Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

"bill" <cosmosco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185150594.124615.249290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 21, 3:15 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"bill" <cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1184981064.527191.20310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No I would not. I cannot accept that the traveler *really* believes
that the earth is orbiting the sun at around 1m-s nor do I believe
that this is what would 'really' be happening.
What has the belief of some astronaut got to do with the physics?
My point precisely.

Good .. then we need not talk about what the traveller thinks or undestands
of SR etc

During the acceleration the situation is much more
complicated but the answer is essentially the same.
As regards whether it is 'physically' happening, I cannot
answer this question unless you define exactly what you
mean 'physically'.
By 'physically' I mean the concept that the earth is 'really' orbiting
the sun at 1m-s as distinct from 'apparently' as determined by the
traveller.
In the traveller iFoR it is
In other words 'as far as the traveller is concerned'.

In the frame ofreference of the traveller .. it is physically what is
happening in the universe

Who was its wrote - 'What has the belief of some astronaut got to do
with the physics?'

It has nothing to do with the physics. it doesn't matter if there is a
conscious living astronaut there or not. During the unifrom motion, the
earth is physically orbiting slowing in the frame of reference of the
spaceship. Astronaut or no astronaut.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what *we*, as stay at home
observers observers, think but what is claimed the *traveler*
determines is reality.
Yes, for the traveller.
So he *really* believs that the earth is *physically* orbiting the sun
at 1m-s?
It is .. in his iFoR
Who was its wrote - 'What has the belief of some astronaut got to do
with the physics?'

You obvsiously have no idea what inertial frame of reference means. Please
get up to speed on the terminology.

What we can tell is that, when the two twins meet up, the
travelling
twin has aged less than the earthbound twin.
One could argue that inertial clocks run as quickly as possible
and that the best way of describing what has happened is
to say that the non-inertial (travelling) twin's clock has been
slowed down.
Other than what one 'could argue' I fully agree with those comments
but I cannot agree, as expressed above, that the stay at home
*physically* ages at the faster rate thus that the traveler could
obliterate all life on earth by taking his foot off the gas pedal.
You need to define 'physically'.
That the traveler destroys all life on the planet.
He destroys nothing .. it just happens over the long period of time that
elapses on the earth

This concept has nothing whatsoever to do with the *total* difference
between the traveler's elapsed time and the twin's elapsed time.

It is EXACTLY that difference .. do you not understand that? You keep
saying you do, then say things that indicate you do not.

The original posting, to which this lot relates, was that at the very
instant that the astronaut stops accelerating the earth's orbital
velocity of the sun reverts from close to the speed of light to its
more mundane 30K-s - a braking effect that would destroy all life on
the planet - from the traveler's point of view of course but what has
the belief of some astronaut got to do with the physics?

The astronaut is rapidly chaing iFoR during the acceleration.

When he returns
home he learns - hopefully - that this has not *physically* taken
place.
But it has

It has *not*.

It has

You are mistakenly of the opinion that I am referring to
the *total* difference between the traveler's overall elapsed time and
the twin's overall elapsed time. I'm *not*!
I'm talking about the traveler's view of what's happening back in the
solar system at any given instant.

It really happened in the frame of reference of the traveller. In every
sense, from that frame, it is real. its not an illusion.

If it was an illusion, then when he returned he'd be teh same age and the
same time would have elapsed.


The fact that the traveler finds on his return that everything is
'normal' back here - that life continues - should indicate to him
that
the earth had *not* been orbiting the sun at near light speed, that
what he saw or determined was nothing more than a visual illusion
generated by his rate of travel.
No, it indicates that the passage of time is not universal. Of
course,
on his return, the traveller will be aware that, from the earthbound
twin's point of view, nothing unusual has happened.
Having 'believed' that all life on the planet has been obliterated it
would not only be 'from the earthbound twin's point of view, nothing
unusual has happened' but also from the *traveler's* point of view.
It really happens
See above. Continuously repeating the same argument does not give it
validity.

