View Full Version : Twin Paradox paper available
John T Lowry
Aug24-04, 11:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nI\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\nRelativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and\n5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.\n\nFeatures include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"\nusing three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\nstay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\nspaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s need\nto accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)\nuse of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n\nComments and criticism encouraged.\n\nJohn T. Lowry, PhD\n\nFlight Physics\n\njlowry100@earthlink.net\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"
using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's need
to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)
use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
Comments and criticism encouraged.
John T. Lowry, PhD
Flight Physics
jlowry100@earthlink.net
Uncle Al
Aug25-04, 02:44 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>John T Lowry wrote:\n>\n> I\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\n> Relativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and\n> 5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.\n>\n> Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"\n> using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\n> stay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\n> spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s need\n> to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)\n> use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n>\n> Comments and criticism encouraged.\n\nhttp://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html\n\nOne twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When\nthey reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less\nthan his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.\n\nAcceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To\naccomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or\nthe twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.\n\nInertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths\nthrough spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is\napparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being\nlocal when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).\nAcceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as\nopposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).\nAcceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated\nwith the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock\nobservation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes\nwhat path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks\nare *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the\nsituation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the\nreference frame and any clocks in it.\n\n1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not\nrequire a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous\ndisplacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered\nmasses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock\nwas not running/existing during aceleration. Any past\naccelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and\ntime from an unaccelerated frame.\n\n2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present\nclocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference\nframe that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety\nand the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks\nexcept by having them local. That\'s what Relativity demands. If\nthey are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty\nthereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration\nmeasurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.\n\nEXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of\nnot running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.\nEach clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch\nsticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter\nand a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the\nexperiment.\n\nCLOCK 1: That\'s our clock. It sits stationary in our\ninertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.\nTouch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"\nstate becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from\nparts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.\n\nCLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our\ninertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built\nafter all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past\nClock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are\nnow "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time\naccumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric! We\nhave an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who\naccelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn\'t a clock\npresent when it happened.\n\nCLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our\ninertial frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction\nto Clock 2. Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all\nacceleration ceased, and set to zero.\n\nSome arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn\n"on" by touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching\njiggers. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down\nthe elapsed time in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with\na sledgehammer. Or melt it down, or toss it over the side. The\nspaceship with Clock 3 is returning back over the path taken by\nthe spaceship with Clock 2.\n\nCLOCK 1: That\'s our clock. It sits stationary in our\ninertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.\nClock 3 rushes past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off.\nAll clocks are off. No clock has accelerated while "on" or even\nwhile existing. Write down elapsed times, smash each clock with\na sledgehammer. Or melt them down, or toss them.\n\nBOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...\nAccelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three\nfolks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been\nsmashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.\nThe numbers on the papers won\'t change when you accelerate or\nbroadcast the data.\n\nAcceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up\nthe experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is\nrunning or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on\nslips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.\nOne could as easily build the clocks from their component parts\nafter setting up the experiment. No clock exists during\nacceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated\nin the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative\nto an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a\npresently unaccelerated setting.\n\nFinally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight\nline motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but\nelapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary\nreference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only\nabout 4.5% that than of #1\'s accumulated elapsed time. You have\nthe Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\nbeen accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\nor down.\n\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>John T Lowry wrote:
>
> I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
> Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
> 5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
>
> Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"
> using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
> stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
> spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's need
> to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)
> use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
>
> Comments and criticism encouraged.
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When
they reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less
than his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.
Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To
accomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or
the twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.
Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is
apparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being
local when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).
Acceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as
opposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).
Acceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated
with the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock
observation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes
what path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks
are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the
situation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the
reference frame and any clocks in it.
1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not
require a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous
displacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered
masses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock
was not running/existing during aceleration. Any past
accelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and
time from an unaccelerated frame.
2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present
clocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference
frame that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety
and the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks
except by having them local. That's what Relativity demands. If
they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
thereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration
measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.
EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of
not running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.
Each clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch
sticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter
and a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the
experiment.
CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our
inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.
Touch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"
state becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from
parts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at .999c relative to our
inertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built
after all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past
Clock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are
now "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time
accumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric! We
have an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who
accelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn't a clock
present when it happened.
CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at .999c relative to our
inertial frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction
to Clock 2. Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all
acceleration ceased, and set to zero.
Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn
"on" by touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching
jiggers. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down
the elapsed time in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with
a sledgehammer. Or melt it down, or toss it over the side. The
spaceship with Clock 3 is returning back over the path taken by
the spaceship with Clock 2.
CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our
inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.
Clock 3 rushes past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off.
All clocks are off. No clock has accelerated while "on" or even
while existing. Write down elapsed times, smash each clock with
a sledgehammer. Or melt them down, or toss them.
BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...
Accelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three
folks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been
smashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.
The numbers on the papers won't change when you accelerate or
broadcast the data.
Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up
the experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is
running or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on
slips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.
One could as easily build the clocks from their component parts
after setting up the experiment. No clock exists during
acceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated
in the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative
to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a
presently unaccelerated setting.
Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight
line motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but
elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary
reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only
about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed time. You have
the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
or down.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Uncle Al wrote:\n> John T Lowry wrote:\n>\n>>I\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\n>>Relativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and\n>>5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.\n>>\n>>Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"\n>>using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\n>>stay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\n>>spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s need\n>>to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)\n>>use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n>>\n>>Comments and criticism encouraged.\n>\n>\n> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html\n>\n> One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When\n> they reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less\n> than his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.\n>\n> Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To\n> accomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or\n> the twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.\n>\n> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths\n> through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is\n> apparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being\n> local when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).\n> Acceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as\n> opposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).\n> Acceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated\n> with the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock\n> observation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes\n> what path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks\n> are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the\n> situation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the\n> reference frame and any clocks in it.\n>\n> 1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not\n> require a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous\n> displacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered\n> masses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock\n> was not running/existing during aceleration. Any past\n> accelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and\n> time from an unaccelerated frame.\n>\n> 2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present\n> clocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference\n> frame that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety\n> and the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks\n> except by having them local. That\'s what Relativity demands. If\n> they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty\n> thereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration\n> measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.\n>\n> EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of\n> not running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.\n> Each clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch\n> sticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter\n> and a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the\n> experiment.\n>\n> CLOCK 1: That\'s our clock. It sits stationary in our\n> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.\n> Touch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"\n> state becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from\n> parts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.\n>\n> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our\n> inertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built\n> after all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past\n> Clock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are\n> now "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time\n> accumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric! We\n> have an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who\n> accelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn\'t a clock\n> present when it happened.\n>\n> CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our\n> inertial frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction\n> to Clock 2. Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all\n> acceleration ceased, and set to zero.\n>\n> Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn\n> "on" by touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching\n> jiggers. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down\n> the elapsed time in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with\n> a sledgehammer. Or melt it down, or toss it over the side. The\n> spaceship with Clock 3 is returning back over the path taken by\n> the spaceship with Clock 2.\n>\n> CLOCK 1: That\'s our clock. It sits stationary in our\n> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.\n> Clock 3 rushes past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off.\n> All clocks are off. No clock has accelerated while "on" or even\n> while existing. Write down elapsed times, smash each clock with\n> a sledgehammer. Or melt them down, or toss them.\n>\n> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...\n> Accelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three\n> folks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been\n> smashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.\n> The numbers on the papers won\'t change when you accelerate or\n> broadcast the data.\n>\n> Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up\n> the experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is\n> running or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on\n> slips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.\n> One could as easily build the clocks from their component parts\n> after setting up the experiment. No clock exists during\n> acceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated\n> in the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative\n> to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a\n> presently unaccelerated setting.\n>\n> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight\n> line motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but\n> elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary\n> reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only\n> about 4.5% that than of #1\'s accumulated elapsed time. You have\n> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> or down.\n\nFrom the FoR of #2, his elapsed time will be more than that of #3 on\nthese slips of paper, because from his frame #3\'s clock is ticking slower.\nAssume #3 had a laser clock on board, oriented parallel to y. This clock\nwill tick slow wrt #3 by the factor 1/gamma, that is, since light\npropagates at c wrt #2.\n\nThus, since #2 perceives the spacelike separation of the first two\nevents to be equal to the spacelike separation of the 2nd and 3rd\nevents, then he must find that his slip of paper will record more\nelapsed time than #3\'s slip of paper.\n\nAnd yes, the triplets argument is indeed much more elegant, it proves\nthe fallacy of special relativity without ambiguity, and with a minimum\nof effort.\n\nAl, these observers, if all born in other frames, and located distant\nfrom the Earth, do not know but that they\'ve accelerated back into\nEarth\'s rest frame. I think that\'s the part the slips past you. Without\nabsolute acceleration histories dating back to the beginning of time,\nyour argument is worthless, since you must rely on a de facto never\naccelerated frame, i.e. a "master" frame. The correct transformation\nmust be noncommutative, i.e. there is a local at rest reference frame.\n\nThank you,\n\nRichard Perry\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al wrote:
> John T Lowry wrote:
>
>>I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
>>Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
>>5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
>>
>>Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"
>>using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
>>stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
>>spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's need
>>to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)
>>use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
>>
>>Comments and criticism encouraged.
>
>
> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
>
> One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When
> they reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less
> than his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.
>
> Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To
> accomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or
> the twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.
>
> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
> through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is
> apparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being
> local when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).
> Acceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as
> opposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).
> Acceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated
> with the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock
> observation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes
> what path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks
> are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the
> situation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the
> reference frame and any clocks in it.
>
> 1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not
> require a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous
> displacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered
> masses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock
> was not running/existing during aceleration. Any past
> accelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and
> time from an unaccelerated frame.
>
> 2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present
> clocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference
> frame that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety
> and the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks
> except by having them local. That's what Relativity demands. If
> they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
> thereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration
> measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.
>
> EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of
> not running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.
> Each clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch
> sticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter
> and a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the
> experiment.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our
> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.
> Touch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"
> state becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from
> parts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
>
> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at .999c relative to our
> inertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built
> after all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past
> Clock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are
> now "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time
> accumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric! We
> have an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who
> accelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn't a clock
> present when it happened.
>
> CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at .999c relative to our
> inertial frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction
> to Clock 2. Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all
> acceleration ceased, and set to zero.
>
> Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn
> "on" by touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching
> jiggers. Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down
> the elapsed time in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with
> a sledgehammer. Or melt it down, or toss it over the side. The
> spaceship with Clock 3 is returning back over the path taken by
> the spaceship with Clock 2.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our
> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.
> Clock 3 rushes past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off.
> All clocks are off. No clock has accelerated while "on" or even
> while existing. Write down elapsed times, smash each clock with
> a sledgehammer. Or melt them down, or toss them.
>
> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...
> Accelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three
> folks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been
> smashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.
> The numbers on the papers won't change when you accelerate or
> broadcast the data.
>
> Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up
> the experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is
> running or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on
> slips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.
> One could as easily build the clocks from their component parts
> after setting up the experiment. No clock exists during
> acceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated
> in the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative
> to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a
> presently unaccelerated setting.
>
> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight
> line motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but
> elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary
> reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only
> about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed time. You have
> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> or down.
From the FoR of #2, his elapsed time will be more than that of #3 on
these slips of paper, because from his frame #3's clock is ticking slower.
Assume #3 had a laser clock on board, oriented parallel to y. This clock
will tick slow wrt #3 by the factor 1/\gamma, that is, since light
propagates at c wrt #2.
Thus, since #2 perceives the spacelike separation of the first two
events to be equal to the spacelike separation of the 2nd and 3rd
events, then he must find that his slip of paper will record more
elapsed time than #3's slip of paper.
And yes, the triplets argument is indeed much more elegant, it proves
the fallacy of special relativity without ambiguity, and with a minimum
of effort.
