Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423045 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-19 14:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-23 11:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 14:30 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 14:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:45 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-20 09:49 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 21:10 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 02:40 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 04:42 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 04:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 13:51 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 04:30 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 04:44 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-27 12:22 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-27 22:44 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-28 07:40 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 00:26 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 04:01 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 04:14 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 08:30 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 06:54 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:41 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-29 08:37 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 16:16 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 14:29 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 16:45 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:00 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 08:11 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 17:19 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:34 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 08:39 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 15:29 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-01 12:29 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-07-02 12:35 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-07-03 09:45 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 05:24 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-03 17:52 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 05:45 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 15:03 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 13:56 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 23:55 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-08 00:15 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:43 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:44 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:38 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-04 12:56 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-08 00:06 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 08:26 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 10:56 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-12 10:13 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 10:07 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 20:04 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 13:49 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 20:20 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:25 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 07:50 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-03 18:26 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 07:05 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-29 09:31 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 05:01 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-28 07:52 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 03:47 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-29 10:19 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 08:09 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lord Kronos Prime <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 08:39 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:33 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-06-30 11:30 -0600
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:11 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 23:58 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 03:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:47 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 11:18 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-21 09:21 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 19:33 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 07:32 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-21 23:16 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:33 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-22 08:14 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 18:13 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:35 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 11:15 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-22 15:38 -0500
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-23 03:22 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:38 +0000
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 08:32 +0200
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 03:37 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox bigal95210@gmail.com - 2017-06-21 16:48 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 19:00 -0700
Re: The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:43 +0000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 14:30 -0700 |
| Subject | The Secret to Einstein's Twin Paradox |
| Message-ID | <09d068c2-4525-4418-95a4-67888a9ed043@googlegroups.com> |
Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is slow while the stationary one is fast. Why? Because Einsteinians use a biased scenario. In this scenario the moving system (spaceship, observer in it, observer's clock) is always modeled as point-like while the stationary system is spatially extended. As the moving point-like system traverses distances in the spatially extended stationary system, calculations show that the moving clock runs slower and the moving observer remains younger. For this scenario, special relativity does not allow calculations producing an alternative result. For a scenario in which the stationary system is modeled as point-like, special relativity acts in an opposite way. Imagine that all ants spread out on the closed polygonal line have clocks and move with constant speed: http://cliparts101.com/files/131/AB2B0036DC553691775E012D449DEC62/ant_border_rectangle.png A single stationary ant, with a clock, is located in the middle of one of the sides of the polygon. As moving ants pass the single stationary ant, they check its (stationary) clock against their (moving) clocks. For this scenario, special relativity predicts that the single stationary clock will shows LESS AND LESS time elapsed than moving clocks consecutively passing it. This implies that the single stationary ant is getting YOUNGER AND YOUNGER than moving brothers it consecutively meets. Clearly, the twin paradox is actually an absurdity, which means that the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. Pentcho Valev
