Re: My Mirror Twin Paradox

On Feb 25, 12:42 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:16 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 24, 7:26 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 23, 7:26 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Feb 23, 6:52 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

    Do I have to go through the physics of tarnishing?
    Tarnishing

Please do if it is affected by inertial motion.

     Everything that is real is affected by inertial motion, because
everything that is real is determined by Lorentz invariant laws of
physics as described by SR|:-)

But SR is not a theory of inertia. Neither is GR for that
matter but it makes better assumptions about what a theory
of inertia would look like.   (Mach)

    I misunderstood your question. I don't know what you meant by
inertial motion, as I haven't heard the phrase before.

Basically it is motion without application of force.
Coasting? The exact definition has to get tinkered
a little where things like electrical charge
Mach,s principle, or dipole induction are involved.
Sometimes you say what it isn't.

<< Einstein said:
The weakness of the principle of inertia
lies in this, that it involves an argument in a
circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is
sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that
it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by
the fact that it moves without acceleration. >>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm


I interpreted
the question as, "Is the rate of tarnishing of a mirror as seen in one
inertial frame different as seen in another inertial frame". The
answer of course is yes, since the laws of physic have to be invariant
to a Lorentz transformation.

Mo Bettah! We might see young looking mirrors but we
can't keep them from tarnishing by running around while
we look at them.

     Inertial is important in all motion, including the motion of
electrons in a chemical reaction. Therefore, I don't know how to
distinguish "inertial motion" from any other form of motion. Maybe
your question was that. Is inertial important in a chemical reaction?
Answer: Yes, but it is generally ignored by everybody except physical
chemists. Macroscopic chemical parameters have microscopic physical
properties folded into them. I suppose tarnishing would be no
different.

I can buy a bottle of helium. Weight it. Let the
gas out and weight it again. So no argument from
me about helium or any other neutrally charged atoms.

I can't buy a bottle of electrons to perform
a similar test.

Subatomic ~entities~ are not so clear-cut about
about the equivalence of gravitational mass,
inertial mass, and equivalent energy.

Janet Tate mass anomaly is just one of many
head-scratchers.


Forgive me. I offer no prize for the 999th
thought experiment for or against what Einstein
himself did not consider *relativity*.

<< one of Einstein's two main two reasons for
abandoning special relativity as a suitable
framework for physics was the fact that, no
less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
problematical assumption of a preferred class
of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
exists only (aside from its historical importance)
as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas
for important limiting cases of the general theory,
but the phenomenological justification for those
formulas can only be found in the general theory.>>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm





Do people eat lots of food because they think the
G forces of Jupiter might extend their lives?

Yes or no would have been fine.


        The stress and strain on the measuring instruments associated
with acceleration, gravitational or otherwise, are nonlocal. The
assumption is that the observer is sturdy enough to ignore the
variations in force that occur throughout his body.
     The difficulty an animal has in pumping blood up the gravity
gradient is nonlocal. If the blood was experiencing the same force
against his arteries in all parts of his body, a fat animal would not
experience any more cardiac difficulty than a thin animal. Therefore,
the animal can't be considered an ideal measuring instrument. In order
for the animal to be considered a good "clock," th animal has to be
able to ignore the sudden G-forces. The health problems have to be
considered second order effects.


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

So a gun and a ruler is a good clock.


