"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:X%yQd.162840$K7.9257@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:42121592$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
"la ver" <the_nameless@anonymous.to> wrote in message
news:1108480233.018143.296300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"St. M" <stmuni@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1108460388.256713.317290@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If two friends agree to meet at a certain
location exactly one month later and one
of them-an astronaut - takes off on a
short trip aboard a spaceship traveling at
very high speed, would the two friends
meet at the agreed time?
No.
See my reply to DavidBowman on the thread
"Still trying to understand the twin paradox -- I'm a little
slow"
Have a look at
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0501131
No thanks, the abstract sounds like gibberish.
I read a bit further than the abstract and the author does seem to be
under
some misconceptions eg 'According Einstein's concept, the travelling
twin
will be much younger than the other on returning. This seems to be a
paradoxical consequence since motion is relative. As well known,
Einstein
"solved the paradox by taking into account the influence on clocks of
the
gravitational field, which is relative to (the accelerated system)
K'.'' [3]
He meant that the acceleration and deceleration
effects and the gravity effect are the causes creating an asymmetry of
aging
of the twins.'
Of course relativity does not say motion is relative - its says
inertial
motion is relative - accelerated motion is detectable eg by
accelerometers
and (generally) distinguishable from gravity by the absence of tidal
forces.
I doubt if all physicists would agree that the fictitious forces of
acceleration can be viewed as the effect of gravity - I know I do not.
Also
exactly what is meant by 'the acceleration and deceleration effects
and the
gravity effect'? Is the author saying acceleration is equivalent to
gravity
or not? I would like to know how it passed the review process that I
thought was now applied to documents from arxiv.org?
Thanks
Bill
"From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the
points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the
stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with
the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two
clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags
behind the other which has remained at B by (1/2) tv^2/c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the
journey from A to B.
"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and
B coincide.
"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be (1/2) tv^2/c^2 second slow. " -- Albert Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
See any gravity mentioned in that, Hobbit?
It is at once apparent that the Hobbit doesn't have a clue what he's
mumbling about, and neither do his peculiar consequences boor-tel,
putrescent CarbUncle Sch-wart-zit, Poe and McCullough, nor did his dead
tin god, Einstein. The lot of them should have been born on Aug 6, 1945
at Hiroshima, Japan.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No thanks,
Androcles.
.