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1640f0f6-8ad0-4f08-b42d-e2d87b71f7c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423045 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is > slow while the stationary one is fast. Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > Why? Because Einsteinians use a biased scenario. In this scenario the > moving system (spaceship, observer in it, observer's clock) is always > modeled as point-like while the stationary system is spatially extended. More false baloney. > [Even worse baloney deleted] Pentcho continues to be the most absurd prevaricator on the planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib8tr$1thr$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423047 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote: >> >> Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is >> slow while the stationary one is fast. > > Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. Gary insistingly exposes he doesn't understand Relativity. Not even the easy part, SR - pure algebra. The one without tensors involvement of any kind. (no fields, no mapping, no PDEs, but simply SR).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 09:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <da9318d1-a86b-94b6-28d8-6882f5a6db1a@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #423102 |
On 6/20/17 7:45 AM, Eshiki Orakut wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel > napisał: > >> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote: >>> >>> Calculations done by Einsteinians always show that the moving clock is >>> slow while the stationary one is fast. >> >> Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly during the periods when the observer is unaccelerated. But during the traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home twin ages very rapidly. That's why both twins will agree that the traveling twin is the younger when they are reunited. Details here: https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame and here: "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oic2vm$1duc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423139 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Mike Fontenot napisał: > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > during the periods when the observer is unaccelerated. But during the > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home > twin ages very rapidly. That's why both twins will agree that the > traveling twin is the younger when they are reunited. Totally nonsense. The only thing essential governing this configuration is the path LENGTH through the spacetime. Acceleration, speed, jerks and other non-linear things are totally peripheral details, not important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 02:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ede450e-80d2-4ffc-a16a-cd51985c802e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423139 |
W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 17:49:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Mike_Fontenot napisał: > >> Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly And when on a street, they will conclude trees and buildings running around them. There is no doubt they will! A relativistic moron said! A relativistic moron cn't be wrong, like common mortals sometimes are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 04:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5e29803-8f33-4ab7-8f16-dbee91232fcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423174 |
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:40:16 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 17:49:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Mike_Fontenot napisał: > > > >> Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > > > > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > > And when on a street, they will conclude > trees and buildings running around them. > There is no doubt they will! A relativistic > moron said! A relativistic moron cn't be > wrong, like common mortals sometimes are. This is not even wrong. Read Witkacy's play "Szalona lokomotywa" which has a better discussion of this very detail than your nonsense above. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 04:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acafdb5e-041a-45c7-acba-5c7894fa591a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423314 |
W dniu piątek, 23 czerwca 2017 13:42:03 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:40:16 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 17:49:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Mike_Fontenot napisał: > > > > > >> Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > > > > > > > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > > > > And when on a street, they will conclude > > trees and buildings running around them. > > There is no doubt they will! A relativistic > > moron said! A relativistic moron cn't be > > wrong, like common mortals sometimes are. > > This is not even wrong. Read Witkacy's play "Szalona lokomotywa" which > has a better discussion of this very detail than your nonsense above. Including "syntax schmyntax" screams, maybe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c715aab4-9081-40dc-a4de-ab2238b51053@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423318 |
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:48:29 PM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 23 czerwca 2017 13:42:03 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:40:16 AM UTC+2, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 17:49:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Mike_Fontenot napisał: > > > > > > > >> Complete baloney. Both clocks measure the other as slow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > > > > > > And when on a street, they will conclude > > > trees and buildings running around them. > > > There is no doubt they will! A relativistic > > > moron said! A relativistic moron cn't be > > > wrong, like common mortals sometimes are. > > > > This is not even wrong. Read Witkacy's play "Szalona lokomotywa" which > > has a better discussion of this very detail than your nonsense above. > > Including "syntax schmyntax" screams, maybe? Just talked to Prof. Degler from Wroclaw on the phone (an expert on S.I.Witkiewicz). He didn't know anything about "syntax schmyntax" though. As far as I know Witkiewicz never used the phrase in his plays. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-22 04:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d071054c-8314-46da-a4c7-9d44e04b82f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423139 |
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-5, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > during the periods when the observer is unaccelerated. But during the > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home > twin ages very rapidly. That's why both twins will agree that the > traveling twin is the younger when they are reunited. > > Details here: > > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > > and here: > > "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, > December 1999, p629. What is aging? Aging is the time since your birth. When you age, "now" increments but the time of your birth stays the same. In CADO, when you accelerate toward your distant twin, you said "But during the traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home twin ages very rapidly" This is 99% right. Except this tiny nuance. Both birth-date and 100th birthday of the distant twin swing backward in time. Making the Current Age greater. But the distance between those two dates don't change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-23 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63fd631e-6e46-4cf3-9c73-f1c6ccb44762@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423243 |
