Re: quibbles with special relativity
From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/27/04
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: A Brief Description of IRT (Improved Relativity Theory)"
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "A double entendre (how do you prove that he si not he?)"
- In reply to: OG: "Re: quibbles with special relativity"
- Next in thread: Old Man: "Re: quibbles with special relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:10:33 -0500
OG wrote:
> "David Bandel" <SharpNova@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c8f5d987.0410261324.6550882e@posting.google.com...
>
>>let's stick to special relativity here.. i'm not interested in gravity
>>yet
>>
>>supposedly time dilation takes effect when objects move period
>
>
> No.
> Time dilation is the observed slowing of clocks when the clock and
> observer are in relative motion.
>
> You seem to imply that an observer moving with the clock itself would
> see it going slow.
>
>
>>but to
>>really substantial degrees when the motion takes place at a velocity
>>that approaches the speed of light. can someone please resolve the
>>following paradox:
>>
>>observer at point A. not moving.
>>spaceman X at point A.
>>spaceman Y at point A.
>>
>>the two spacemen take off in opposite directions both at .3 times the
>>speed of light.
>>
>>now the aging rates of the two spacemen should be the same relative to
>>the observer... i'm assuming relativity says nothing about the
>>direction the motion takes place in. so let's just say they travel
>>until they are a month younger, biologically, than the observer. and
>>then they come to a stop. now all three are at rest with respect to
>>each other.
>>
>>the problem i see here is... both the spacemen should obviously be a
>>month younger than the observer. yet.. they were moving away from
>>each other at .6 times the speed of light. shouldn't they have had
>>time dilation effects with respect to each other even more profound
>>than that which they experienced with respect to the stationary
>>observer?
>>
>>how can they have been moving away from each other at .6 times the
>>speed of light and still be the same age..
>
>
> Let us suppose that they travelled for 1 year before stopping (according
> to instructions given to X and Y before they left A).
>
> Since they are each 0.3 light years from A by then; A has to wait not 1
> year, but 15.6 months before he detects that they have stopped.
>
> Ooops, when did they stop ? was it 12 months after leaving A, or was it
> 3.6 months later ?
>
> When does spaceman X see that spaceman Y has stopped?
What they "see" is immaterial. They stop simultaneously, and that wrt
all three observers, since at turnaround both travelers are at rest wrt
the stationary observer, and thus all three share the same inertial
frame in that instant.
The additional velocity of one moving observer wrt the other, due to its
necessary outward acceleration wrt the other during slow down before
turnaround, causes the other clock to tick that much slower wrt the
former, thus canceling the postulated general relativistic fix to the
theory that would have allowed the other clock to catch back up with the
former. Each traveling observer predicts that the other is younger upon
their reunion. The problem cannot even be addressed within the confines
of special relativity, since it involves acceleration. Though
acceleration can be handled within special relativity via differential
equations, it predicts no effects that can resolve the inherent
contradiction, but rather, even generates a further discrepancy, in that
during deceleration the other clock continues to increase in velocity.
Upon turnaround, the other clock returns to its form speed wrt the
former. No reversal of the other clocks ticking rate ever occurs, thus
the other clock will have ticked less upon reunion.
If you want a real laugh, then take a look at the quantum interpretation
of the three polarizer paradox. Though they get the right answer, they
have no idea what they did to get it. There is a classical
interpretation of their method of wave addition, its called the charge-B
field interaction. Perform the same experiment with dipole arrays and
30Mh signals. No magic required.
>
> And what on earth does it mean to say that they are the same age?
> Because when X looks at Y through a telescope he will always see someone
> whose light left 7.2 months before - and vice versa of course.
What they "see" is immaterial.
>
> Does X know that he has to add 7.2 months onto Y's age so that he can
> judge how old she should 'really' be?
Yes.
>
> This paradox gets a lot more messy than you portray it.
>
> Agreed?
No.
Richard Perry
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: A Brief Description of IRT (Improved Relativity Theory)"
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "A double entendre (how do you prove that he si not he?)"
- In reply to: OG: "Re: quibbles with special relativity"
- Next in thread: Old Man: "Re: quibbles with special relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
