The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
funkstar,
well done...he might have it now
well done...he might have it now
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No I have no doubts at all of your view (the current view).
Do you know what your last post seemed to me: KNOWLEDGE POLLUTION!
This was enough for me.
As I said at the begining I would not like to enter in yet another endless relativity thread but it became one.
This reached the END for me.
Do you know what your last post seemed to me: KNOWLEDGE POLLUTION!
This was enough for me.
As I said at the begining I would not like to enter in yet another endless relativity thread but it became one.
This reached the END for me.
Last edited:
Frankly, I don't understand why anybody has a problem with thw twin journey. It's not a paradox, and it's most certainly not a contradiction Let's see if I can help.
First let's agree a couple of points. If any two bodies in uniform motion relative to each other are equally entitled to consider themselves at rest in a given coordinate system, then relativistic effects are symmetrical i.e. time dilation is mutual.
Second, from a purely kinematic point of view, all trajectories which bring a body back to its starting point are equivalent, provided that distance travelled and time elapsed are the same.
I trust this isn't controversial. So let's choose the geometrically simplest trajectory, a linear out-and-back journey, ignoring +ve and -ve acceleration phases.
Now, in a 2-dimensional space-time plot, twin B's worldline for his out-and-back journey relative to A's coordinates is a dog-leg, agreed? B now has two choices - he can transform himself to rest on his outward journey, but will see, looking at his future worldline, that he will be in motion relative to his transformed "outward" coordinates.
Or he can transform himself to rest on his inward journey, and then see he was in relative motion on the outward journey.
Either way, he is not entitled to consider himself at rest for the entire journey, i.e. he knows it was him in motion, not A, hence time dilation is not mutual.
This is what Funkstar meant earlier when he referred to symmetry breaking.
First let's agree a couple of points. If any two bodies in uniform motion relative to each other are equally entitled to consider themselves at rest in a given coordinate system, then relativistic effects are symmetrical i.e. time dilation is mutual.
Second, from a purely kinematic point of view, all trajectories which bring a body back to its starting point are equivalent, provided that distance travelled and time elapsed are the same.
I trust this isn't controversial. So let's choose the geometrically simplest trajectory, a linear out-and-back journey, ignoring +ve and -ve acceleration phases.
Now, in a 2-dimensional space-time plot, twin B's worldline for his out-and-back journey relative to A's coordinates is a dog-leg, agreed? B now has two choices - he can transform himself to rest on his outward journey, but will see, looking at his future worldline, that he will be in motion relative to his transformed "outward" coordinates.
Or he can transform himself to rest on his inward journey, and then see he was in relative motion on the outward journey.
Either way, he is not entitled to consider himself at rest for the entire journey, i.e. he knows it was him in motion, not A, hence time dilation is not mutual.
This is what Funkstar meant earlier when he referred to symmetry breaking.
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Anomalous said:
Of course there is a time difference, but there is no contradiction and no problem with relativity as Martillo has stated.
wesmorris said:Good point. I stand corrected.
Thank you Pete. I can mellow my reply.
Wes if you had noticed I stipulated the correct -7.2 us/day due to velocity, you were not applying any affect for GR.
Here is a link:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
The negative sign in this result means that the standard clock in orbit is beating too fast, primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted. In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No, I was crumbled (disappointed) by funkstar answer:
Sorry funkstar but REALITY exists!
And it is ABSOLUTE!
I mean, any phenomenon of nature is frame INDEPENDENT!. We only chouse frames (referentials) at our convenience just to have a good description of it.
May be the measures of the magnitudes can depend on the referential but the phenomenon itself doesn't. So the observations of the same phenomenon by different observers MUST be consistent, no contradictions are possible.
Photography is one way for us to observe reality (what is really happening).
In the presented experiment the twins can take photographies of themselves and send them to the other twin, to the mother-ship and even to us to study what happened (may be some time after it doesn't matter the delay to receive them) and we can COMPARE the state of the twins. We will be able to know the truth, will be able to know what really happened to them.
Only one possibility is true: what really happened!
How can somebody disagree with this...
Sorry funkstar but REALITY exists!
And it is ABSOLUTE!
I mean, any phenomenon of nature is frame INDEPENDENT!. We only chouse frames (referentials) at our convenience just to have a good description of it.
May be the measures of the magnitudes can depend on the referential but the phenomenon itself doesn't. So the observations of the same phenomenon by different observers MUST be consistent, no contradictions are possible.
Photography is one way for us to observe reality (what is really happening).
In the presented experiment the twins can take photographies of themselves and send them to the other twin, to the mother-ship and even to us to study what happened (may be some time after it doesn't matter the delay to receive them) and we can COMPARE the state of the twins. We will be able to know the truth, will be able to know what really happened to them.
Only one possibility is true: what really happened!
How can somebody disagree with this...
Last edited:
Wrong.
Rock drops from train window.
Passenger sees it, even photographs it, falling in a straight path.
Bystander on the road sees it, even photographs it, falling in a pseudo- parabola.
Which one is "REALTY"? Which one is ABSOLUTE? Let's see how wise or naive you are.
Now let's not be stupid here. If a passenger drops a rock from a train when bystander is directly across from passenger. the passenger is not going to see the rock hit the ground infront of the bystander's feet. The passenger can compute the trajectory that the bystander will see the rock fall and conclude it is not a straight line even though the passenger sees the rock fall straight down.
Aer,
And the bystander can compute the trajectory that the passsenger will see the rock fall and conclude it is not a parabola even though the bystander sees the rock fall in a parabola.
So yeah, let's not get stupid here. I can't believe you are going to support this absolute reality business. After all this discussion about relativity. Sheesh!
And the bystander can compute the trajectory that the passsenger will see the rock fall and conclude it is not a parabola even though the bystander sees the rock fall in a parabola.
So yeah, let's not get stupid here. I can't believe you are going to support this absolute reality business. After all this discussion about relativity. Sheesh!