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:30:36 PM UTC+2, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-5, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > > during the periods when the observer is unaccelerated. But during the > > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home > > twin ages very rapidly. That's why both twins will agree that the > > traveling twin is the younger when they are reunited. > > > > Details here: > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > > > > and here: > > > > "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, > > December 1999, p629. > > What is aging? > Aging is the time since your birth. > > When you age, "now" increments > but the time of your birth stays the same. > > In CADO, when you accelerate toward your distant twin, > you said "But during the > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, > he will conclude that the home > twin ages very rapidly" > > This is 99% right. Except this tiny nuance. > Both birth-date and 100th birthday > of the distant twin swing backward in time. > Making the Current Age greater. > > But the distance between those two dates don't change. Mike's frame is obtained by integrating the usual momentarily co-moving inertial frames. From the point of view of the travelling twin this frame would be quite artificial, perhaps even contrived, but it's of course correct and as good, mathematically, as any other frame. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b66cd8c-b779-4699-871f-8027793214db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423316 |
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:44:02 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:30:36 PM UTC+2, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 10:49:22 AM UTC-5, Mike_Fontenot wrote: > > > > > > Each observer will conclude that the other twin is ageing more slowly > > > during the periods when the observer is unaccelerated. But during the > > > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, he will conclude that the home > > > twin ages very rapidly. That's why both twins will agree that the > > > traveling twin is the younger when they are reunited. > > > > > > Details here: > > > > > > https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame > > > > > > and here: > > > > > > "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, > > > December 1999, p629. > > > > What is aging? > > Aging is the time since your birth. > > > > When you age, "now" increments > > but the time of your birth stays the same. > > > > In CADO, when you accelerate toward your distant twin, > > you said "But during the > > traveling twin's accelerated turnaround, > > he will conclude that the home > > twin ages very rapidly" > > > > This is 99% right. Except this tiny nuance. > > Both birth-date and 100th birthday > > of the distant twin swing backward in time. > > Making the Current Age greater. > > > > But the distance between those two dates don't change. > > Mike's frame is obtained by integrating the usual momentarily co-moving > inertial frames. From the point of view of the travelling twin this frame > would be quite artificial, perhaps even contrived, but it's of course > correct and as good, mathematically, as any other frame. > > -- > Jan I agree that Mike's CADO (Current Age of Distant Objects) frame is "correct," for creating some "non-inertial-reference-frame" of an accelerating observer, "good" is a matter of what rubric you want to satisfy. And in the sense that the CADO frame meets some rubrics, it is correct and unique. Rubrics (rubric 1) It places the accelerating twin at x=0 (rubric 2) It reports correct distances to the events which occur "now" in the accelerating twin's perspective. (rubric 6) It highlights the "time-travel" sort of aspect of Special Relativity. If your rubric is that the frame always conveys the events simultaneous with the observer's observations and those events are shown at correct distances, then in that sense, Mike's frame is good. It also highlights the sort of time-travel aspect of Special Relativity. However, there are other rubrics which also might be suggested. (rubric 3) Every event in spacetime appears once, and no more than once. (rubric 4) It reports correct distance to emission and reflection event sobserved by the observer. Since rubric 2 and rubric 3 are incompatible, whether you think of the CADO non-inertial frame as "good" depends on which of these two rubrics you think is "better". What makes the CADO frame "artificial" or "contrived" as you say, is the fact that the CURRENT age of distant objects is never actually observed by the traveling twin. If you could see those distant events instantaneously, you would see distant objects getting older and younger as earth orbits the sun, or rotates on its axis. But we don't see the current age of distant objects. Rather, we see them as they were, in the past, when they emitted the light we are currently seeing. So a PLCADO (Past-Light-Cone-Age-of-Distant-Objects) would also provide a mathematically correct frame, but one where different rubrics are satisfied. However, one shouldn't get the idea that deciding on a different rubric for what is "best" somehow proves another model incorrect. I have not struck a blow to a model that satisfies rubric 1 and 2, by creating another model that satisfies rubric 1, 3, and 4. And if I introduced (rubric 5) Distances and times are calculated by the observer's emissions of radar, and measurments of returned signals, even if the observer accelerates significantly during the measurement. We could satisfy rubrics 1, 3, and 5 with Dolby and Gull's Radar Time We can satisfy rubrics 1, 2, and 6 with CADO. Or we could satisfy rubrics 1, 3, 4, with PLCADO. So, all are correct, and depending on which rubric's you think best to satisfy, each one may be "good".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 12:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <16d2a250-20ef-df9b-04f7-af1209bdead8@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #423537 |
On 6/27/17 8:06 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > [...] And in the sense that the CADO frame meets some rubrics, it is correct and unique. The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own measurements and elementary calculations. Those measurements and elementary calculations are detailed in my paper: "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629. Using an alternative reference frame for an accelerating observer is analogous to an inertial observer deciding to use some other inertial reference frame, in which he is not stationary ... he can do that if he wishes, but it will disagree with his own measurements and calculations. > > We could satisfy > rubrics 1, 3, and 5 with Dolby and Gull's Radar Time. > The other problem I have with Dolby and Gull's accelerating reference frame (other than that it disagrees with the above referenced measurements and elementary calculations made by the accelerating observer) is that it is NON-CAUSAL: In Dolby and Gull's method, the current age of a distant inertial person at some instant in the observer's life depends on how he will choose to accelerate IN THE FUTURE. I think that is absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 22:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mZWdnceaure7u87EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423552 |