Yet that is what you do

The bit you have not grasped is that the passage of time is not
universal. This is very counterintuitive but it is the inescapable
conclusion of experiment.
Or rather, in the *interpretations* of those experiments. As far as I
am aware there has been no experiment which proved that from the
traveler's point of view it is his twin that ages at the faster rate
than himself.
Time dilation is experimentally proven .. time goes slower for moving
objects.
Time goes slower for moving objects however this does *not* prove that
time goes *faster* for stationary objects.

If you are moving relative to me, then time is slower for you in my iFoR ..
and as you are moving relative to me, then time is slower for me in your
iFoR. But both you and I have time flow at the usual rate time flows.

When accleration comes into play, that symmetry is broken (because you and I
are no longer experiencing symmetric things .. one is accelerating and the
other not.

I am of the opinion that the years are flying by and, as I get older,
this feeling is increasing and the reason for this is that people are
conducting particle acceleration experiments?

Don't be stupid

[snip stupidity]
Before you start the immolation process - the original posting was
that the traveler (presumably knowledgable in physics and relativity)
*forgets* (or simply *ignores*) his training and, although
experiencing the force of acceleration, is of the opinin that his twin
is physically aging at a faster rate than himself and that his is
*not* the special relativity (or Einstein's 1918 article related)
moving clock.

What he thinkgs or knows is immaterail. BOTH age at hte same rate. Less
time has elapsed for the traveller than the stay at home tinw, nad more
time has elpased for the stay-at-home tine than the traveller.

If he *knows* the details of Einstein's 1918 article
[snip]

what he knows is irrelvant

Some postings to this discussion insist that acceleration is not
relative

It isn't

however as the traveler hits his accelerator he sees the
light emanating from the earth becoming progressively blue shifted and
the only conclusion at which he can arrive - from his solipsist point
of view - is that the earth is accelerating toward him.

What he sees doesn't make a difference .. its the symptom, not the cause

He can therefore *in his own reference frame* obliterate all life on
earth *at the very instant that he take his foot off the gas*.

Why? Time is simply going past faster for the earth in his frame .. that
won't obliterate any life.

When he
returns to the planet and finds that life has not been extinguished

Why?

*at the instant that he took his foot off the gas* but that, although
having aged to a greater extent than himself or that millions of years
have elapsed and that the apes have gained mastery (they should have
been obliterated at that same instant i.e. *all* life), that his
observation (determination, measurement) was, to say the least,
misleading; that it obviously did *not* take place irrespective of
what he determined in his iFoR.

What didn't take place? The time went faster on earth from his frame of
reference ceratinly happened .. That's why he is younger.

In accordance with the concept that the belief (measurement,
determination, observation) of some astronaut has absolutely nothing
whatsover to do with the physics i.e. with reality he must conclude
that what he saw was *not* reality;

It was indeed reality. Just not the same view of reality as on earth. But
just as valid.

that the earth was *not*
physically orbiting the planet at 1m-s or near light speed;

It really was orbitting at 1m-s of his seconds.

that his
twin was *not* physically aging at a faster rate

His twin was aging at the same rate, but time was going faster on earth (in
the frame of the traveller)

than he was as he
accelerated following turn around.

You are very confused

My argument has always been that the traveler would presumably have
some knowledge of physics and relativity

[snip same nosense about what the astronaut knows]

It doesn't matter WHAT he knows. Time on earth goes faster in the frame of
the astronaut during his acceleration.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... What has the belief of some astronaut got to do with the physics? ... In the traveller iFoR it is ... obliterate all life on earth by taking his foot off the gas pedal. ... experiencing the force of acceleration, is of the opinin that his twin ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
    ... If there is no objective way to tell, it is not physics just ... *not* physics but is just the personal feelings of the traveller. ... :> because we are on the Earth. ... :>> that the inertial clock ticks over at the slower rate on the basis ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Greening of Pseudoscience
    ... river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in ... of God shall cover the whole earth. ... (Shared the 1965 Nobel Physics Prize with Feynman and Tomonaga) ... usefulness of quantum mechanics; this was one of the few limitations of this ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... Why do you think one needs to study physics for several years until ... What on earth does that have to do with "response time of the ... Present evidence for that assertion, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... Why do you think one needs to study physics for several years until ... What on earth does that have to do with "response time of the ... Present evidence for that assertion, ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading