Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version

On Oct 19, 2:03 pm, Phil <toob-head...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sue... wrote:

Well, this time I am mostly impressed! You still referred to "other
references," instead of reasoning it out for yourself, but I was fairly
harsh, and you responded with pure class ... the Sue I am used to seeing!

Thanks,
Phil

P.S. The universe does allow an experiment to "reveal" to us that
information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce
on our own, PRIOR to running the experiment. If we KNOW, prior to
running an experiment, that the experiment's velocity will include a
change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, as seen by inertial
observer C, then it would actually be amazing if the results of that
experiment were NOT consistent with a change of 0.6c, such as an elapsed
time of 0.8 relative to any inertial observer.

Similarly, simple geometry PROVES that if observer A goes on a round
trip with a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C
(the clock paradox), then A's AVERAGE absolute velocity is also at least
0.6c, meaning that A's clocks should show an elapsed time of 0.8
relative to C.

This is not *simple* geometry but rather space-time geometry.
It is far from simple and has many ambiguous interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
"4-velocity and 4-acceleration "
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html


However, we cannot deduce, prior to the experiment,
anything about C's absolute velocity of 0.6c, so unless the principle of
relativity is false, then as seen by C, A must ALWAYS end up with an
elapsed time of exactly 0.8, regardless of C's absolute velocity, and
that is in fact the case. Remember, relativity does not disprove
absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should
be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because
relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist.
Alen's exercise is an indication that this largely PHILOSOPHICAL
conclusion may not be completely justified, even though the exercise in
no way contradicts the LAWS of SR.

Can you rewrite that assuming a wave model?

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html

The particle model seems implied and there is no justification
for such a propagation model.

<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html





My (unpublished) paper is "The Need for Absolute References in a
Relativistic Universe," and its point is largely summed up in this
exercise; if it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from OBSERVATIONS that some laws are
in fact functions of absolute velocity, then the fact that experimental
results are independent of initial absolute velocity does not mean that
we should declare that there are no "absolutes," no absolute laws, in
our universe. It's basically similar to dinosaurs; can we find any? No,
but their existence necessarily follows from things that CAN be directly
observed, and in true science, that should be enough. Similarly, even if
we can't measure our absolute velocity (without performing my "around
the universe experiment"), if it necessarily follows from observations
that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then by the
rules of true science, that should be enough. Okay, way too long for a P.S.!

The rotational speed of the earth is measured absolutlely,
for what it is worth.

"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf

Sue...

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Natural Philosophy - Its challenge to SR
    ... ABSOLUTE, or UNIVERSAL, reference. ... It is built on top of the principle of Relativity ... by subsequent changes in absolute velocity (unlike Newtonian ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Natural Philosophy - Its challenge to SR
    ... those laws to create an "overly relativistic" physics. ... By "an overly relativistic physics," I don't mean the LAWS of relativity, but rather Einstein's attempt to always use relative references, rather than absolute references, in his models of reality. ... Einstein believed them, and in his SR paper, he took his realization that Poincare's "principle of relativity" was actually a LAW OF LAWS, a description of how the laws of nature were "designed," and phrased both it and a couple of "normal laws" from a viewpoint that was VERY biased, and excessively relativistic, thereby causing the usual damage that occurs whenever we try to fit a square peg into a round hole. ... Not sure what you mean here, but the 1st postulate CAN be restated as "the results of experiments are unaffected by their initial absolute velocity." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: About absolute reference frame......
    ... The first error in your reasoning is that the absence of an experiment that can measure absolute velocity (and there are some experiments that I would *not* consider to be a violation of the principle of relativity even if they could measure AV) "proves" that absolute laws are either non-existent or meaningless. ... Actually, this isn't so bad, as it mostly means that we do not, after all, live in a "neutered" universe, one which has no laws which vary as a function of absolute velocity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
    ... The universe does allow an experiment to "reveal" to us that information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce on our own, ... If we KNOW, prior to running an experiment, that the experiment's velocity will include a change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, as seen by inertial observer C, then it would actually be amazing if the results of that experiment were NOT consistent with a change of 0.6c, such as an elapsed time of 0.8 relative to any inertial observer. ... Remember, relativity does not disprove absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist. ... My paper is "The Need for Absolute References in a Relativistic Universe," and its point is largely summed up in this exercise; if it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from OBSERVATIONS that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then the fact that experimental results are independent of initial absolute velocity does not mean that we should declare that there are no "absolutes," no absolute laws, in our universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Could someone answer some questions about relativity for me?
    ... Isn't that the principle of relativity? ... and the principle of "The laws ... observer of the vehicle, the other on the observer in the centre. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)