On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other > alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own measurements > and elementary calculations. NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, but located at the distant clock to be measured; moreover, they must carry clocks synchronized with the observer's clock IMMEDIATELY before the measurements are made (their clocks do not remain in sync with the observer's over finite periods of time). I suppose it would be possible to invent a "CADO clock" for the assistants to carry, which would magically [@] display the CADO time. Well, possible in a gedanken, but in the real world the problems would be insurmountable. For instance, the observer cannot signal to the assistants when she changes her acceleration, she must pre-arrange her acceleration profile with her assistants. [@] The "magic" can be computed from PRE-ARRANGED knowledge of the observer's location and acceleration profile. Moreover this simply is not possible everywhere, because for a distance far enough behind the accelerating observer it simply is not possible to construct the CADO coordinates (the Rindler horizon intervenes). IOW: The CADO frame is a solution to a non-problem. The REAL lesson here is that accelerating observers cannot reliably describe the ages or times of distant clocks. But that's OK, as there is no need to do so -- certainly no law of physics depends upon it [#]. [#] "All physics is local." [Einstein and others] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-28 07:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9808ee33-62a4-1ca9-8c5d-b94593c9c911@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #423565 |
On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other >> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own >> measurements and elementary calculations. > > NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without > outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and > (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > Moreover this simply is not possible everywhere, because for a distance > far enough behind the accelerating observer it simply is not possible to > construct the CADO coordinates (the Rindler horizon intervenes). > For every instant in the accelerating observer's life, the CADO reference frame tells him the current age of the distant inertial person, and her location and distance from him. That's ALL his reference frame is required to do, and it does it. There is no restriction at all on the distance of the distant person ... the Rindler horizon is not a factor. -- https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629. All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 00:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <47qdnTNmgbHmEsnEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423580 |
On 6/28/17 6/28/17 8:40 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >>> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other >>> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own >>> measurements and elementary calculations. >> >> NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without >> outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and >> (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] > > In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > reporting her age at the time of the transmission. THINK about what you said. From that information the observer knows the sender's age when the signal was SENT, without reference to the CADO frame. But from that information alone the observer cannot possibly know how old she is when it is RECEIVED. Because this is not a measurement of the distant person, it is a measurement of a SIGNAL, and the observer does not know how long the signal traveled from her to him. It takes A LOT more to know enough to INFER her age when the signal is received; making an actual MEASUREMENT requires those distant co-moving and co-accelerating assistants, as I said. >> Moreover this simply is not possible everywhere, because for a distance >> far enough behind the accelerating observer it simply is not possible to >> construct the CADO coordinates (the Rindler horizon intervenes). > > For every instant in the accelerating observer's life, the CADO reference frame > tells him the current age of the distant inertial person, and her location and > distance from him. That's ALL his reference frame is required to do, and it > does it. There is no restriction at all on the distance of the distant person > ... the Rindler horizon is not a factor. Hmmmm. It is possible to imagine scenarios in which what you said is true. It is also possible to imagine scenarios in which what I said is true. With one exception, ALL of them are unphysical in that there are insurmountable obstacles to actually implementing them. The exception is for objects that remains at rest in some inertial frame, while the observer moves and accelerates arbitrarily relative to it. All the observer needs to do is keep track of his own clock and his speed relative to that frame, and he can always know the current age of any object at rest in that frame (as long as he knew it at some earlier point along his path). Note that simultaneity here is that of the inertial frame, which is QUITE different from that of the CADO frame. For this situation I think that is MUCH more reasonable. This is also the only likely scenario in which the question comes up at all (in some unknown future when spaceships are capable of relativistic speeds). As I said, a solution looking for a problem. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 04:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc0a5d95-be44-4f6a-9712-7a844f170b24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423590 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 12:26:28 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/28/17 6/28/17 8:40 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > > On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >>> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other > >>> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own > >>> measurements and elementary calculations. > >> > >> NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without > >> outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and > >> (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] > > > > In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > > things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > > reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > > THINK about what you said. > > From that information the observer knows ... Whoah, hold on. No, the observer CANNOT KNOW those two pieces of information. Not immediately, anyway. The accelerating observer can certainly read his own watch, But to get the "transmission of the distant inertial person reporting her age at the time of the transmission" He has to wait until that transmission arrives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67924e7f-b8d0-42d9-8fa1-af1381cc26cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423590 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 12:26:28 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/28/17 6/28/17 8:40 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > > On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >>> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other > >>> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own > >>> measurements and elementary calculations. > >> > >> NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without > >> outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and > >> (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] > > > > In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > > things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > > reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > > THINK about what you said. > > From that information the observer knows the sender's age when the signal was > SENT, without reference to the CADO frame. But from that information alone the > observer cannot possibly know how old she is when it is RECEIVED. Because this > is not a measurement of the distant person, it is a measurement of a SIGNAL, and > the observer does not know how long the signal traveled from her to him. It > takes A LOT more to know enough to INFER her age when the signal is received; > making an actual MEASUREMENT requires those distant co-moving and > co-accelerating assistants, as I said. > Ah, we parsed Mike's meaning differently, when he said In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person reporting her age at the time of the transmission. When Mike said "at the time of the transmission" you thought he meant, "the transmission being received by the observer at the time when the observer is reading his watch" (Current Perception of Past Transmission) And I thought Mike meant "the transmission being transmitted by the distant person, at the time when the observer is reading his watch." (Current Transmission)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xuudnfLSB6lFncjEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #423599 |
