Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1185315384.638428.111470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jul 24, 1:28 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1185254740.101889.240150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

That work for Einstein and it won't work for you.
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

[quote]
It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock,
while being affected by motion, does not change due to
acceleration. In particular, the rate of a clock in uniform
circular motion is the same as the rate of a clock that is in
rectilinear motion at the same speed. This means that the
rate of the clock B does not change in a manner different
from what is expected from the usual Lorentz factor
modification while decelerating from velocity v to zero.
[unquote]

Unless he is refering to GPS or H&K I don't know
what "well known" experiment Unnikrishnan is
refering to. I consider those the effect of a
planet near the clock or possibly a planet
moving beneath a clock.

I examined one of YOUR citations.
If you cite someone to support your contentions that would imply that you
agree with what they wrote in the article unless you qualify the original
citation with critical comments at the time you make the original citation.

Careful examination of the article cited shows that your contention is NOT
supported by that author, that should be a hint to you.


The logical fallacy he proceeds to argue would
not exist if clocks were unaffected by motion
so the assumption has to be admitted whether
true or not.

Several of the 'logical fallacies' he speaks of are contrived. In other
words, they are straw-men that he sets up to shoot down.

No where does he say that the differential aging never occurs.

The OP in this thread offers a similar argument.




Unlike the farmer that was outstanding in his field, Stella is smart
enough to know that she does NOT accelerate the universe [and Terra]
every time Stella hits the 'fire' button on her control panel. NB,
the farmer thought the universe was moving back and forth as his
horse plowed the field.

What Stella thinks or knows or sees does not change the
way her candle burns.

Look at the quote from the article you liked again. Just one part of
the quote for emphasis
[quote]
It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock,
while being affected by motion....
[unquote]
In other words, the rate of the clock IS affected by motion. A point
that you keep denying.

[quote]
It is well known from experiments that the rate of a clock....
does not change in a manner different
from what is expected from the usual Lorentz factor
modification while decelerating from velocity v to zero.
[unquote]

He offers no reference to support the statements.
If you consider Unnikrishnan an authorty on
"well known" experiments then you might want
to have those words tattooed on your palm. :o)

If you cite him, you should support him, not run for cover when you find
that he doesn't really support your position.


So, the article is saying that although Stella ages a different amount
that Terra, it is NOT the acceleration itself that causes the
difference in ages but the Lorentz factor modification due to Stella's
velocity. [thought the acceleration DOES prevent symmetry so PoR is not
violated]

No... The article isn't advancing any view of phenomena.
It simply points out math and logic errors in 3 or 4
common "resolutions" to the paradox.


Your forgot the quotes around 'common'. :)


The article does NOT deny differences in age.
The article does NOT deny differences in rate of time passing.

If you were my twin I wouldn't have any reason to deny
we are the same age.

If you want to be 62, fine by me.


Why do YOU think that time is absolute?

Absolute isn't a very descriptve term.

If clock time is independent of relative velocity and acceleration then I
have a hard time finding a more descriptive term.

The inverse square distance law needs a Euclidean
coordinate system to work and charge, momemtum
and energy has to conserved so we are restricted
to the same rules of time translation in any
inertial reference frame.

Since we are not dealing with two inertial frames during all of the
experiment(accelerations are involved), your statement brings zero
illumination to the question. It just serves as a smoke screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications

You'll have some trouble doing that with light bullets
because the E and B fields have to be treated
differently.
"Gauge invariance "
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node118.html

Again, not useful where acceleration is involved.



I don't know of anyone (other than
a few kooks) that hang their hats on absolute position, velocity or
time. I believe that rotation and acceleration are absolutes(rotation
involves acceleration).

Well... every time those 'kooks" Feynman and Fitzpatrick work
with a 3-vector or in the Coulomb gauge that is exactly what
they are doing.

I do NOT see either claiming that absolute position, velocity or time has a
meaning.


<< Coulomb potential associated with the charge
density, which appears at first glance to violate
causality, since motions of electric charge appear
everywhere instantaneously as changes to the
Coulomb potential. This is generally explained by
pointing out that the scalar and vector potentials
themselves do not affect the motions of charges,
only the combinations of their derivatives that form
the electromagnetic field strength. Although one can
compute the field strengths explicitly in Coulomb gauge
and demonstrate that changes in them propagate
at the speed of light, it is much simpler to observe
that the field strengths are unchanged under gauge
transformations and to demonstrate causality in the
manifestly covariant Lorenz gauge described below. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034

The 'most sucessful theory ever' works in the Coulomb
gauge. That is why its photons have to wear wrist watches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_path_integral

As far as I know, the photons wrist watch reads differently when viewed
from different iFoRs. And the difference can be computed using
Einstein's/Lorentz's formulas. Do you have information that shows this to
be wrong?


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Quantcast