Re: O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- From: THE_ONE <floppy01@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 May 2007 10:11:06 -0700
On May 9, 9:26 am, "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glob...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
Point 1. Under free space conditions, if there are
only two objects, A and B, they must each have, with
respect to each other, the exact same relative
velocity. If A is moving with a relative velocity of
x units per seconds with respect to object B, then
B must be moving with a relative velocity of x units
per seconds with respect to object A. Their signs
might be different, but their magnitudes must be
exactly the same, and there are no known exceptions.
Point 2. Therefore, if there are any variables or
any properties that are associated with these objects
that are solely dependent upon their relative
velocities, then there can never be any changes in
the differences in these specific variables or
properties when these two objects are directly
and properly compared.
Point 3. It is an accepted fact that the rate of
time between any two moving objects is a sole
function of the relative velocity between them. When
the math is presented to establish this difference in
rate, no other variables are given or other
conditions mentioned.
Point 4. Yet, in the paradox of the twins, where
only two objects exist (twins A and B), we find that
a change in the ages between these two twins occur.
This fact is well established. Yet no one seems
willing to admit that it forces us to reject one or
more of the first three points. You cannot have a
difference in the times or ages of these two objects
(these twins) if everything about the rate of time is
solely a function of their relative velocities.
Thus, one must conclude that the paradox of the
twins forces us to reconsider this principle of SR,
that everything is relative. It should also be clear
that there might be a need to refer back to an
absolute reference frame. This would bring about an
explanation for this problem in which no paradox, or
even an appearance of a paradox, would exit.
I wish to discuss the paradox of the twins, and
make a proposal as to what should be done with the
first three points above.
The Paradox of the Twins.
The paradox of the twins is physically a very
simple Special Relativity (SR) problem. You have two
identical twins, A and B, located at a common point
in inertial frame A. Twin A remains in frame A
(remains stationary), and twin B, in two new inertial
frames, moves to a distant point and returns. Upon
the return of twin B to twin A, twins A and B are no
longer identical. Twin B is found to be younger than
twin A.
So what is the paradox? In SR, a faster moving
object experiences a slower rate of time than a
slower moving object. So if twin B is the twin that
moved the fastest, then there is no paradox. Twin B
must be younger than twin A if twin B moved the
fastest.
But in SR, it is also stated that everything is
relative. And this means that if twin A is moving
relative to B, then B is also moving relative to A at
the exact same rate. And if this is really true,
then if twin B is younger than A, then A would have
to also be younger than B, and we would then have a
true paradox.
Let us be sure that we know what the real
problem is in this paradox: Is velocity really
relative in SR? As can be seen in the past, many
people have considered this paradox. And many can
prove that SR math demands that B is the youngest.
And I also agree with this. SR math requires twin B
to be younger than twin A. And there are absolutely
no math inconsistencies in such a fact.
But previously, when people convinced themselves
that the math is correct, they then say that the
paradox is solved, and they seem to be free to
continue to say that everything in SR is relative.
That is false thinking. If velocity really were
relative, then the twin paradox is a true paradox,
because in the twin paradox, the velocity between
just two objects can never be different for one than
for the other. And anything true for one has to
also be true for the other, or then velocity is not
completely relative. And the twin paradox
conclusively shows that everything is not the same.
The twin paradox proves that not all things to do
with velocity is relative. And to me, this is a very
important conclusion.
Now it must be made clear that SR is not all
science. That is, not everything said in SR has be
properly scientifically tested. In SR, it is said
that the speed of light is c. A more correct way
to say this is that the measured speed of light is
c. And the measured velocity of light has been
tested and shown to be c within the proper test
limits that existed. Thus, it is scientific to say
that this part of SR has been established. But such
statements that there is a 4-D spacetime continuum,
or that everything is relative, these things have not
been tested in a scientific way such that they are
known to be correct, and all other possibilities have
been excluded.
We will find, that at least for something as
complicated as the paradox of the twins, that
everything is not relative. And a more correct
statement of SR principles cannot leave this
statement, that everything is relative, as a stand
alone statement. It has proper boundaries, and must
be carefully understood and stated.
Position 1.
The fact that B is younger than A is not itself a
paradox. It is a simple statement of fact. In SR,
a faster moving object experiences a slower rate of
time than a slower moving object. Therefore, twin B
had to be younger than A. How is this seen? Since
B began at the same point as A, and returned to the
same point as A, then B had to have gone at least the
same absolute distance as A. And if while B did this
amount of motion, it also did additional motion, such
as going out to some other point and returning, then
it had to have covered more distance in the same time
as A, which means it had to have had a faster rate of
motion.
Therefore, even though the relative velocity
between twins A and B was identical at all times
(identical in magnitude, not in sign), the absolute
velocities had to differ. And thus absolute
velocities exist in SR, and these absolute velocities
result in some of the measurements that are seen.
Let us be just as clear as we can be: The actual or
total magnitudes of these absolute velocities were
not and cannot be known, as of yet, but the fact that
they were present and were affecting the results is
known and in evidence.
A similar reasoning would say, the motion of A,
if there were any motion, had to have been a straight
line, and a straight line is the shortest distance
between two points. The motion of B was not a
straight line, but two lines connected between the
end points of the one straight line of A. And thus
the absolute distance traveled by B had to be the
greatest. These are absolutely required conclusions
of this problem, and thus twin B has to be the one
and only one that is younger. Therefore, as said,
at least for this problem, velocity effects are not
totally relative.
So let us repeat the paradox. While B was
moving out to this distant point, the tools being
used by B showed that A was getting younger, and
while B was returning to A, the tools used by B again
showed A was getting younger. Thus, at all the times
that B was moving, B saw A was getting younger. But
when the return was completed, the opposite was found
to be correct. When B rejoined A, B saw that he
himself was the younger, not A. Could not this be
the paradox? How was it possible for B to see (or
measure) A to be getting younger during all the time
of his motion out, and his motion in, yet the very
opposite occurred?
The answer to this seemingly impossible situation
requires us to understand what frames are in SR, what
happens in different frames in SR, and what happens
when we change frames in SR. B, in order to go from
A to a distant point, had to change frames, and then
for B to return, B had to change into another frame.
When you change frames, it is possible to have jumps
in your recorded locations, and jumps in your
recorded times. This is what happened to twin B.
Twin B saw a jump in time for twin A at the point
where B turned around to return to A. And it was
this jump in time that accounted for the final
results that was observed.
Now to have changes in your coordinates of space
and time is not anything new. Anyone who works with
more than one reference system knows that each
reference system could obviously have a different
reference for any common point. It is the nature of
these changes in SR frames that causes these funny
things to occur. And the paradox of the twins
cannot be understood without understanding these
changes in SR frames.
So let us take it by the numbers. What is an SR
inertial frame? An SR inertial frame can be
adequately described as a grid of clocks and rulers
all moving together in free space at a constant
velocity. The clocks are located at all points
where measurement is to be made, and all the clocks
must be synced so that light has a measured
velocity of c.
Now in Newtonian physics, one can have more
than one reference frame. But in Newtonian frames,
the lengths of rulers in each frame are often the
same, and the rates of clocks are often the same.
And under these conditions, changing frames does not
normally involve changes in distances between points,
or changes in time intervals between events, and does
not normally include any change in time itself.
But in SR, the lengths of rulers and the rates of
clocks are usually different between frames. And
the syncs between clocks are different. And thus, to
change frames in SR is much different than changing
frames in Newtonian physics. You have all the
variables of different lengths of rulers, and thus
different distances between points, and different
rates of clocks, and thus different times between
events, and different syncs in clocks to contend
with, and if you do not consider
read more »...
Think 4 dimensionally !
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
.
- References:
- O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Next by Date: Re: O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- Previous by thread: Re: O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- Next by thread: Re: O'Barr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
