Re: My mistake on Time Dilation?
guskz_at_hotmail.com
Date: 02/12/05
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: what is biggest galaxy"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: My mistake on Time Dilation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Feb 2005 10:56:10 -0800
Uncle Al wrote:
> guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry,
> >
> > One can get lost when it comes to perspectives and observation, the
end
> > fact they MUST ACCELERATE (for their distance increases
considerably
> > with time) to compare each others values and by then the clocks
would
> > have been re-modified????
> [snip]
>
> Absolutely not. The triplets experiment has no clock acceleration at
> all. Only inertial velocity is required. The clock that passes
> through the most space records the least time on local compairison.
>
> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-twin-01.html
>
Wowww Uncle Al what's that below an Entire Epistle.
They're aint no way I can follow such details, all the models I posted
are very very simple and even you can stand reading the few lines.
You've got a million and one different FACTORS to promote your demo.
> We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine
shop)
> in individual spaceships and set up the experiment.
Ores? smelters? Machine shops? sledgehammers?
I bet you write 1/5 of all below an still maintain a simplified
intergrety to what you wish to demonstrate.
> The clock that goes forward and then backwards travels more
undeniable
> from any reference frame. The same is true for somebody in a circular
> orbit hwerein the non-inertial reference frame ages more slowly.
>
> The ratio by which the two have aged at the end when they are back
> together again is the same in all reference frames:
>
> ratio = sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2)/t (with units of c=1)
>
> Acceleration breaks the symmetry of who ages faster. To accomplish
> that, the acceleration can occur before the clocks (or the twins)
> exist. Only reference frames matter.
>
> Inertial frames with relative *velocities* pursue different paths
> through spacetime in Special Relativity. No clock anomaly is
apparent
> in any of them until clocks are compared (by all being local when you
> do it, initial calibration then experiment). Acceleration is
> irrelevant in SR to the running of the clocks (as opposed to
> Equivalence Principle acceleration in GR). Acceleration is necessary
> at some arbitrary time not associated with the experiment itself for
> breaking the symmetry of clock observation. Acceleration defines
> which reference frame takes what path through spacetime - even if it
> occurs when the clocks are *off* (or not even constructed yet, or
> destroyed) - so the situation is NOT symmetric. There is a
difference
> between the reference frame and any clocks in it.
>
> 1) Acceleration is an absolute measurement and it does not require a
> clock to make the measurement (e.g, simultaneous displacement of
three
> independent orthogonally cantilevered masses). There is no doubt who
> was accelerated even if a clock was not running/existing during
> aceleration. Any past accelerated reference frame has a different
> mixture of space and time from an unaccelerated frame.
>
> 2) Past acceleration is irrelevant to the running of present clocks,
> but not to the mixture of space and time in the reference frame that
> said clocks measure. This is an important subtlety and the key to
the
> whole thing. You cannot synchronize clocks except by having them
> local. That's what Relativity demands. If they are local at the
> start, you can tell who was naughty thereafter without needing a
clock
> to do the acceleration measurement. Accelerometers are not clocks.
>
> EXAMPLE: We have three identical clocks that are off (a state of not
> running, or of not even having been fabricated) and zeroed. Each
> clock has/will have a very short toggle jiggger switch sticking out.
> We load them (or their parts, or ore and a smelter and a machine
shop)
> in individual spaceships and set up the experiment.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
> reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Touch the jigger
> and the "off" state becomes "on" or the "on" state becomes "off."
> Clock 1 is "off." Or we can build it from parts just before we need
> it, and in the "off" state, zeroed.
>
> CLOCK 2: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
> frame of reference. Clock 2 is "off." It was built after all
> acceleration ceased, and set to zero. It skims past Clock 1 (our
> clock), the jiggers touch, both Clocks 1 and 2 are now "on" and
> locally synchronized by touching. Elapsed time accumulates in each
> one. The situation is NOT symmetric! We know who accelerated to set
> up the experiment even if there wasn't a clock present when it
> happened.
>
> CLOCK 3: In a spaceship traveling at 0.999c relative to our inertial
> frame of reference, but 180 degrees counter in direction to Clock 2.
> Clock 3 is zeroed and "off." It was built after all acceleration
> ceased, and set to zero.
>
> Some arbitrary time after Clocks 1 and 2 synchronize and turn "on" by
> touching, Clocks 2 and 3 brush past each other, touching jiggers.
> Clock 2 is now "off," Clock 3 is now "on." Write down the elapsed
> time in now "off" Clock 2, then smash the clock with a sledgehammer.
> Or melt it down, or toss it over the side. The spaceship with Clock
3
> is returning back over the path taken by the spaceship with Clock 2.
>
> CLOCK 1: That's our clock. It sits stationary in our inertial
> reference frame with a little jigger sticking out. Clock 3 rushes
> past, jiggers touch. Clocks 3 and 1 are now off. All clocks are
> off. No clock has accelerated while "on" or even while existing.
> Write down elapsed times, smash each clock with a sledgehammer. Or
> melt them down, or toss them.
>
> BOTTOM LINE: Get all three slips of paper together... Accelerate as
> you need. Or send all the results to all three folks by radio and
> never decelerate. All clocks have been smashed, melted, tossed.
> Their elapsed times were written down. The numbers on the papers
> won't change when you accelerate or broadcast the data.
>
> Acceleration is arguably General Relativity, as we did setting up the
> experiment. It is irrelevant to the clocks. No clock is running or
> even exists during acceleration. Numbers written on slips of paper
> are unaffected by Special or General Relativity. One could as easily
> build the clocks from their component parts after setting up the
> experiment. No clock exists during acceleration up or down. The
> *reference frame* has accelerated in the past, and that changes its
> mix of space and time relative to an unaccelerated frame. The clocks
> are passive observers in a presently unaccelerated setting.
>
> Finally.... compare elapsed times. Elapsed time #2=#3 (straight line
> motion for both traveling clocks, no acceleration!), but elapsed time
> #2+#3 does not equal #1, the local stationary reference frame
> summation. The sum of #2+#3 elasped time is only about 4.5% that
than
> of #1's accumulated elapsed time. You have the Twin Paradox (or,
> Triplets) without any running clock having been accelerated - or
> having even existed during acceleration up or down.
>
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: what is biggest galaxy"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- In reply to: Uncle Al: "Re: My mistake on Time Dilation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
