Re: The real twin paradox.

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:7c3700d6-75df-4a6d-a7d2-ff1a5d44a7a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Nov 21, 8:33 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...}

Oh, light clocks are not difficult to build.
You can take a fiber optic transceiver and a mirror and a bit of
electronics.

Do a little optical impedance matching to free space and set up your
mirror at a convenient distance.
Set the electronics so that every time a tick is received, a new tick
is launched.
Press the little 'starter' button.
You have a light clock.

Any high school kid can build one.

The real trick is to build a 'normal clock' that ACTS like sue says a
'normal clock' should act.

Have you read the chapter is SR about Fizeau's experiment?

'the chapter is SR'? perhaps you mean 'in'?

Fizeau measured effects of moving medium on light.

Does the Fizeau Experiment Really Test Special Relativity?
Authors: Clement, Gerard American Journal of Physics, v48 n12 p1059-62
Dec
1980 The motivation and interpretation of the Fizeau experiment are
reviewed, and its status as a test of special relativity is discussed. It
is shown, with the aid of a simplified, purely mechanical model of the
propagation of light in matter, that the experiment actually cannot
discriminate between Galilean and relativistic kinematics. (Author/SK)

The Experiment of Fizeau as a Test of Relativistic Simultaneity
Curt Renshaw -- he thinks Fizeau falsifies SR. He includes Doppler effects
in his calculations in a way that may not be valid.

Do you know how to use vector addiion to compute the
round trip of an aeroplane?

yes. I can even use vectors to calculate instantaneous power in a reactive
circuit. I don't need to use imaginary numbers or suppose that the power
is imaginary.

[quote from http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html]
Much more recently, there was some controversy over what happens when the
medium is moving at right angles to the direction of travel of the light.
The result was settled by an experiment carried out here in Aberdeen in
1971, with Prof R.V. Jones building the equipment and with Prof Mike
Player covering the theory. The result vindicated the predictions of
Maxwell?s equations and the predictions of special relativity. [unquote]


You and Dave still seem unfamilar with this material.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1f.html

Do you know how to use it to compute how much a light-clock slows?

Light clocks gave Einstein a simple way to derive the Lorentz equations.
You seem to think that ONLY light clocks are effected by relativistic
motion.

The fact remains that ALL of our clocks seem to be 'ab'"normal clocks" by
your definition of normal. All seem to be influenced by relativistic
motion. [quote from http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/events/einstein/reid.html]
Rossi & Hall experiment
The original experiment was done by Rossi & Hall in 1941 who measured muon
fluxes not 10 km high but at the top of Mt Washington in New England,
about 2 km high, and at the base of the mountain. The effect is less for a
height difference of only 2 km but for their muon speeds of 0.994c,
relativistically the reduction should have been only a factor of 1.26
whereas without time dilation the reduction would be a factor of 8.5.
Rossi and Hall?s figures were consistent with the relativistic
prediction. The experiment has since been repeated by others with
convincing results. ....
In 1979 Bailey et al at a CERN accelerator reported a similar experiment
with CERN generated muons of speeds 0.9994c, trapped in a particle
accelerator, that were observed in the lab to have 29.3 times the muon
rest lifetime, completely consistent with time dilation. ....
One of the consequential results in relativity is that no bodies can
travel at a faster speed than the speed of light. Nobel prize winner
Sheldon Glashow and collaborator Sidney Coleman showed in 1997 that the
argument could be taken further. The mere existence of very high energy
cosmic ray photons reaching the Earth is strong proof, without any extra
experiment, of the existence of an upper limit of the speed of light c
for material bodies. Their argument is that photons decay by pair
production into electrons and positrons at a rate that can be calculated
from particle physics. If the upper limit to the speed of electrons
differed from c by a small amount, then high-energy photons (~20 Tev)
would decay in nanoseconds and never travel any significant distance from
their point of creation. The detection of these particles on Earth sets a
tight bound of an upper limit to the speed of matter being within
1.5×10-15 of c.
.....
Would you bet your life on Special Relativity being true? Anyone who
relies on GPS in bad weather may be doing just that. Probably thousands of
aircraft passengers and crew do so every day. ....
Conclusion
I?m showing as a final slide a table that made an impression on me when I
first saw it many years ago. It lists 13 key experiments that have a
testing relevance to Special Relativity in the columns, and the
predictions of 6 alternative theories to Special Relativity in the rows.
The red boxes mark the places where the experimental results disagree with
the predictions of the theory. Only Special Relativity is in agreement
with all testing experiments. ....
1: Aberration, 2: Fizeau convection coefficient; 3: Michelson-Morley; 4:
Kennedy-Thorndike; 5: Moving sources and mirrors; 6: De Sitter
spectroscopic binaries; 7: Michelson-Morley, using sunlight 8: Variation
of mass with velocity; 9: General Mass-Energy equivalence; 10: Radiation
from moving charges; 11: Muon decay at high velocity; 12: Trouton-Noble;
13: Unipolar induction, using moving magnet. [unquote]

You, on the other hand seem to be a proponent of fringe science theories
such as those at http://www.wbabin.net/physics/light.htm
[quote]
Assigning the properties of superfluid to the physical vacuum allows us to
provide a physical model of the interaction of the photon with the
measurement system (to make more concrete, the physical meaning of the
dynamics "hidden" in the four-dimensional kinematics of special
relativity). Namely, at the interaction between the photon and the
measurement system a precession of the spins of the micro-particles
constituting the superfluid physical vacuum is generated in the vacuum
(the so-called uniformly precessing domain is created). The frequency of
the precession is the frequency of the photon detected by the measurement
system. [unquote]

Maybe L. B. Boldyreva and N. B. Sotina, HW, KS, and Sue are right. Maybe
time IS absolute and independent of motion through space. Maybe the clocks
in the GPS satellites only SEEM to be influenced by relativity. Maybe when
they are brought back to earth the missing ticks will be found to have
accumulated in a little 'tick bucket' and the clocks will be shown to be
the exact same age as their earthbound twins. Maybe the sun rises in the
west and sets in the east.

Show me one clock that doesn't appear to be influenced by relativistic
motion. [besides the pendulum clock which doesn't even run at zero G].

Why do we need to postulate some magical property of space [that we are
unable to observe here] and tie the observed slowing of all kinds of
clocks to the way that magical property interacts with moving matter?




--
bz

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

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.