Al, these observers, if all born in other frames, and located distant
from the Earth, do not know but that they've accelerated back into
Earth's rest frame. I think that's the part the slips past you. Without
absolute acceleration histories dating back to the beginning of time,
your argument is worthless, since you must rely on a de facto never
accelerated frame, i.e. a "master" frame. The correct transformation
must be noncommutative, i.e. there is a local at rest reference frame.
Thank you,
Richard Perry
Uncle Al
Aug26-04, 01:52 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nRP wrote:\n>\n> Uncle Al wrote:\n> > John T Lowry wrote:\n\n[snip]\n\n> And yes, the triplets argument is indeed much more elegant, it proves\n> the fallacy of special relativity without ambiguity, and with a minimum\n> of effort.\n[snip]\n\nUncle Al can explain it to you but he cannot understand it for\nyou.\n\n[snip]\n\n\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>RP wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > John T Lowry wrote:
[snip]
> And yes, the triplets argument is indeed much more elegant, it proves
> the fallacy of special relativity without ambiguity, and with a minimum
> of effort.
[snip]
Uncle Al can explain it to you but he cannot understand it for
you.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Hans de Vries
Sep6-04, 03:47 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nUncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> You have\n> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> or down.\n\nTrue.\n\nThe rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\nages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\nmore undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\nsomebody in a circular orbit.\n\nThe ratio by which the two have aged at the end when they are\nback together again is the same in all reference frames:\nratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with c=1)\n\nThe ultimate clock\n==================\n\nThe amount of Quantum Mechanical phase a particle goes through\nprovides the ultimate clock ticking. It also shows the beautiful\ncompatibility between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.\n\nAt first there may seem to be a hurdle, A moving particle is\nassociated with a higher mass and thus apparently a faster\nticking clock.\n\nHowever if you draw the phase of the moving particle into a\nlittle Minkovski diagram. (just bands parallel to x\') then it\ncan be seen that the higher mass comes from phases counted\nover the t-line. If one counts the phases over the actual\ntrajectory of the particle. (the t\'-line) then it is easy to\nsee that the number of clock ticks is indeed less and exactly\nas predicted by Special Relativity.\n\nRegards, Hans\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> You have
> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> or down.
True.
The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
somebody in a circular orbit.
The ratio by which the two have aged at the end when they are
back together again is the same in all reference frames:
ratio = \sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with c=1)
The ultimate clock
==================
The amount of Quantum Mechanical phase a particle goes through
provides the ultimate clock ticking. It also shows the beautiful
compatibility between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
At first there may seem to be a hurdle, A moving particle is
associated with a higher mass and thus apparently a faster
ticking clock.
However if you draw the phase of the moving particle into a
little Minkovski diagram. (just bands parallel to x') then it
can be seen that the higher mass comes from phases counted
over the t-line. If one counts the phases over the actual
trajectory of the particle. (the t'-line) then it is easy to
see that the number of clock ticks is indeed less and exactly
as predicted by Special Relativity.
Regards, Hans
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Sep7-04, 04:23 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nHans de Vries wrote:\n> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n>\n>>Yo u have\n>>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n>>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n>>or down.\n>\n>\n> True.\n>\n> The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> somebody in a circular orbit.\n\nReally? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in opposite\ndirections (ignoring collisions...)?\n\n--\nDirk\n\nThe Consensus:-\nThe political party for the new millenium\nhttp://www.theconsensus.org\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hans de Vries wrote:
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
>
>>You have
>>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
>>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
>>or down.
>
>
> True.
>
> The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> somebody in a circular orbit.
Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in opposite
directions (ignoring collisions...)?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\nnews:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n> Hans de Vries wrote:\n> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>... \n> >\n> >>You have\n> >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> >>or down.\n> >\n> >\n> > True.\n> >\n> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > somebody in a circular orbit.\n>\n> Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in\nopposite\n> directions (ignoring collisions...)?\n\nSimple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n\nHarald\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Hans de Vries wrote:
> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> >
> >>You have
> >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> >>or down.
> >
> >
> > True.
> >
> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > somebody in a circular orbit.
>
> Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in
opposite
> directions (ignoring collisions...)?
Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
Harald
Mark Palenik
Sep9-04, 04:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\nnews:413dae4b\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n>\ n>\n> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n> news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> >\n> > Hans de Vries wrote:\n> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> > >\n> > >>You have\n> > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > >>or down.\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > True.\n> > >\n> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> >\n> > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in\n> opposite\n> > directions (ignoring collisions...)?\n>\n> Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n>\n\nIf they meet on the planet their orbitting. But if they meet in the frame\nof either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the\ninertial motion will be the one who has aged less.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:413dae4b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Hans de Vries wrote:
> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > >
> > >>You have
> > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > >>or down.
> > >
> > >
> > > True.
> > >
> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > > somebody in a circular orbit.
> >
> > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in
> opposite
> > directions (ignoring collisions...)?