On 6/29/17 6/29/17 6:14 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 12:26:28 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 8:40 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >>> On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >>>>> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other >>>>> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own >>>>> measurements and elementary calculations. >>>> >>>> NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without >>>> outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and >>>> (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] >>> >>> In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two >>> things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person >>> reporting her age at the time of the transmission. >> >> THINK about what you said. >> >> From that information the observer knows the sender's age when the signal was >> SENT, without reference to the CADO frame. But from that information alone the >> observer cannot possibly know how old she is when it is RECEIVED. Because this >> is not a measurement of the distant person, it is a measurement of a SIGNAL, and >> the observer does not know how long the signal traveled from her to him. It >> takes A LOT more to know enough to INFER her age when the signal is received; >> making an actual MEASUREMENT requires those distant co-moving and >> co-accelerating assistants, as I said. >> > > Ah, we parsed Mike's meaning differently, when he said > > In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > > When Mike said "at the time of the transmission" you thought he meant, > "the transmission being received by the observer > at the time when the observer is reading his watch" > (Current Perception of Past Transmission) > > And I thought Mike meant > "the transmission being transmitted by the distant person, > at the time when the observer is reading his watch." > (Current Transmission) You are garbling this. Your second interpretation is simply not possible as the distant person and the observer do not have any shared reference for simultaneity -- she does not know when he is looking at his watch, and he does not know when she is making a transmission reporting her current age. As the observer has a watch (clock), he can read it at any time, including the time when a transmission is received -- this is surely what Mike had in mind. But as I said, the observer does not know how long the signal has been in transit from her to him. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2304c2a-db2d-4bca-bbd2-3b002489e5d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423603 |
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:30:09 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/29/17 6/29/17 6:14 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 12:26:28 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 6/28/17 6/28/17 8:40 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >>> On 6/27/17 9:44 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 6/27/17 6/27/17 1:22 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >>>>> The most important thing that distinguishes the CADO frame from other > >>>>> alternatives is that it agrees with the accelerating observer's own > >>>>> measurements and elementary calculations. > >>>> > >>>> NONSENSE! Such "measurements" are not physically possible without > >>>> outrageously unreasonable assistants who are (loosely) co-moving and > >>>> (loosely) co-accelerating with the observer, [...] > >>> > >>> In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > >>> things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > >>> reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > >> > >> THINK about what you said. > >> > >> From that information the observer knows the sender's age when the signal was > >> SENT, without reference to the CADO frame. But from that information alone the > >> observer cannot possibly know how old she is when it is RECEIVED. Because this > >> is not a measurement of the distant person, it is a measurement of a SIGNAL, and > >> the observer does not know how long the signal traveled from her to him. It > >> takes A LOT more to know enough to INFER her age when the signal is received; > >> making an actual MEASUREMENT requires those distant co-moving and > >> co-accelerating assistants, as I said. > >> > > > > Ah, we parsed Mike's meaning differently, when he said > > > > In order to make his measurements, the accelerating observer needs only two > > things: his own watch, and transmissions from the distant inertial person > > reporting her age at the time of the transmission. > > > > When Mike said "at the time of the transmission" you thought he meant, > > "the transmission being received by the observer > > at the time when the observer is reading his watch" > > (Current Perception of Past Transmission) > > > > And I thought Mike meant > > "the transmission being transmitted by the distant person, > > at the time when the observer is reading his watch." > > (Current Transmission) > > You are garbling this. Your second interpretation is simply not possible as the > distant person and the observer do not have any shared reference for > simultaneity No, I didn't intend to imply that there was any shared simultaneity, between observed person and observer person. But I think any time you have "observed" and "observer" you use the "observer's" reference of simultaneity. >-- she does not know when he is looking at his watch, and he does > not know when she is making a transmission reporting her current age. > That's correct. > As the observer has a watch (clock), he can read it at any time, including the > time when a transmission is received -- this is surely what Mike had in mind. Well, perhaps Mike will clarify. I thought surely Mike meant the transmission simultaneous with the watch-reading, in the reference of the observer. This is something impossible to get in that moment, but it would give you the "current age" of the observed twin, if it were possible. You thought surely Mike meant the transmission that arrives at the same moment as the watch-reading, from every point-of-view. This would be straight-forward to get, but it would give you the past-light-cone-age of the observed twin. All I can say currently, is that Mike's words were not explicit enough, to know which one he meant. But based on previous discussions, I'm pretty sure he meant the current event in the reference of the observer. Not the past-light-cone event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web