Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

On Jul 30, 9:40 am, "papar...@xxxxxxxxx" <papar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Bill
[...]

In any physical experiment, the observer measurements
are bound by the
instruments and frames of reference. In the twin's thought experiment,
acceleration is not needed to explain the result (a simple x-t diagram
will make everything quite clear). Of course, acceleration and braking
will help both twins to determine who is really making the travel, but
has nothing to do with the clocks reading different when the travel
ends.

Reference frames are imaginary so they don't affect
instruments.


If you consider twin B his view, of the space surrounding him, is
quite distorted (both in shape and in color or frequency). So actually
his view of the Earth back situation would be very different of the
view a person has on a train at 100 km/h.

That is important. But his "space" is not distorted by his
motion but rather by the coupling structure required to
couple light to space. The distribution of near-field power
is determined by the coupling structure's reactive components
which keep E and B fields orthogonal.

<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space


Knowing SR would help him to determine, theoretically, what is going
on with his twin (in the same way we may deduce the events of both
twins along the time line).

No... the retarded time of one twin's Maxwell field is
an advance time for the other so the effects cancel.
Possibly why you'll find inertial coupling was only
heuristically stated in the 1920 article.


"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
"Advanced potentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html

Doppler is the only component that doesn't cancel and
is easily calculated.

But the main point is that both twins are receiving information from
all sources at a speed c, which is independent of the direction and
speed of the frame of reference of the source and that, together with
the frame relativistic speed produce these "funny" but very logical
results.

No...They are not receiving information at a speed of c.
That would be superluminal for separating objects.

Rather:
~The speed of light is measured locally by both twin's
to be the same regardless of the motion of the sources
or observers.~

Check your references again and see if that isn't what
is actually stated.

It can't be otherwise unless the twins use different values
the mass and Coulomb coupling of an electron.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Their is no place in the 1920 article AFAIK where
any conflict between the principle of relativity
and Maxwell's equations is considered real as
you are alluding.

Specific statements are made to the contrary.

"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

If you have assumed that light moves inertally
that too is part of the problem.

<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial] field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

Sue...





Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... clock from a height equal to the height of the train car roof. ... relativity (which you call the principle of equivalence, ... description of that single sequence as seen from two reference frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: basic question classical v. relativity
    ... >> relativity seems to claim that you can't ... >> your frame of reference. ... > reference frames are equivalent. ... (It is also known as the First Postulate). ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: arXiv endorsement request
    ... > You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity ... Galilean synchronization between any two frames of reference means ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: arXiv endorsement request
    ... > You went from Galilean relativity to Special Relativity ... Galilean synchronization between any two frames of reference means ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Debate with Zielinski on GR and Quantum Gravity
    ... But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity* ... holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; ... where tuv(pure gravity) = 0 everywhere-when BORING BORING BORING. ... his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion. ...
    (sci.math)