Re: The real twin paradox.

On Nov 22, 3:27 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews: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 fromhttp://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.

*Only* light clocks will match the Lornetz transform.

Again: !!!


<<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


!!!

Light does not move inertially. You have said so
yourself.


[...]

....
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

You are not using GR. You are in fact inadvertantly arguing aginst
its most basic assumtions. Inertial couplings can be modeled through
mass energy equivalence when Newton's ether is abandoned.

You keep putting the ether back into the interacton but you are
not insisting on a mass to make the coupling.

From the SUMO link you probably noticed moving mass is
not condidered equivalent to moving light. If you believe
it is then you need to offer your services to develop
long-range atom lasers.



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]

Is special relativity running for public office?
That is no substitute for some evidence that light moves
inertially.

My automoble does not recoil backward when I switch on
the headlamps so I am not hopeful you will find any
evidence.


You, on the other hand seem to be a proponent of fringe science theories
such as those at
ht tp://ww w.wbabin.net/physics/light.htm


Most of my URL's are to Einstien 1920 paper, his Nobel lecture
Weinberg's articles or Fitzpatrick's lectures. Which are you
calling *fringe science* ?


[quote]

The article I never offered snipped and it's URL crippled.
If you want to argue about something I offered, I am happy
to do so, but don't ask me to support or refute something
you can only attibute to a Vulcan mind-meld.

....and stop trying to read my mind. It is Written in Swahili.
:o)

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.

I don't know about L. B. Boldyreva and N. B. Sotina but
Einstein, Hilbert and Noether seemed to think time had to
be as invariant as mass.

<< invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

If you want to trade energy for time then drive
a faster car to work. The *time* you saved
in transit will appear on you fuel bill.

....and you'll also find that silly plot of
proper-time intervals used as a feeble prop
for the twins myth, actually corresponds to
a real world phenomena instead of absurd
nonsense. It will correspond to the *energy*
exchanged by your automobile.



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].

No... You need to better define terms if you want to prompt
meaningful study of some particular clock design.
*appear* *relativistic*
Also consider the part played by mass, inertia and
oscillator path length for any particular design.



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?

We need to do this because we do not have a mechanism for
gravity. When a pushed car pushes back for a period of *time*
we are attributing the effect to a mass elsewhere that the
car cannot communicate with, faster than the speed of light.

<< I shall turn to those problems which are
related to the development which I have
traced. Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html

Sue...


--
bz

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

bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.