| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2005 01:38:55 PM |
| Object: |
Time Dilation Mistakes |
Just to Establish the following before further Mathematics:
There's been a zillion threads where people forget:
1. The Twin's travel time to farthest distance is equal to the time of
his return.
A) So if it takes the Twin 250 months one way then the Total Time upon
his return will be 500 months.
B) And the RATE of the Twin's aging is CONSTANT and the SAME regardless
of the DIRECTION of his velocity (+v to leave or -v to return).
-------------------------------------------------------
Some people where replying as if the conditions metamorphose if the
Twin's aging is returning.
T of Twin = gamma (T of Earth)
and in gamma the difference of velocity Earth_Twin is squared therefore
indifferent to the direction of velocity.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
10 Feb 2005 03:13:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Just to Establish the following before further Mathematics:
There's been a zillion threads where people forget:
1. The Twin's travel time to farthest distance is equal to the time of
his return.
How do you know that?
A) So if it takes the Twin 250 months one way then the Total Time upon
his return will be 500 months.
In whose inertial reference frame?
B) And the RATE of the Twin's aging is CONSTANT and the SAME regardless
of the DIRECTION of his velocity (+v to leave or -v to return).
Who makes the measurement?
-------------------------------------------------------
Some people where replying as if the conditions metamorphose if the
Twin's aging is returning.
T of Twin = gamma (T of Earth)
and in gamma the difference of velocity Earth_Twin is squared therefore
indifferent to the direction of velocity.
Do it with tirplets and nobody accelerates. Makes no difference.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
10 Feb 2005 03:38:56 PM |
|
|
Now Al your being really really mean.
Even your email has "hate" in it.
Come on now give me an "inch" so we can progress to the next stage.
Can we please agree the math facts I gave below work for the Twin
Paradox model (I agree not ALL models).... and will concur with the
appropriate time calculations when the twin returns to compare with
Earth's clock.
Uncle Al wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Just to Establish the following before further Mathematics:
There's been a zillion threads where people forget:
1. The Twin's travel time to farthest distance is equal to the
time of
his return.
How do you know that?
Used for Twin Paradox.
A) So if it takes the Twin 250 months one way then the Total Time
upon
his return will be 500 months.
In whose inertial reference frame?
Earth where Twin leaves...this is solely for the Twin Paradox.
B) And the RATE of the Twin's aging is CONSTANT and the SAME
regardless
of the DIRECTION of his velocity (+v to leave or -v to return).
Who makes the measurement?
ALWAYS the general Twin Paradox theme therefore:
Earth and when the twin returns home to compare his clock with Earth's
clock
-------------------------------------------------------
Some people where replying as if the conditions metamorphose if the
Twin's aging is returning.
T of Twin = gamma (T of Earth)
and in gamma the difference of velocity Earth_Twin is squared
therefore
indifferent to the direction of velocity.
Do it with tirplets and nobody accelerates. Makes no difference.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
10 Feb 2005 02:52:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Just to Establish the following before further Mathematics:
There's been a zillion threads where
these questions have been asked and answered.
people forget:
1. The Twin's travel time to farthest distance is equal to the time of
his return.
A) So if it takes the Twin 250 months one way then the Total Time upon
his return will be 500 months.
It depends on the frame you're measuring it in. The two times
are equal in the frame of the Earth. You can also evaluate
the problem in the frame of the *departing* spaceship (which will
keep moving away when the ship turns around), and they will
NOT be equal.
Because the spaceship changes direction, it does NOT constitute
and intertial frame, which is where the confusion arises.
These issues were all dealt with 100 years ago. If you'd
bother to read, you'd learn that.
-E
B) And the RATE of the Twin's aging is CONSTANT and the SAME regardless
of the DIRECTION of his velocity (+v to leave or -v to return).
-------------------------------------------------------
Some people where replying as if the conditions metamorphose if the
Twin's aging is returning.
T of Twin = gamma (T of Earth)
and in gamma the difference of velocity Earth_Twin is squared therefore
indifferent to the direction of velocity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
10 Feb 2005 03:12:39 PM |
|
|
Yes yes.
For the sake of simplifications, this is solely focus on the Twin
Paradox model.
Therefore Velocity of twin leaving is always constant.
And T_twin = gamma (T_earth)
In this situation the conditions I set are appropriate and are
calculated for the purpose of determining the twin's clock when he
returns and compares with Earth's clock.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
10 Feb 2005 05:15:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Yes yes.
For the sake of simplifications, this is solely focus on the Twin
Paradox model.
Therefore Velocity of twin leaving is always constant.
And T_twin = gamma (T_earth)
Correction: T_twin = T_earth/gamma.
In this situation, the simplest picture is to
view the time in the spaceship at a "proper time",
like you would for a muon in flight, say.
In this situation the conditions I set are appropriate and are
calculated for the purpose of determining the twin's clock when he
returns and compares with Earth's clock.
Except you inverted it. It makes a difference.
-E
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Picti" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
11 Feb 2005 07:20:53 AM |
|
|
Isn't the paradox in the twins paradox to do with who is moving? If
twin A is moving away from twin B, isn't it equally valid to imagine
that it's really twin B moving away from twin A. In the first B is
aging faster than A but in the second A is aging faster than B, thus
the paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
11 Feb 2005 08:23:04 AM |
|
|
"Picti" <amcneish@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:1108128052.998571.274830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Isn't the paradox in the twins paradox to do with who is moving? If
twin A is moving away from twin B, isn't it equally valid to imagine
that it's really twin B moving away from twin A. In the first B is
aging faster than A but in the second A is aging faster than B, thus
the paradox.
That's pretty much it, yes. What we have is a denial of the PoR,
which Einstein gives an example of at the opening of his 1905 paper:
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case."
Essentially, if the traveled "twin" is the magnet, a lesser current
would be induced in the conductor than if the conductor did the
traveling and the magnet stayed at home. Einstein failed to resolve the
issue. He knew it in 1920, 15 years later, when he devoted a chapter to
it,
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
where he appeals to schoolchildren and puff- puff trains, which is
pathetic really.
He says:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle."
The prominent physicists, men like Bohr, Planck, and Michelson were not
quite so inclined as he claimed them to be.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Picti" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Mistakes |
11 Feb 2005 06:31:48 PM |
|
|
I suppose I always found Special Relativity confusing, and from the
Einstein quote you give, he had issues too. I do recall that the most
convincing demonstration for me of relativity effects was the classical
explanation of magnetism -- relativistic electro-dynamics. I believe it
is attributed to Maxwell, long before Einstein's Special Relativity,
who used the Loretz transformation for length dilation in current
carrying wires. Two parallel wires carrying electric currents produce
an imbalance in the electro-static forces between the positive
(lattice) charges and the negative moving charges because of length
dilation that effects the moving charges, reducing their apparent
linear charge density. The net electro-dynamic force is magnetism and
results because of relativistic effects, although the charges are
moving hardly faster than walking speed. I always thought that this
explanation had a kind of beuty about it, but then it was from James
Clerk Maxwell, so I should not have been so surprised.
I do not recall ever calculating the force by keeping the electrons
stationary and moving the wires, but symmetry intuition suggests the
same answer -- the twins paradox for electrons perhaps?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