>
> Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
>
If they meet on the planet their orbitting. But if they meet in the frame
of either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the
inertial motion will be the one who has aged less.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nice, but with one important glitch (see below):\n\n"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net...\n > John T Lowry wrote:\n> >\n> > I\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\n> > Relativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and\n> > 5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.\n> >\n> > Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"\n> > using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\n> > stay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\n> > spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s need\n> > to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)\n> > use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n> >\n> > Comments and criticism encouraged.\n>\n> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html\n>\n> One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When\n> they reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less\n> than his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.\n>\n> Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To\n> accomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or\n> the twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.\n>\n> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths\n> through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is\n> apparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being\n> local when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).\n> Acceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as\n> opposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).\n> Acceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated\n> with the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock\n> observation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes\n> what path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks\n> are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the\n> situation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the\n> reference frame and any clocks in it.\n>\n> 1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not\n> require a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous\n> displacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered\n> masses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock\n> was not running/existing during aceleration. Any past\n> accelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and\n> time from an unaccelerated frame.\n>\n> 2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present\n> clocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference\n> frame that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety\n> and the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks\n> except by having them local. That\'s what Relativity demands. If\n> they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty\n> thereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration\n> measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.\n>\n> EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of\n> not running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.\n> Each clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch\n> sticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter\n> and a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the\n> experiment.\n>\n> CLOCK 1: That\'s our clock. It sits stationary in our\n> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.\n> Touch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"\n> state becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from\n> parts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.\n>\n> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our\n> inertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built\n> after all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past\n> Clock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are\n> now "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time\n> accumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric!\n\nBut the situation IS symmetrical (for measurements)!\nThis is simple to see: instead of accelerating clock 2, we could have\naccelerated clocks 1 and 3 in such a way that they reach the same relative\nvelocities between all clocks, all before the "beginning of time". The\nacceleration history before the beginning of time doesn\'t matter at all.\n\n> We\n> have an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who\n> accelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn\'t a clock\n> present when it happened.\n\nIrrelevant. The twin clock retardation is not a function of acceleration but\nof speed relative to intertial frames of reference.\n\nSNIP\n\n> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...\n> Accelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three\n> folks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been\n> smashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.\n> The numbers on the papers won\'t change when you accelerate or\n> broadcast the data.\n>\n> Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up\n> the experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is\n> running or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on\n> slips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.\n> One could as easily build the clocks from their component parts\n> after setting up the experiment. No clock exists during\n> acceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated\n> in the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative\n> to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a\n> presently unaccelerated setting.\n\nThe funny thing is that it DOESN\'T matter for the results of this experiment\nWHICH reference frames had accelerated before the beginning of time.\nAcceleration really has nothing to do with this, not even that of "reference\nframes" - which only exist in our mind anyway.\n\n> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight\n> line motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but\n> elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary\n> reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only\n> about 4.5% that than of #1\'s accumulated elapsed time. You have\n> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> or down.\n\nThanks for pointing out so nicely how powerless the usual interpretation is.\n\nHarald\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nice, but with one important glitch (see below):
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net...
> John T Lowry wrote:
> >
> > I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
> > Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
> > 5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
> >
> > Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"
> > using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
> > stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
> > spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's need
> > to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)
> > use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
> >
> > Comments and criticism encouraged.
>
> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
>
> One twin travels relativistically, one twin stays at home. When
> they reunite the traveling twin is seen to have aged much less
> than his genetic double. Triplets are more elegant.
>
> Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To
> accomplish that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or
> the twins) exist. Only reference frames matter.
>
> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
> through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is
> apparent in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being
> local when you do it, initial calibration then experiment).
> Acceleration is irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as
> opposed to Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR).
> Acceleration is necessary at some arbitrary time not associated
> with the experiment itself for breaking the symmetry of clock
> observation. Acceleration defines which reference frame takes
> what path through spacetime - even if it occurs when the clocks
> are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or destroyed) - so the
> situation is NOT symmetric. There is a difference between the
> reference frame and any clocks in it.
>
> 1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not
> require a clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous
> displacement of three independent orthogonally cantilevered
> masses). There is no doubt who was accelerated even if a clock
> was not running/existing during aceleration. Any past
> accelerated reference frame has a different mixture of space and
> time from an unaccelerated frame.
>
> 2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present
> clocks, but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference
> frame that said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety
> and the key to the whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks
> except by having them local. That's what Relativity demands. If
> they are local at the start, you can tell who was naughty
> thereafter without needing a clock to do the acceleration
> measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.
>
> EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of
> not running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed.
> Each clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch
> sticking out. We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter
> and a machine shop) in individual spaceships and set up the
> experiment.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our
> inertial reference frame with a little jigger sticking out.
> Touch the jigger and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on"
> state becomes "off." Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from
> parts just before we need it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
>
> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at .999c relative to our
> inertial frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built
> after all acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past
> Clock 1 (our clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are
> now "on" and locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time
> accumulates in each one. The situation is NOT symmetric!
But the situation IS symmetrical (for measurements)!
This is simple to see: instead of accelerating clock 2, we could have
accelerated clocks 1 and 3 in such a way that they reach the same relative
velocities between all clocks, all before the "beginning of time". The
acceleration history before the beginning of time doesn't matter at all.
> We
> have an accelerometer and they have an acelerometer. We know who
> accelerated to set up the experiment even if there wasn't a clock
> present when it happened.
Irrelevant. The twin clock retardation is not a function of acceleration but
of speed relative to intertial frames of reference.
SNIP
> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together...
> Accelerate as you need. Or send all the results to all three
> folks by radio and never decelerate. All clocks have been
> smashed, melted, tossed. Their elapsed times were written down.
> The numbers on the papers won't change when you accelerate or
> broadcast the data.
>
> Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up
> the experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is
> running or even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on
> slips of paper are unaffected by Special or General Relativity.
> One could as easily build the clocks from their component parts
> after setting up the experiment. No clock exists during
> acceleration up or down. The *reference frame* has accelerated
> in the past, and that changes its mix of space and time relative
> to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks are passive observers in a
> presently unaccelerated setting.
The funny thing is that it DOESN'T matter for the results of this experiment
WHICH reference frames had accelerated before the beginning of time.
Acceleration really has nothing to do with this, not even that of "reference
frames" - which only exist in our mind anyway.
> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight
> line motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but
> elapsed time #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary
> reference frame summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only
> about 4.5% that than of #1's accumulated elapsed time. You have
> the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> or down.
Thanks for pointing out so nicely how powerless the usual interpretation is.
Harald
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"John T Lowry" <jlowry100@earthlink.net> wrote in message\nnews:ihIWc.11586\\$3O3.7463@newsread2.new s.pas.earthlink.net...\n>\n> I\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\n> Relativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and\n> 5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.\n>\n> Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"\n> using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\n> stay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\n> spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s need\n> to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)\n> use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n>\n> Comments and criticism encouraged.\n>\n> John T. Lowry, PhD\n>\n> Flight Physics\n>\n> jlowry100@earthlink.net\n\nDid you also try to explain the phenomena, or did you attempt to transmit\nEinstein\'s "GRT" explanation?\n\nHarald\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"John T Lowry" <jlowry100@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ihIWc.11586$3O3.7463@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
> Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations and
> 5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me know.
>
> Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox "trip"
> using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
> stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
> spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's need
> to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and (3)
> use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
>
> Comments and criticism encouraged.
