S" with "e1" is at x=0, t=Tg(1+v). So, the total elapsed earth time from e0 to e2 is T/g + 2Tgv^2 + T/g, which equals 2Tg, in agreement with the Doppler observation. > > > > The point under discussion now is exactly how does acceleration, in and > > > > of itself, save the twins paradox. > > > > > > Save the paradox? Do you mean how does the dynamical asymmetry resolve the alleged paradox? That was explained in the preceding paragraphs (and in the previous post, and the one before that, and...) Again, the classical newbie "paradox" is based on the assumption of symmetry, so when the dynamical asymmetry is pointed out, the paradox evaporates. It's like this: Newbie says the conditions are symmetrical but the results are asymmetrical -- paradox! (Or at least a violation of Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason!) The adult points out that the conditions are not symmetrical, and the asymmetry of the results is systematically related to the asymmetry in the conditions. End of "paradox". > > > > > > PD+50IQ wrote: > > > > Well, okay, so there is no paradox, and all of special relativity, including all the relativistic effects that Newbie finds so baffling, follow unavoidably from the local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws. But can you tell me if there is some simple way of knowing the elapsed proper time along any arbitrary path, regardless of whether it is accelerating or not? > > > > > > Sure, in terms of ANY standard system of inertial coordinates x,t, the elapsed proper time along a given timelike path in flat spacetime between two events is simply the integral of sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2) along the path. In curved spacetime it is the integral of sqrt[g_mn dx^m dx^n]. > > So..uhm...I just see a repetition of the rocket-out-turn-around-back version. You you please address the other version wherein the earth travels out and back? Surely your last paragraph is not meant as an analysis of the latter, wherein you a wave a magic wand over these situation while chanting the incantation "not symmetrical" > Justify this expression T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)] Derive the expression T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)] from the Lorentz transforms. > > Why isn't it Tsqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T[(1+v)/(1-v)] instead?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8b9c45a-1c25-4d3b-8250-7f98bbdb8649n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615372 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:21:11 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > Using the relativistic Doppler formula, the total elapsed proper time on earth seen by the rocket is T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 2Tg, where T is half the total elapsed proper round-trip time of the rocket. Of course, the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth is T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)], which equals 2T'/g, where T' is half the total elapsed proper time of the earth. Both of these signify that T' = Tg. > > Sorry, I'm still utterly clueless... could you explain, v e r y s l o w l y, the > formula for the total elapsed proper time of the rocket seen by the earth? Sure. As long as the light reaching the telescope on earth is coming from the rocket prior to the rocket's turn-around event, it is red-shifted by the factor sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], whereas the light emitted after the rocket's turn-around event arrives at the earth blue-shifted by the factor sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)]. Now, the light emitted from the rocket at the turn-around event reaches the earth at the time T'(1+v), so for the entire earth time from t=0 to t=T'(1+v) it is seeing the rocket red-shifted. Then for the remainder of the time, which is of duration T'(1-v), the earth sees the rocket blue-shifted. Hence the total rocket time observed by the earth telescope from departure to reunion is given by the formula above. As you can see, the patterns of redshift and blue shift observed by rocket and earth are quite different, even though they are reciprocal for intervals in which both are inertial. > Why isn't it Tsqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T[(1+v)/(1-v)] instead? For the same reason it isn't Q*(x+3)^6 @ v^3/sqrt(1+v^3). > [Okay, sorry for being so stupid. Let me rephrase my obtuse request. Assume you are talking to spoil 10-year-old with zero aptitude, and explain to me how a rational adult arrives at the correct equation, assuming standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations.] That was already done in the preceding paragraph (the one you inadvertently snipped from your reply... but fear not, I restored it above... You're welcome). Yet again, you specified that, in terms of the standard inertial coordinates x,t in which the earth is at rest, a rocket departs the origin x=0,t=0 in positive x direction at speed v and travels for a proper time of T, then reverses course and travels for another proper time T at speed v back to the earth. Now, in terms of standard inertial coordinates S' (same origin) in which the rocket outbound is at rest, we have x'1=0, t'1=T, and the Lorentz transformation back to x,t gives x1=vTg, t1=Tg. The same Lorentz transformation in the other direction gives x2=0, v2=2Tg. Hence the total elapsed time for the piecewise-linear path 0,1,2 is 2T, and for the direct path 0,2 is 2Tg. The light from the rocket at turn-around event propagates at v=1 in terms of each standard inertial coordinate system, per the Lorentz transformation, so it arrives at the earth at time t=Tg(1+v), which is the time at which the earth's received light from the rocket changes from being redshifted to blueshifted, and the remaining time to the reunion event at x=0, t=2gT is Tg(1-v). Also by the Lorentz transformations we have the Doppler factors, and of course by simple arithmetic we can apply those Doppler factors to the respective durations of observation to give 2T = T' (1+v)sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)] + T' (1-v)sqrt[(1+v)/(1-v)] where T' = Tg. But you are meandering from the real source of your confusion, which related to the simultaneity relations and the reciprtocity of time dilation between relativity moving inertial systems. Fortunately, this was all fully explained several times in the previous messages, so if you ever remember your original question, the answer is there waiting for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 13:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kh98nqF7sfhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615085 |
