Re: The real twin paradox.

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2ae29fd0-6c31-4deb-b1e4-832914006444@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Dec 3, 7:00 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:d2c644f8-d03d-4981-965c-209373bde054@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:





On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
com
:

On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

And it is in line with other statements you have made that
indicate you believe time is absolute.

Can you convince me it is not?

Assume clocks do not slow with motion.
Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space.
Assume this statement is true:

1 <<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

What causality violating scenario can you devise
to show PoR conflicts with a constant
speed of light in the dielectric of free space?

I constantly see it refered to, but I can't
imagine what it is.

Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR
imply that:

Bz sez:
"events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general]
seen
as simultaneous in other iFoRs."

Sue... sez:
"events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen
as simultaneous in other FoRs."

There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling
to light so I removed the "i" from FoR.

an inertial frame of reference is one that maintains a constant
velocity [no inertia required]. It is ALSO a frame of reference in
which the laws of physics [including those involving newtons laws of
physics which includes inertia and Maxwell's equations] hold. [no
inertia is required]. The use of the word inertia is just shorthand for
'all laws of physics are good'. Again, you seem to get hung up on some
words starting with 'i'. You have overextended and generalized both
'imaginary' and 'inertia' in a way similar to how KS has overextended
and is hung up on 'absolute' and 'define'.

OK... we don't know any of those things just because two events
appear simultaneous to an observer so the more general FoR would
apply.

The 'more general FoR' would negate the 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of
physics apply'. That is if by 'more general' you mean what you seemed to
mean when you removed the 'i' from iFoR. Once you negate those laws of
physics, you can make duck soup out of old cigarette butts. But I won't be
eating your duck soup.

On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference wherein
'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according to SR and
GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in relation to any
given iFoR.


This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks
collocated with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that
every point in the iFoR can have its own clock and all are
synchronized within that iFoR.

When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of
time skew and reordering are expected.

Yep. But even with synchronized clocks at the locations AND no
propagation delays, the effects are still there [according to the math,
and according to experimental data].

I don't know what effects you refer to.
Yes, I think you do. The effects that give the Delta t for the traveling
twin which is different from the delta t for the stay at home twin. The
effects that make the beard grey on the stay at home twin while her
traveling brother has a dark beard. The effects that make the traveling
twin's time-o-meter show a lower reading and his distance-o-meter read
more than the stay at home twin. The effects that the Lorentz-Einstein
time transform equation predict. The effects that the GPS satellites are
consistent with. The effects that muons in motion are consistent with.
The effects that Sue deny.

Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand
we use funny clocks?

It doesn't.
Only you have decided that there is inertia or funny clocks involved.

Anything in the (constant velocity)FoR is included, including ALL
clocks. Nothing funny and nothing special about inertia.

We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length.
How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ?

I never claimed a violation. You are the one that keeps bringing up
violations. You quote Einstein and then ask 'have you stopped beating your
wife' types of questions about what you quoted. You violate the sanctity
of logic and science.




--
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
.

Loading