>
> John T. Lowry, PhD
>
> Flight Physics
>
> jlowry100@earthlink.net
Did you also try to explain the phenomena, or did you attempt to transmit
Einstein's "GRT" explanation?
Harald
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google. com>...\n> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> > You have\n> > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > or down.\n>\n> True.\n>\n> The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> somebody in a circular orbit.\n>\n>\nAbsolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the\none who ages less.\nTomGee\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google.com>...
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > You have
> > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > or down.
>
> True.
>
> The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> somebody in a circular orbit.
>
>
Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
one who ages less.
TomGee
Uncle Al
Sep9-04, 03:02 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Harry wrote:\n>\n> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n> news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> >\n> > Hans de Vries wrote:\n> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> > >\n> > >>You have\n> > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > >>or down.\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > True.\n> > >\n> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> >\n> > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in\n> opposite\n> > directions (ignoring collisions...)?\n>\n> Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n\nDepends upon whether they are orbiting a spinning planet.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Harry wrote:
>
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Hans de Vries wrote:
> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > >
> > >>You have
> > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > >>or down.
> > >
> > >
> > > True.
> > >
> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > > somebody in a circular orbit.
> >
> > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in
> opposite
> > directions (ignoring collisions...)?
>
> Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
Depends upon whether they are orbiting a spinning planet.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Ken S. Tucker
Sep9-04, 03:03 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message news:<2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de>...\n> Hans de Vries wrote:\n> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > somebody in a circular orbit.\n>\n> Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in opposite\n> directions (ignoring collisions...)?\n\nHans mention relativity and Quantum Theory, Planck\'s constant "h" is\nwidely accepted as an invariant ~ 6.625 ergs*seconds. What matters\nis the units of h, energy*time = invariant = energy\'*time\' measured\nin another frame\', the 6.625 is a pure number and is invariant.\n\nI think you can derive the PoR (relativity) from QT or vis versa,\nI\'ll try a quick demo.\n\nBegin with covariant and contravariant product of the 4-velocity,\n\n1= U_u U^u (u=0,1,2,3 = 0,i) and U^u = dx^u/ds.\n\nExpand in time and space to get,\n\n1= U_0 U^0 + U_i U^i.\n\nCall U_i U^i absolute velocity, and make that vanish in one frame\nthen set U_i U^i = 0 generally in accord with the PoR.\n\nLet "E" be invariant energy, and set E_0 = E*U_0 to be the relative\nenergy component, then\n\nE_0 U^0 = E\n\nDo an absolute derivative on that,\n\nDE_0 U^0 + E_0 DU^0 = DE.\n\nSet DE=0 so only relative changes in energy occur giving,\n\nDE_0 U^0 = - E_0 DU^0.\n\nThat shows the *twin paradox* wherein the DU^0 is an\nabsolute change in a clock rate.\n\nDo some algebra involving logs (Dlog E_0 = -Dlog U^0),\nintegrate (including integration constant "k") and get,\n\nE_0 = k/U^0.\n\nRearrange that and k = E_0 U^0 = energy*time == Planck\'s constant "h".\n\nRegards\nKen S. Tucker\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message news:<2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Hans de Vries wrote:
> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > somebody in a circular orbit.
>
> Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in opposite
> directions (ignoring collisions...)?
Hans mention relativity and Quantum Theory, Planck's constant "h" is
widely accepted as an invariant ~ 6.625 ergs*seconds. What matters
is the units of h, energy*time = invariant = energy'*time' measured
in another frame', the 6.625 is a pure number and is invariant.
I think you can derive the PoR (relativity) from QT or vis versa,
I'll try a quick demo.
Begin with covariant and contravariant product of the 4-velocity,
1= U_u U^u (u=0,1,2,3 = 0,i)[/itex] and U^u = dx^u/ds.
Expand in time and space to get,
1= U_0 U^0 + U_i U^i.
Call U_i U^i absolute velocity, and make that vanish in one frame
then set U_i U^i = generally in accord with the PoR.
Let "E" be invariant energy, and set E_0 = E*U_0 to be the relative
energy component, then
[itex]E_0 U^0 = E
Do an absolute derivative on that,
DE_0 U^0 + E_0 DU^0 = DE.
Set DE=0 so only relative changes in energy occur giving,
DE_0 U^0 = - E_0 DU^0.
That shows the *twin paradox* wherein the DU^0 is an
absolute change in a clock rate.
Do some algebra involving logs (Dlog E_0 = -Dlog U^0),
integrate (including integration constant "k") and get,
E_0 = k/U^0.
Rearrange that and k = E_0 U^0 = energy*time == Planck's constant "h".
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Russell Blackadar
Sep12-04, 02:23 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mark Palenik wrote:\n> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\n> news:413dae4b\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n>\n>>\n>>"D irk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n>>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n\n[twins in opposite circular orbit]\n\n>>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n>>\n>\n>\n> If they meet on the planet their orbitting.\n\nThey would also have to accelerate to that meeting point\nsymmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the\ntwins in their original orbits, and let them compare\nclocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go\nwhizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal\nreadings at each such meeting event.\n\nBut if they meet in the frame\n> of either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the\n> inertial motion will be the one who has aged less.\n\nYes, in practice; but if we (unphysically) allow infinite\nacceleration, we could reverse the orbit of twin B at the\nexact meeting event, and the ages will stay the same. In\nother words, the twin effect depends not only on acceleration,\nbut on the distance between the twins when that acceleration\noccurs. If the distance is zero, the effect is nil.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mark Palenik wrote:
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:413dae4b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>>
>>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
>>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
[twins in opposite circular orbit]
>>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
>>
>
>
> If they meet on the planet their orbitting.
They would also have to accelerate to that meeting point
symmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the
twins in their original orbits, and let them compare
clocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go
whizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal
readings at each such meeting event.
But if they meet in the frame
> of either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the
> inertial motion will be the one who has aged less.
