Re: Twin Paradox Question


Russell wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Russell wrote:
> > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > Russell wrote:
> > > > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > > > Russell wrote:
> > > > > > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > So... what do the Jovian moons appear to both observers
> > > > > > > > while all this hair is growing and greying?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the return trip, the youthful twin sees the moon zooming
> > > > > > > at high speed around Jupiter. It makes up all of the orbits
> > > > > > > that failed to be seen on the outbound trip. The total counts
> > > > > > > come out the same at the moment the twin gets home.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if we use Jupiter's moons to measure his reading speed
> > > > > > he reads fast departing but slow returning.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we use the *received* frequency of the moon's orbit, that is
> > > > > correct. Note, in our usual time coordinates this frequency is
> > > > > Doppler shifted, so just to be clear, let us say explicitly that
> > > > > we make *no* compensation for Doppler.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can do
> > > > > > the same for rate of hair growth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes indeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You just defeated your own argument.
> > > > >
> > > > > How so? Did you do the calculation?
> > > > Yeah the planet I was leaving was celebrating one birthday
> > > > for every two on the planet I was approaching. The
> > > > situation reversed on my return trip so everybody must have
> > > > had the number of birthdays.
> > >
> > Whoa, stick to your stupid units.
>
> [above sentence was written by me; Sue's quoting is wrong.]
>
> > No...
> > It is too many millimeters close to lunch to do your maths for
> > you.
>
> *My* maths? My maths is as explained in the FAQ, one page
> of which Androcles so kindly posted here, with his oh-so-helpful
> commentary. Everything I said here consistent with that page.
> (Not with the commentary.)
>
> *You* claimed that I defeated my own argument, but when pressed
> to justify this attack, you post a silly caricature of a "calculation"
> that, as I correctly point out, in no way relates to our discussion.
> I press you further and you run away for pizza. Disappointing.
>
> Well, perhaps you will get back to me after lunch. Remember,
> I did not say you *had* to do the calculation to satisfy me -- a
> thoughtful reading of the FAQ would suffice.
>
> [snip more lame attempts at cleverness]
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> Noether's theorem is supposed to tell my why I defeated my own
> argument, in your opinion? You are quite a piece of work, Sue.

Noether's theroem tells you what time is.
Then you can go complile a list of corrections for for your FAQ.

Sue...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Triplet Paradox
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... Einstein did not write the FAQ. ... << At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... > *My* maths? ... The authors of the FAQ have more commentary than they can ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... > *My* maths? ... > thoughtful reading of the FAQ would suffice. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Forgotten Prediction of Einstein
    ... > Sue... ... >> Russell wrote: ... Annie and Bill are moving relatively, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... The earthbound observer ... > This is of course a straw man introduced by Sue. ... > misunderstanding as if it were mainstream physics -- which not ... This is of course is an Aunt Sally intoduced by Russell. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)