On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: >>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year >>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in >>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big >>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with >>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? >>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated >>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! >>>>> >>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. >>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. >>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If >>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition >>>>>> to very basic physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. >>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work >>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would >>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. >> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation >> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that >> many people, including you, end up misapplying. >> >> Sylvia. > Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great surprise, and just means that this particular popular science representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction to the frame just after it reverses. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a157400-d3d7-4f2b-a661-0c65e67d06dan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615123 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 8:18:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13-July-23 1:50 am, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:11:28 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 12-July-23 5:13 pm, patdolan wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:00:44 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 12-July-23 5:19 am, patdolan wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/11/23 11:14 AM, patdolan wrote: > >>>>>>> An interplanetary traveler takes off from the earth for a twenty year > >>>>>>> (proper time) out and back trip at .867c relative to Big Ben in > >>>>>>> London. The traveler keeps his video recording camera trained on Big > >>>>>>> Ben for the entire trip. Will the twin paradox answer reconcile with > >>>>>>> the what the rocket ship video recording at the end of the trip? > >>>>>> THINK about what you are asking: will a gedenkenexperiment formulated > >>>>>> using SR reconcile with the predictions of SR? -- OF COURSE IT WILL! > >>>>> > >>>>> Famous last words, Tom Roberts. AFAIK, no one has ever performed the independent calculations. > >>>> You seriously think that no one has looked at that? Of course they have. > >>>> But nothing of interest came out of it, so you don't hear about it. If > >>>> it led to a contradiction, SR would have been abandoned long ago. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You really need to learn basic logic and modes of thought, in addition > >>>>>> to very basic physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I say the accumulated time on Big Ben for the round trip according to 1/gamma WILL NOT tally with the elapsed time shown by BB on the rocket's video. Prove me wrong. I would do it, but I'm busy today interviewing potential body guards. > >>>> If you're convinced a priori that there's a problem, then the work > >>>> required to follow someone else's algebra will exceed what you would > >>>> need to do it yourself. Always assuming, of course, that you're capable. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> I have done the work. Two posts up. SR provides two methods to compute the proper and coordinate duration of the traveling twin's flight. The LT time dilation formula ∆t' = ∆t/gamma is in conflict with with the relativistic doppler formulae when applied to a the twins paradox. > >> There is no Lorentz Transformation time dilation formula. Time dilation > >> is a popular-science special case of the Lorentz Transformation that > >> many people, including you, end up misapplying. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Okay Sylvia Else, I'll take you at your word and accept that there is some non-populist, gnostic method in which to apply the LTs in this situation that reconciles them with the rel-dop equations. And furthermore, I'll admit that as a populist, I don't understand that method. Am I condemned to wander the earth for the rest of my life in ignorance of the correct method or will you teach it to me? > The problem is that you're trying to criticise something that is not > part of Special Relativity (SR) for not being consistent with SR. That > popular-science time dilation does not work in this context is no great > surprise, and just means that this particular popular science > representation of SR is wrong, not that there's anything amiss with SR. > > As for teaching you, a correct analysis of the scenario requires > transformation (using the Lorentz Transform) of the time at Big Ben, > between the frame of the space craft just before it reverses direction > to the frame just after it reverses. > > Sylvia. Sylvia, you continually refer to a gnostic argument that will prove the twins true. Yet you quail at producing it. It has been characteristic of the history of relativity that arguments against the twins paradox are simple, terse, cogent and powerful. No such argument exists in favor of the twins paradox. It has been this way for over 100 years. Witness the foolish Prokary as he carefully picks and chooses the most plausible and least laughable explanation. As with Darwinism, a younger and more skeptical generation is rejecting the specious arguments of relativity. Damned old Legion is almost unreadable with all his ad hoc inventions: "skew of simultaneity", "temporal foliations", etc. I am very readable and very unanswerable, as your own reticence (see above) testifies to. To whom will the young physicist of the future eventually rally to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web