Yes, in practice; but if we (unphysically) allow infinite
acceleration, we could reverse the orbit of twin B at the
exact meeting event, and the ages will stay the same. In
other words, the twin effect depends not only on acceleration,
but on the distance between the twins when that acceleration
occurs. If the distance is zero, the effect is nil.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<FeednUpmKeDDFqLcRVn-rg@wideopenwest.com>...\n> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\n> news:413dae4b\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n> >\n> >\n> > "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n> > news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n> > >\n> > > Hans de Vries wrote:\n> > > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> > > >\n> > > >>You have\n> > > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > > >>or down.\n> > > >\n> > > >\n> > > > True.\n> > > >\n> > > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > > > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> > >\n> > > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in\n> opposite\n> > > directions (ignoring collisions...)?\n> >\n> > Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n> >\n>\n> If they meet on the planet their orbitting. But if they meet in the frame\n> of either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the\n> inertial motion will be the one who has aged less.\n\n\nAs far as I can see, all that is necessary for them to age the same is\nthat they both traverse the same distance in space before rejoining\neach other. For a circular orbit, moving in opposite directions at\nthe same speed, they would indeed travel the same distance before they\nmet each other again. In order for them to travel different distances\nalong the circle, and hence have asymmetric aging, they would need to\nbe moving at different speeds.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<FeednUpmKeDDFqLcRVn-rg@wideopenwest.com>...
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:413dae4b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> >
> > "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> > news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > Hans de Vries wrote:
> > > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > > >
> > > >>You have
> > > >>the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > > >>been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > > >>or down.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > True.
> > > >
> > > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > > > somebody in a circular orbit.
> > >
> > > Really? What about two people travelling in the same circular orbit in
> opposite
> > > directions (ignoring collisions...)?
> >
> > Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
> >
>
> If they meet on the planet their orbitting. But if they meet in the frame
> of either one or the other of the orbitting twins, the one who broke the
> inertial motion will be the one who has aged less.
As far as I can see, all that is necessary for them to age the same is
that they both traverse the same distance in space before rejoining
each other. For a circular orbit, moving in opposite directions at
the same speed, they would indeed travel the same distance before they
met each other again. In order for them to travel different distances
along the circle, and hence have asymmetric aging, they would need to
be moving at different speeds.
Mark Palenik
Sep12-04, 02:24 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting .google.com...\n> hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message\nnews:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@postin g.google.com>...\n> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>... \n> > > You have\n> > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > > or down.\n> >\n> > True.\n> >\n> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> >\n> >\n> Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the\n> one who ages less.\n> TomGee\n>\n\nExplain to me how you can travel more space without traveling faster. I\nbelieve the idea of "the one who travels more space" aging less is a better\nway of phrasing it, anyway, than "the one who travels faster", since from a\ngeometric perspective, the additional spacial distance is what decreases the\nlength of your total path through spacetime.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting.google.c om...
> hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message
news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google.com>...
> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > > You have
> > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > > or down.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > somebody in a circular orbit.
> >
> >
> Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
> one who ages less.
> TomGee
>
Explain to me how you can travel more space without traveling faster. I
believe the idea of "the one who travels more space" aging less is a better
way of phrasing it, anyway, than "the one who travels faster", since from a
geometric perspective, the additional spacial distance is what decreases the
length of your total path through spacetime.
Hans de Vries
Sep12-04, 02:25 AM
<
> The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> somebody in a circular orbit.
>
>[/color]
Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
one who ages less.
TomGee
Isn't there this ancient law that says that if you travel twice as fast
than you travel twice as much in the same amount of time...
=====================================
Shortest Path Explanation of the Twin "Paradox"
=====================================
The measurement is always made between two points A and B
in space-time at which the twins meet. The shortest path from
A to B is a straight line. It's a straight line in ANY reference frame.
The twin which travels along this shortest path is the one which
ages the most. Anyone who deviates from this shortest path in
space-time when going from A to B ages less.
Simple, isn't it?
Regards, Hans
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hans de Vries <hansdevries@chip-architect.com> wrote in message news:<Hans.de.Vries.1cds08@physicsforums.com>...\n > TomGee Wrote:\n> > <\n> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> > >\n> > >[/color]\n> > Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the\n> >\n> > one who ages less.\n> > TomGee\n>\n> Isn\'t there this ancient law that says that if you travel twice as fast\n>\n> than you travel twice as much in the same amount of time...\n>\n>\nIf there isn\'t one, there should be.\n>\n>\n> =====================================\n> Shortest Path Explanation of the Twin "Paradox"\n> =====================================\n>\n> The measurement is always made between two points A and B\n> in space-time at which the twins meet. The shortest path from\n> A to B is a straight line. It\'s a straight line in ANY reference frame.\n>\n>\nPlease see my post previous to this one. When you utilize the math\nconstruct we call spacetime, you risk coming out with erroneous or\nmisleading results. I contend that it is not the distance traveled\nbut the speed at which each discrete object or system moves in total\nduring the experiment.\n>\n>\n> The twin which travels along this shortest path is the one which\n> ages the most. Anyone who deviates from this shortest path in\n> space-time when going from A to B ages less.\n>\n> Simple, isn\'t it?\n>\n>\nIt seems that way, I\'m sure, because spacetime graphs show it so, but\nthey do not show why the one who deviates from its shortest path ages\nless. My claims do.\nTomGee\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hans de Vries <hansdevries@chip-architect.com> wrote in message news:<Hans.de.Vries.1cds08@physicsforums.com>...
> TomGee Wrote:
> > <
> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > > somebody in a circular orbit.
> > >
> > >
> > Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
> >
> > one who ages less.
> > TomGee
>
> Isn't there this ancient law that says that if you travel twice as fast
>
> than you travel twice as much in the same amount of time...
>
>[/color]
If there isn't one, there should be.
>
>
> =====================================
> Shortest Path Explanation of the Twin "Paradox"
> =====================================
>
> The measurement is always made between two points A and B
> in space-time at which the twins meet. The shortest path from
> A to B is a straight line. It's a straight line in ANY reference frame.
>
>
Please see my post previous to this one. When you utilize the math
construct we call spacetime, you risk coming out with erroneous or
misleading results. I contend that it is not the distance traveled
but the speed at which each discrete object or system moves in total
during the experiment.
>
>
> The twin which travels along this shortest path is the one which
> ages the most. Anyone who deviates from this shortest path in
> space-time when going from A to B ages less.
>
> Simple, isn't it?