     If the fat person on Jupiter were to reduce a great deal, he
would age according to the gravitational time dilation. Because then
his aging is not subject to "second order effects." The blood in his
body will experience the same forces from head to toe. His aging
becomes a "local" phenomenon. Then his biological aging would be
considered a good clock.
     Note that this assumption is implicit in the so called "twin
paradox." In the usual presentation of the twin paradox, the astronaut
suddenly changes direction after reaching his destination. Now, that
is a lot of acceleration. He was going nearly the speed of light, and
reversed his direction in a very small amount of time. I suspect the
poor astronaut would not survive the turn around. He would be squashed
flat. His very atoms may experience nuclear fusion. In order to say
that he comes back younger, one has to assume he survives at all.
    If the astronaut in the twin experiment were very small, then he
would not have to worry about surviving the turn around time. The cube-
square scaling law shows that the damage done by G-forces is
proportional to the cube root of the mass. So the twin in the "twin
paradox" is presumably microscopic. Or has a VERY good cushion. The
damage done in the trip is presumably second order.
    Implicit in general relativity is the idea that the instruments
and sense organs involved in measuring time and space are small enough
so the measurements are considered nonlocal. Or that there is an
experimental protocol that subtracts these "second order effects" from
the measured values.
     I know you don't like people quoting Einstein directly. However,
Einstein did say about his "train" that the train doesn't have jolts
and jars. This corresponds pretty well with the corrections for
vibration preformed by Hafele and Keating when they did their
experiment in 1905. Anyone working with experimental electrodynamics
has to consider the effect of nonlocal phenomena.

The "conclusions" of a "hastening" and by definition,
*misplaced* observer effectively disqualifies that exercise
from any modern scientific analysis. It was probably
convincing to the people of 1905 concerned with the
behaviour of Newton's light corpuscles.

It isn't physics, it is 1905 salesmanship. If you
waste time on it, you cheat yourself.


     Nonlocal phenomenon can be broadly defined to include differences
in ground potential, noise from distant current sources, AC hum, etc.
There are all sorts of calibration techniques to correct for nonlocal
phenomena. The GPS itself has corrections for atmospheric
disturbances, etc. Yet despite these "nonlocal effects," the time
dilation effects consistent with relativity are still important.
    Of course, some posters claim that relativity should be proven
without any regard to nonlocal effects. They claim that any type of
correction or control for nonlocal effects produces a tautology, and
is a form of dishonesty. If that is what they are trying to say, then
I concede that there is no true science. Nonlocal effects have to be
controlled or accounted for by the experimental protocol. I don't
think one can have any experimental science without some protocol that
basically defines the measuring instruments.
    The same type of experimental protocol is important for any use of
Newton's Laws. In actuality, air friction is going to affect the rate
of fall of any falling body. In order to demonstrate Newton's Laws,
all sorts of factors have to be controlled. Galilean invariance is
only useful if various factors are controlled for. Despite this,
Galilean invariance and Newton's Laws are two of the most successful
laws around. They were highly successful until some really well
controlled experiments in electrodynamics showed they don't always
work.





     I am expanding on your thesis, Sue. I agree, the only way to
understand relativity is to dig into electromagnetic theory. The
original papers of Einstein are correct, but they are really just
short cuts through much of physics. The simplicity of the equations
can be misleading. To really understand relativity, one must
understand electromagnetic theory.

Electrodynamics is a better term so we don't falsely
assume an axis of symmetry the nature does not respect.

     I am not sure, but that is a matter of semantics. By saying
electro instead of electrodynamics, it seems to me you are ignoring
important phenomena associated with that axis of symmetry. However,
different words for different nerds :-)

Maxwell's equations don't work well for London forces
so omission of the term "magnetism" is more
than just semantics.

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

<< Sakharov observed that many condensed matter
systems give rise to emergent phenomena which
are identical to general relativity quantitatively. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Sue...







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: time dilation
    ... the laws of physics must remain the same in all frames of reference. ...   The ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Different laws of physics
    ... laws of physics. ...   Different values of G? ... "parameters" make up the laws of physics in a Universe. ... separate lower-energy regions where the forces separated differently ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: The Meaning of the Relativity Principle
    ... in physics, ... laws involved invariant. ...    * invariance with respect to time translation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What Death Penalty Opponents REALLY Want
    ... International Human Rights Law as Barring Sentencing Murderers to Life ...     Foreign Affairs officials are warning the Government that its ... says passing the laws "would pose reputational risks ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... the laws of physics must remain the same in all frames of reference. ...   The ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)