Re: relative motion and aging


<xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116557512.572087.222440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> xnipped only for brevity.
>
> >
> > During the trip (while moving w.r.t. each other) they could
> > have been saying in the sloppy (but unfortunately standard)
> > way: "Hey, your time 'runs slower' than mine, so you must
> > be younger than I am now". This is sloppy and actually bad
> > talk, for the reason that it implicitly uses the notion of
> > simultaneity, which is extremely problematic when they move
> > w.r.t. each other. When they get together (or stay apart
> > but just stop moving w.r.t. each other), the notion of
> > simultaneity makes sense again, so only *then* can their ages
> > be really and meaningfully compared. The result will perfectly
> > match the calculated (integrated) ages.
> >
> > > Or are you saying that they are the same age when re-united?
> >
> > They can have the same age on the reunion event, but that
> > depends on how they have been moving as seen in the frame
> > in which they will be eventually be reunited. If one triplet goes
> > East and the other West, and both behaved exactly the same
> > (but in opposite directions,) then they both end up younger
> > than the stay at home triplet, but they will both have the same
> > age at the reunion.
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > [ps. when you quote text, can you please add blank lines
> > to separate the blocks? Thanks ]
>
> xxein: "Problematic" is an understatement because simultaneity is
> determined by the theory that describes how to determine it. If the
> theory is wrong, then the notion of that simultaneity is wrong.
>
> This is simple to realize with a twist of triplets.
>
> Let's say that you observe the triplets moving inertially, from afar.
> You determine that they are all traveling on the same line. A is
> moving at .5c and catching up with B (.3c). But C is going in the
> opposite direction at .3c. Hell, instead of you being off-line, let
> you be on the line and observing these inertial velocities from some
> place between (A, B) and C. Iow A(.5c)>,B(.3c)>, |you(0c)| <C(-.3c).
> Clearly, from this, you will determine that the aging (intrinsic
> timerates) of B and C are identical and that A's timerate is slower
> than either B or C.
>
> Now remember that it was |you| that determined this. This is your
> physical theory.
>
> I think that I will be B. What do I measure and formulate as the
> timerates of others? I certainly will use your rules and determine
> that C is coming toward me at a high rate of speed so that we cannot
> have the same timerate! Who, then, will age more (or less)?
>
> While I agree that a "coming together again" gives a correct result for
> the inertial observer's clock and aging, it is all skewed and slewed to
> that particular clock. If there was no "coming together again" there
> would be no definitive amount of aging.

If you mean no definitive or absolute way of saying who is older, that's
correct and well known.

> There would be no way (except
> for a theory) to determine who would age faster. Iow, if I remove the
> requirement of your returning (for a clock comparison), I also remove
> the need for you to accelerate to an opposite direction with a
> different speed. The Relativity and covariance of the math of the
> theory is lost. It was just a forced peculiarity of the observer's
> clock vs. the "out and back" clock to make that comparison in a
> relative fashion that supports the observer's measurement. There was
> and is no physics there. It was all a circumstantial set of
> mathematical prediction for what a clock will observe (of others) with
> a timerate.
>
> H. Lorentz understood this. I understand the sublties between
> Einsteinian and the Lorentzian probably better than any poster that has
> ever posted here since I started posting. You do use the
> transformation, don't you? Why? Was it formulated wrongly?
>
> Lorentz gives the correct result to the triplets (as I describe above).
> Einstein can't.

Huh? I'm lost at what Einstein "can't". Could you be more precise?

Harald

> He decided to shorten the math considerations and
> declare the ether superfluous for one clock in special conditions.
> Other clocks observe events also (above). Any covariance is limited to
> one clock only.
>
> Go ahead and "read" the time on a moving clock. You will have no way
> of knowing if it is a coordinate time because you base everything on
> the assumption that light travels at c to reach you. c for your frame
> or c for the other frame? It is neither. IT IS TWLS NOT
> OWLS!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I independently developed the logic of Lorentz before I even heard of
> him. Can you say that you could develop the Einsteinian on your own?
> If yes, then Einstein was not special, was he? If not, then Einstein
> is not physically logical. You are simply a believer lost in the
> quagmire of believer-land.
>
> Physics is not a follower of mathematics. It is the creator of
> mathematics. Mathematics did not simply appear out of an emptiness,
> you know. Math is an idea of counting --- by whom? Physics doesn't
> count --- it compares. Like walking at 2:00 am down a nasty street.
> You either understand it or you don't. Counting is as superfluous as
> the ether - unless you include the ether into your counting.
>
> You should have much more to consider than a belief that has somehow
> become bestowed upon you. Do you even HAVE an original thought?
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics"
    ... | Einstein had to take a few years before everyone ... | buttress science -- and your claim. ... |> | If at the point A of space there is a clock, ... Whoever gave you the idea that *I* was the peer in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock, ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the ... Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Only Yanks now Believe in Einstein?
    ... Einstein said it, they believe it, that ... |> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated ... and mark one 'K-frame' with a zero and an x displaced from zero. ... We don't need to use persuasive rhetoric in mathematics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question on GR sources
    ... How is information of the sense of rotation communicated to the field, ... But in the end (after a successful divorce from Einstein), ... It is assumed that a clock falling directly ... fought careers and come to admit that the whole thing of physics was ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock ... is according to Einstein. ... We also see nuclear resonance effected by gravity. ... I suppose Weyl was saying electromagnetism is fundamental to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)