>
>
It seems that way, I'm sure, because spacetime graphs show it so, but
they do not show why the one who deviates from its shortest path ages
less. My claims do.
TomGee
John T Lowry
Sep14-04, 12:16 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\nnews:413db4d5\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n> "John T Lowry" <jlowry100@earthlink.net> wrote in message\n> news:ihIWc.11586\\$3O3.7463@newsread2.news.pas.ear thlink.net...\n> >\n> > I\'ve written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special\n> > Relativity." It\'s a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations\nand\n> > 5 graphs. If you\'d like a copy via email attachment, just let me\nknow.\n> >\n> > Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox\n"trip"\n> > using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and\n> > stay-at-home twin; S\', the outgoing spaceship; and S\'\', the incoming\n> > spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin\'s\nneed\n> > to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and\n(3)\n> > use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S\'\').\n> >\n> > Comments and criticism encouraged.\n> >\n> > John T. Lowry, PhD\n> >\n> > Flight Physics\n> >\n> > jlowry100@earthlink.net\n>\n> Did you also try to explain the phenomena, or did you attempt to\ntransmit\n> Einstein\'s "GRT" explanation?\n>\n> Harald\n>\n\nNo general relativity. Since it\'s quite true that the traveler has to\naccelerate and decelerate a couple of times, I added a graph (no\ncalculation) that gives a realistic rendition of his world line (in the\nstay-at-home twin\'s frame).\n\nJohn.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:413db4d5$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> "John T Lowry" <jlowry100@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ihIWc.11586$3O3.7463@newsread2.news.pas.earth link.net...
> >
> > I've written a pedagogical paper, "The Twin Paradox in Special
> > Relativity." It's a 17-page pdf file with only 9 displayed equations
and
> > 5 graphs. If you'd like a copy via email attachment, just let me
know.
> >
> > Features include: (1) treatment of a single sample twin paradox
"trip"
> > using three alternative frames of reference (S, the earth and
> > stay-at-home twin; S', the outgoing spaceship; and S'', the incoming
> > spaceship); (2) a discussion and graph about the traveling twin's
need
> > to accelerate/decelerate at start, stop, and turnaround points; and
(3)
> > use of an inhomogeneous Lorentz transform (for frame S'').
> >
> > Comments and criticism encouraged.
> >
> > John T. Lowry, PhD
> >
> > Flight Physics
> >
> > jlowry100@earthlink.net
>
> Did you also try to explain the phenomena, or did you attempt to
transmit
> Einstein's "GRT" explanation?
>
> Harald
>
No general relativity. Since it's quite true that the traveler has to
accelerate and decelerate a couple of times, I added a graph (no
calculation) that gives a realistic rendition of his world line (in the
stay-at-home twin's frame).
John.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting .google.com...\n> hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message\nnews:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@postin g.google.com>...\n> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>... \n> > > You have\n> > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > > or down.\n> >\n> > True.\n> >\n> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> >\n> >\n> Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the\n> one who ages less.\n> TomGee\n\nHow do you want to determine who "travels faster"? And faster than what? On\nthe average they must travel at the same speed, otherwise they can\'t meet\ntwice.\n\nHarald\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting.google.c om...
> hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message
news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google.com>...
> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > > You have
> > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > > or down.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > somebody in a circular orbit.
> >
> >
> Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
> one who ages less.
> TomGee
How do you want to determine who "travels faster"? And faster than what? On
the average they must travel at the same speed, otherwise they can't meet
twice.
Harald
Mark Palenik
Sep14-04, 12:19 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Russell Blackadar" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message\nnews:E1C5RwN-00070w-00@chx400.switch.ch...\n> Mark Palenik wrote:\n> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\n> > news:413dae4b\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n> >\n> >>\n> >>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n> >>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n> [twins in opposite circular orbit]\n>\n> >>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> > If they meet on the planet their orbitting.\n>\n> They would also have to accelerate to that meeting point\n> symmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the\n> twins in their original orbits, and let them compare\n> clocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go\n> whizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal\n> readings at each such meeting event.\n\nThat\'s actually closer to the way I wanted to phrase it, but every time I\ntried to visualize this, it ended with the to twins crashing into eachother,\nwhich was a situation I wanted to avoid. Of course, they would have to\naccellerate symmetrically to reach the planet, or one would end up\ntravelling faster, longer, or travelling more space, and they would age\ndifferently. Oddly enough, I sort of assummed infinite acelleration in this\nscenario, but not in the other one.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Russell Blackadar" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:E1C5RwN-00070w-00@chx400.switch.ch...
> Mark Palenik wrote:
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:413dae4b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> >>
> >>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> >>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> [twins in opposite circular orbit]
>
> >>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If they meet on the planet their orbitting.
>
> They would also have to accelerate to that meeting point
> symmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the
> twins in their original orbits, and let them compare
> clocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go
> whizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal
> readings at each such meeting event.
That's actually closer to the way I wanted to phrase it, but every time I
tried to visualize this, it ended with the to twins crashing into eachother,
which was a situation I wanted to avoid. Of course, they would have to
accellerate symmetrically to reach the planet, or one would end up
travelling faster, longer, or travelling more space, and they would age
differently. Oddly enough, I sort of assummed infinite acelleration in this
scenario, but not in the other one.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<E7udnb6KcN4Hnt_cRVn-sA@wideopenwest.com>...\n> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message\n> news:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting.google.c om...\n> > hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message\n> news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google. com>...\n> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...\n> > > > You have\n> > > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having\n> > > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up\n> > > > or down.\n> > >\n> > > True.\n> > >\n> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who\n> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels\n> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for\n> > > somebody in a circular orbit.\n> > >\n> > >\n> > Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the\n> > one who ages less.\n> > TomGee\n> >\n>\n> Explain to me how you can travel more space without traveling faster. I\n> believe the idea of "the one who travels more space" aging less is a better\n> way of phrasing it, anyway, than "the one who travels faster", since from a\n> geometric perspective, the additional spacial distance is what decreases the\n> length of your total path through spacetime.\n>\n>\nYou may have discovered a way to prove spacetime is merely a figment\nof our imagination and not a real place! It is important to overthrow\nthe belief that spacetime exists in order to overthrow the\nmisconception of thinking space and time are interdependent. By your\nargument above, to prove it, one has only to calculate the passage of\ntime for each twin moving in space at the same speed throughout the\ntrip. Ignore the times when the spaceship has had to move faster than\nthe Earth in order to leave it and then return to it, and make the\nrest of the trip one in which the ship moves only as fast as the Earth\nbut moves at least twice as much as the Earth moves through space. If\nthe astronaut twin ages less then, you are correct in your claims\nabove.\nTomGee\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<E7udnb6KcN4Hnt_cRVn-sA@wideopenwest.com>...
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cc2dde17.0409070812.21d50e0c@posting.google.c om...
> > hansdevries@chip-architect.com (Hans de Vries) wrote in message
> news:<3881ea8b.0409040318.7a4edd86@posting.google.com>...
> > > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<412B7D10.98DDD609@hate.spam.net>...
> > > > You have
> > > > the Twin Paradox (or, Triplets) without any running clock having
> > > > been accelerated - or having even existed during acceleration up
> > > > or down.
> > >
> > > True.
> > >
> > > The rule is that the one who travels more (space) is the one who
> > > ages less. The one who goes forward and then backwards travels
> > > more undeniable from any reference frame. The same is true for
> > > somebody in a circular orbit.
> > >
> > >
> > Absolutely not. The "rule" is that the one who travels faster is the
> > one who ages less.
> > TomGee
> >
>
> Explain to me how you can travel more space without traveling faster. I
> believe the idea of "the one who travels more space" aging less is a better
> way of phrasing it, anyway, than "the one who travels faster", since from a
> geometric perspective, the additional spacial distance is what decreases the
> length of your total path through spacetime.
>
>
You may have discovered a way to prove spacetime is merely a figment
of our imagination and not a real place! It is important to overthrow
the belief that spacetime exists in order to overthrow the
misconception of thinking space and time are interdependent. By your
argument above, to prove it, one has only to calculate the passage of
time for each twin moving in space at the same speed throughout the
trip. Ignore the times when the spaceship has had to move faster than
the Earth in order to leave it and then return to it, and make the
rest of the trip one in which the ship moves only as fast as the Earth
but moves at least twice as much as the Earth moves through space. If
the astronaut twin ages less then, you are correct in your claims
above.
TomGee
Mark Palenik
Sep14-04, 12:31 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Russell Blackadar" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message\nnews:E1C5RwN-00070w-00@chx400.switch.ch...\n> Mark Palenik wrote:\n> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message\n> > news:413dae4b\\$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...\n> >\n> >>\n> >>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message\n> >>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...\n>\n> [twins in opposite circular orbit]\n>\n> >>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.\n> >>\n> >\n> >\n> > If they meet on the planet their orbitting.\n>\n> They would also have to accelerate to that meeting point\n> symmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the\n> twins in their original orbits, and let them compare\n> clocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go\n> whizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal\n> readings at each such meeting event.\n\nThat\'s actually closer to the way I wanted to phrase it, but every time I\ntried to visualize this, it ended with the to twins crashing into eachother,\nwhich was a situation I wanted to avoid. Of course, they would have to\naccellerate symmetrically to reach the planet, or one would end up\ntravelling faster, longer, or travelling more space, and they would age\ndifferently. Oddly enough, I sort of assummed infinite acelleration in this\nscenario, but not in the other one.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Russell Blackadar" <russell@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:E1C5RwN-00070w-00@chx400.switch.ch...
> Mark Palenik wrote:
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:413dae4b$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> >>
> >>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> >>news:2q3bi7Fr1l14U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> [twins in opposite circular orbit]
>
> >>Simple. The situation is symmetrical, so they age the same.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If they meet on the planet their orbitting.
>
> They would also have to accelerate to that meeting point
> symmetrically. A simpler scenario is just to keep the
> twins in their original orbits, and let them compare
> clocks (and ages) at the meeting events, when they go
> whizzing by each other. The clocks will have equal
> readings at each such meeting event.
That's actually closer to the way I wanted to phrase it, but every time I
tried to visualize this, it ended with the to twins crashing into eachother,
which was a situation I wanted to avoid. Of course, they would have to
accellerate symmetrically to reach the planet, or one would end up
travelling faster, longer, or travelling more space, and they would age
differently. Oddly enough, I sort of assummed infinite acelleration in this
scenario, but not in the other one.
henrique@fullconversation.com.br
Jan27-05, 03:02 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Dear Dr. Lowry\n\nI\'m deeply interested in receiving your paper about Special Relativity.\nIt will help me a lot.\nThank you in advance.\nHenrique\nhenrique@fullconversation.com. br\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Dear Dr. Lowry
I'm deeply interested in receiving your paper about Special Relativity.
It will help me a lot.
Thank you in advance.
Henrique
henrique@fullconversation.com.br
Frank Hellmann (Certhas -at- gmail -dot- com)
Jan30-05, 02:42 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Russell Blackadar wrote:\n> Yes, in practice; but if we (unphysically) allow infinite\n> acceleration, we could reverse the orbit of twin B at the\n> exact meeting event, and the ages will stay the same. In\n> other words, the twin effect depends not only on acceleration,\n> but on the distance between the twins when that acceleration\n> occurs. If the distance is zero, the effect is nil.\n\nYou could probably actually take that limit physically (think of a\ngausian shrinking to a delta distributuion), in the moment of infinite\nacceleration you would then have finite ageing. In other words a\ndiscontinuity in the proper time which jumps in the moment of infinite\nacceleration.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Russell Blackadar wrote:
> Yes, in practice; but if we (unphysically) allow infinite
> acceleration, we could reverse the orbit of twin B at the
> exact meeting event, and the ages will stay the same. In
> other words, the twin effect depends not only on acceleration,
> but on the distance between the twins when that acceleration
> occurs. If the distance is zero, the effect is nil.
You could probably actually take that limit physically (think of a
gausian shrinking to a \delta distributuion), in the moment of infinite
acceleration you would then have finite ageing. In other words a
discontinuity in the proper time which jumps in the moment of infinite
acceleration.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.