Re: Twin paradox revisited ll


On Jul 31, 3:51 pm, bz <bz+na...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1185315384.638428.111470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





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

That didn't 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.

All of the twins scenarios have to be contrived.
Cherry picking among different models and formalisms
is how the mathematical illusion is created.


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

Anyone wrote such a thing without supportive evidence
would be unscientific in their writting. But if math and logic
errors exist in calulations that "seem" to suggest differential
aging of twins, the calculations have to be discredited.
No knowlege of any particular technology be it biology,
physics or astronomy is necessary to discredit
a calculation with mathematical errors. It ain't rocket
science to figure out why a Mars probe crashes
when Lockheed forgets to convert foot-pounds of
thrust to Newtons.







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.

That would be worship. If a monkey with a keyboard writes
a balanced equation I am not obligated to accept his
understanding of a dielectrc mirror just because he
happens to key:

sin theta_1 = n_2 sin theta_2

....and I happen to agree with the equation.




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'. :)

"" There! Wild quotes ya can put where they work. :)



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.

Well.... Maybe ???
"Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm sixty-four?"




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.

Demanding adherence to the postulates of SR is hardly a
"smoke screen" Especially when they *can* be adhered to
without conflict.


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.

The thought experiment can be easily designed without
acceleration. The same absurdities fall out if the models
are improperly mixed.




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.

I do hope you don't go about your community burning every scrap
of rectangular or polar paper you can find as a result of these
strong feelings about their uslessness. :o)






<< 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.

What evidence do you have that *photons* move inertially at all?
They have no mass to couple inertially. Throw a feather and
a rock out the window of a speeding car and you will get the
idea.

And the difference can be computed using
Einstein's/Lorentz's formulas. Do you have information that shows this to
be wrong?

Yes if you think it there is something inertial about it.

<<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 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

There may be suggestions of inertial light in the 1905
paper but by 1920 the term is not used. Some form
of "uniform rectilinear motion" is used.

Seacrh for "inertia" and see for yourself:
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?query=uniform&filter=col173&Submit=Go

The inertial coupling is made in chapters 15
and 17.... without conflict!

Because the conflict only exist in the minds
of people that think light moves inertially.

<<...in reality there is not the least incompatibility
between the principle of relativity and the law
of propagation of light, and that by systematically
holding *** fast *** to both these laws a logically rigid
theory could be arrived at. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html


....And it can:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended

Sue...


.

Loading