Re: Polls: Is Special Relativity wrong? One person, one vote

On Mar 9, 5:01 pm, Aaron Arcsec <silver[delete]he...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The twin's clock reading, though it is 30 years in all frames, is not
preferred over any other clock's reading, and a similar thing is true
for the Earth's clock reading.

SR does NOT say that relative motion affects the rate of the traveling
twin's clock. What it says is that the time between the two events
(those mentioned) will be measured to be different on different
clocks.

So we agree that relative motion does not affect the rate
of the traveling twin's clock (or his aging rate).

                (snip)

No, I'm sorry, that's simply not right. You might say, that by virtue
of the fact that your hair is gray, you are 60 years old. And that
might well agree with the "proper time" recorded on a clock that is
traveling the same path as you. This does not mean that the interval
of time between your birth and when it is noted that your hair is gray
is an absolutely invariant 60 years old. That's precisely the point.
Another observer may well look at you and say, "It's remarkable that
you are alive at all, because my clock recorded 150 years between your
birth and the time that I now see you with gray hair." You are
assuming that this proper time marks something INNATE about you. It
does not. Processes do not have an innate physical duration. They have
a specific duration in their rest frame and their rest frame ONLY.
This is true for ALL processes.

It is not just rest-frame specific because ALL observers in all frames
agree on a clock's proper time. This makes it unique. And the same
goes for the age of the person who carries the clock.

You need to examine why different passing observers "record" different
"times" between my birth and my current state.

As you mentioned above, it's due to coordinate measurements, and these
are due to how each frame's clocks are related. Since SR"T" does not
have absolute synchronization, each frame's clocks are related in a
different way because each frame moves differently wrt the light
source that is used to relate the frames' clocks.
Clearly, such coordinate measurements are of no use to physics.
They say nothing about any clock's atomic rhythm or any person's
physical aging rate.

All observers will agree that Triplet A is young, whilst Triplet B  
is old.

The triplets do not have a common starting age. This has been
pointed out to you before.

It is not my example, it is Wayne Throop's, and I do not recall anyone
pointing out that the triplet's do not have a common starting age.http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

                        (snip)

You're unwillingness to repeat whatever does not negate the
fact that this c - v preceded SR"T" - so it cannot be light's
relative speed as no E-synchronization existed.

And you don't seem to get that what Einstein wrote pre-SRT was NOT
RIGHT, because he had not figured out the right answer yet. So you
place great emphasis on something that he *thought* was true, but then
later decided was *wrong* and replaced it with his published SRT. I
don't know why you put such great emphasis on something that Einstein
realized was wrong.

Einstein did not find it wrong that absolutely synchronous clocks
will obtain the result c - v. He merely rejected such clocks in
favor of those forced to obtain the "result" c via definition.

(snip)

Proper time is frame independent. And the above clocks
both read proper time. And these times differed for the
same two events.

Why and how?

Because the proper time is path-dependent, and these two clocks
followed different paths between the two events.

PD

But this conflicts with your prior answer:

{I asked]

For those of us who are wondering, would you care to
tell us why the moved clock lagged behind the other
(stationary) clock?

[You answered]
Because of their relative motion.

So what is it about such "paths" that causes clocks to record
different proper times? How can a path affect a clock?

In Throop's example, there's NO acceleration.
In the following version, there's NO synchronization.
(Nothing is due to Einstein's definition)

Inertial observers Bob and Ann meet in passing when
they are both aged zero.

Bob moves to the right at speed .6c wrt Ann.

[Bob-0]-->.6c
[Ann-0]

-------------------------------------[Bob-4]-->.6c
------------------------------.6c<--[Carl-4]
[Ann-4]

To avoid accelerations, we replace Bob with Carl,
who is the same age as Bob when they meet, but
who is going in the opposite direction (still
at .6c wrt Ann). (We can call Carl "Copy-Bob.")

[Carl-8]
[Ann-10]

At this critical point, Ann is older than Copy-Bob.

Why do observers in different inertial frames age
differently?

And the history does not matter - we can have God create
Carl at age 4, or we can use an android created by man, and
turned on at age 4, or we can use a stopped clock, and turn
it on when it passes Bob, etc., etc.

And returning to your above where you agreed that relative
motion does not affect the traveling twin's age or clock, we
cannot blame it on relative motion.

All observers in all frames must agree that the triplets aged
differently, but why?

<< No, special relativity does not add speeds
this way. The actual difference is only 15/17c,
fast but not faster than light. Why is this important?
We'll see. >>
http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm


<< For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass
energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV
(or 100 GeV per nucleus) >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider

Oops! I guess we don't get to see Why.

Sue...





-A=A-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I dont get it
    ... There is no sense in which twins in different inertial frames ... age differently in SR. ... clock and a noninertial clock. ... The point is that an odometer is a measures length ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... >> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the ... we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey. ... >> different length in different frames. ... >> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... > The metal bar in Paris was used to establish the speed of light. ... > we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a ... frames. ... >> SR, any reference at all, say that the observer is at absolute ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... > 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light path ... > and the light path length of a measuring rod has the same ... > mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames. ... > 4) The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... > 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light path ... > and the light path length of a measuring rod has the same ... > mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial frames. ... > 4) The one-way speed of light in free space based on a defined absolute ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast