"wugi" wrote in message
. ..
| "Nicolaas Vroom" :
| Question:
| Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of
| view
| ?
|
| IMO this is not possible.
|
| When the two Observers meet they realize that there clocks are not the
| same.
| To be more specific: The clock of the moving observer runs behind.
| The clock of the moving observer runs slow.
|
| To explain the Observer at rest will say:
| Look on my clock I read 10000 counts.
| Based on the speed v (Lorentz Transformation) gamma is 0.5
| That means your clock should read 5000 counts.
| Which is what we measure. qed.
|
| The question is: Is it possible to explain this also from the
| point of view of moving observer ?
|
| IMO this it not possible.
| The moving Observer has to accept what the Observer at rest tells him.
|
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MyS...yTravtwin2.TIF
|
| As you see, the moving twin "acknowledges" home twin's clock ticking
(slowly
| at that) only between A and D, and between E and C. Home twin's interval
DE
| is skipped during moving twin's turnback, and so, 'lost' in moving twin's
| time count of his homestaying kin.
|
| More at
| http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
|
| guido

Your page is garbage, you idiot.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...winParadox.htm
Androcles

Sorcerer wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
| Question:
| Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of
view
| ?
|
| IMO this is not possible.
|
| When the two Observers meet they realize that there clocks are not the
same.
| To be more specific: The clock of the moving observer runs behind.
| The clock of the moving observer runs slow.
|
| To explain the Observer at rest will say:
| Look on my clock I read 10000 counts.
| Based on the speed v (Lorentz Transformation) gamma is 0.5
| That means your clock should read 5000 counts.
| Which is what we measure. qed.
|
| The question is: Is it possible to explain this also from the
| point of view of moving observer ?
|
| IMO this it not possible.
| The moving Observer has to accept what the Observer at rest tells him.
|
| For more details goto : http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dirk3.htm
|
| At that url there is also a sketch which explains this from the
| moving point of view.
| But that sketch is wrong so it seems.
|
| The url shows that before the point of return
| both observers will observe the same.
| The "trick" is that the moving observer does not stay
| at rest in his original frame.
|
| Nicolaas Vroom.
|
| http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/
|
|
| OK.
| I will show a scenario where we see it from the travelling
| twin's point of view.


Points of view are not relevant, ****head.



|
| But first:
| An observer accelerating at a will



An observer at a will?
Your frequent blunders are...
Hilarious, yes?


:-) Everybody but you can see that Mr. Andersen didn't blunder there.



| measure the rate of
| an instantly stationary clock at a distance d in the direction
| of the acceleration to be: (1 + a*d/c^2)
| (A clock higher up in the gravitational field runs fast.)

No way, ****head. Clocks higher up in the gravitation field
run at 1 second per second.


GPS says you're an idiot.

Paul Cardinale

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

Question:
Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of view?


Yes it is. For example, take gamma = 2 (v = 0.866), and let the
traverler reverse course when he is 10 years old. Then, during
each of the constant-speed legs, the traveler will conclude that
the home twin ages 5 years. But the traveler also concludes
that the home twin's age increases 30 years during the traveler's
turnaround. So the traveler concludes that the home twin ages
a total of 5 + 30 + 5 = 40 years during his entire trip.

You can therefore plot the home twin's age (according to the
traveler), versus the traveler's age. Starting from the origin,
the curve is a straight line of slope 1/2, until the traveler's
age reaches 10 (and the home twin's age is 5). The curve then
jumps vertically from 5 to 35 years old, and then continues as
a straight line of slope 1/2, ending at the endpoint (20, 40).

For the standard twin paradox problem,
the amount of the sudden increase in the home twin's age (according
to the traveler), when the traveler changes speed, can be INFERRED
simply from the fact that the home twin is 40, and the traveler is
20, when they are reunited (together with the fact that the traveler
concludes that the home twin ages half as much as he does during the
two constant-speed legs of the trip). But for more complicated
scenarios, it is necessary to be able to DIRECTLY COMPUTE the
amount of the sudden increase of the home twin's age when the
traveler changes speed. In a previous posting, I explained how
this can be done. Here is that posting:
__________________________________________________ _____________

Years ago, I derived a simple equation that
relates the current ages of the twins, ACCORDING
TO EACH TWIN. Over the years, I have found it to
be very useful. Originally, I inferred the equation
while staring at a Minkowski diagram. Then later, I
derived it formally from the Lorentz equations.

To save writing, I write "the
current age of a distant object" (where the
"distant object" is the stay-at-home twin) as
the "CADO". The CADO has a value for each age t of
the traveling twin, written CADO(t). The traveler
and the stay-at-home twin come to DIFFERENT conclusions
about CADO(t), at any given age t of the traveler.
Denote the traveler's conclusion as CADO_T(t), and
the stay-at-home twin's conclusion as CADO_H(t).
(And in both cases, remember that CADO(t) is the age of
the home twin, and t is the age of the traveler).

My simple equation says that

CADO_T(t) = CADO_H(t) - L*v/(c*c),

where

L is their current distance apart, in lightyears,
according to the home twin,

and

v is their current relative speed, in lightyears/year,
according to the home twin. v is positive
when the twins are moving apart.

(Although the dependence is not shown explicitly
in the above equation, the quantities L and v are
to be considered functions of t, the age of the
traveler).

The factor (c*c) has value 1 for these units, and
is needed only to make the dimensionality correct.

The equation explicitly shows how the home twin's
age will change abruptly (according to the traveler,
not the home twin), whenever the relative
speed changes abruptly.

For example, suppose the home twin believes that she
is 40 when the traveler is 20, immediately before
he turns around. So CADO_H(20-) = 40. (Denote his
age immediately before the turnaround as t = 20-,
and immediately after the turnaround as t = 20+.)

Suppose they are 30 ly apart (according to the home
twin), and that their relative speed is +0.9 ly/y (i.e.,
0.9c), when the traveler's age is 20-. Then the traveler
will conclude that the home twin is

CADO_T(20-) = 40 - 0.9*30 = 13 years old

immediately before his turnaround.

Immediately after his turnaround (assumed here
to occur in zero time), their relative speed
is -0.9 ly/y.

The home twin concludes that their distance apart
doesn't change during the turnaround: it's
still 30 ly.

And the home twin concludes that
neither of them ages during the turnaround,
so that CADO_H(20+) is still 40.

But according to the traveler,

CADO_T(20+) = 40 - (-0.9)*30 = 67 years old,

so he concludes that his twin ages 54 years
during his instantaneous turnaround.

In the usual traveling twin scenario, the sudden
change in speed is a negative change: i.e., the
relative speed decreases (becomes more negative, or
less positive), changing from +V to -V (with the
convention that v is positive when the traveler is
moving away from his twin). But note that, if the
sudden speed change is positive, the CADO equation
says that the traveler will then conclude that
his twin suddenly gets YOUNGER, not older.

Since the relative speed v can vary between -1 and +1
lightyear/year, an instantaneous speed change can
be as large as -2 or +2 lightyears/year. So the
CADO equation says that CADO_T can instantaneously
increase or decrease by as much, in years, as
twice the separation L, in lightyears.
For example, if the twins are 30 lightyears apart,
(according to the home twin), then the home twin's
age (according to the traveling twin) can
instantaneously change (positively or negatively) by
as much as 60 years.

The CADO equation works for arbitrary accelerations,
not just the idealized instantaneous speed changes
assumed above. When the separation is sufficiently
great, even 1-g accelerations can produce rapid
changes (positive and negative) in the current age of
the home twin (according to the traveler). The home
twin's maximum (in magnitude) rate of ageing is greater
than the traveler's rate of ageing by a factor
approximately numerically equal to their separation L,
in lightyears. If the traveler is accelerating TOWARD
the home twin, she will be getting older at that
(maximum) rate. If the traveler is accelerating AWAY
from her, she will be getting younger at that (maximum)
rate.

The home twin does not agree with the traveler's
conclusions about their corresponding ages. She
certainly doesn't perceive that the progression of her
own life is in any way affected by the traveler's
accelerations. But the differing conclusions are equally
valid: neither twin is "more correct" than the other,
and neither twin can adopt the other's conclusions
without contradicting their own measurements.

I've got an example with 1-g accelerations
on my web page:

http://home.comcast.net/~mlfasf

The derivation of the CADO equation is given in my paper

"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity",
PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.

Mike Fontenot

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
| | Question:
| | Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point
of
| view
| | ?
| |
| | IMO this is not possible.
| |
| | When the two Observers meet they realize that there clocks are not
the
| same.
| | To be more specific: The clock of the moving observer runs behind.
| | The clock of the moving observer runs slow.
| |
| | To explain the Observer at rest will say:
| | Look on my clock I read 10000 counts.
| | Based on the speed v (Lorentz Transformation) gamma is 0.5
| | That means your clock should read 5000 counts.
| | Which is what we measure. qed.
| |
| | The question is: Is it possible to explain this also from the
| | point of view of moving observer ?
| |
| | IMO this it not possible.
| | The moving Observer has to accept what the Observer at rest tells
him.
| |
| | For more details goto : http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dirk3.htm
| |
| | At that url there is also a sketch which explains this from the
| | moving point of view.
| | But that sketch is wrong so it seems.
| |
| | The url shows that before the point of return
| | both observers will observe the same.
| | The "trick" is that the moving observer does not stay
| | at rest in his original frame.
| |
| | Nicolaas Vroom.
| |
| | http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/
| |
| |
| | OK.
| | I will show a scenario where we see it from the travelling
| | twin's point of view.
|
|
| Points of view are not relevant, ****head.
|
|
|
| |
| | But first:
| | An observer accelerating at a will
|
|
|
| An observer at a will?
| Your frequent blunders are...
| Hilarious, yes?
|
|
| :-) Everybody but you can see that Mr. Andersen didn't blunder there.

"An observer accelerating at a will" sounds like a **** up to me.
Anxious to get at his inheritance, I'd imagine.


|
|
| | measure the rate of
| | an instantly stationary clock at a distance d in the direction
| | of the acceleration to be: (1 + a*d/c^2)
| | (A clock higher up in the gravitational field runs fast.)
|
| No way, ****head. Clocks higher up in the gravitation field
| run at 1 second per second.
|
|
| GPS says you're an idiot.


HAHAHA! You know **** all about GPS, you stupid arsehole.
Androcles

"Mike Fontenot" wrote in message
...
| Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
|
| Question:
| Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of
view?
|
|
| Yes it is. For example, take gamma = 2 (v = 0.866),

Hey moron! There is no gamma except 1.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Androcles

Sorcerer wrote:

[snip]


"An observer accelerating at a will" sounds like a **** up to me.

Yes, we know that's what it sounds like to you. But everybody else
understands it.

Paul Cardinale

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:34:45 -0700, Sue... wrote:

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
Question:
Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of view
?

No The reason you would consider one clock moving and the
other stationary is a clue as to why.


IMO this is not possible.

When the two Observers meet they realize that there clocks are not the same.
To be more specific: The clock of the moving observer runs behind.
The clock of the moving observer runs slow.

No... there is no mechanism in SR to alter the appearance of
clocks except the length of the light path. When
the twins are together. that length is zero.


To explain the Observer at rest will say:
Look on my clock I read 10000 counts.
Based on the speed v (Lorentz Transformation) gamma is 0.5
That means your clock should read 5000 counts.
Which is what we measure. qed.

Correct. The motion of the clocks wrt the dielectric
media is zero.


The question is: Is it possible to explain this also from the
point of view of moving observer ?

Yes.... just so the motion is zero. For other values it
doesn't work.


IMO this it not possible.
The moving Observer has to accept what the Observer at rest tells him.

Not true If they watch Dr. Who via equal lengths of video cable,
they need pay no attention to each other.


For more details goto : http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dirk3.htm

ROFL
Putting the handle of a malicious subject line
trasher is not a good way to get someone to
click on a URL.



At that url there is also a sketch which explains this from the
moving point of view.
But that sketch is wrong so it seems.

I will take your word that it is wrong. Possibly
viral too.


The url shows that before the point of return
both observers will observe the same.
The "trick" is that the moving observer does not stay
at rest in his original frame.

Yes, the matter that interacts in a real-world light
path has to be considered to avoid the paradox.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

... Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.

C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
-----

Sue...


Nicolaas Vroom.

http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/

So Ms Sue ... having read your witty comments, and the relevant WIKI
pages, truth is the entire matter is of max flakiness. I didn't say
"wrong" or unknown, or that at least 2-earthly--mutants don't comprehend
it; just ... flakey like a piecrust with too much butter.

This lurker speculates that current "opportunity costs" of getting the
Twin Paradox correct are so high it's (almost ) better being in error (eg)
plump for an aether.

nss
********

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
|
| "An observer accelerating at a will" sounds like a **** up to me.
|
| Yes, we know that's what it sounds like to you. But everybody else
| understands it.
|
Then the Tusselad should explain it.

Then there is the other small matter of his claim
100 ly in 173.2 years = 0.5c

You ****wit parrots can't do simple arithmetic, can you?
You ****ing idiot, everyone else understands 100/173.2 = 0.577c

You can't even chew gum and cross the road at the same time
without arguing the meaning of simultaneity!

**** off, you pathetic imbecile troll.
Androcles

noshellswill wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:34:45 -0700, Sue... wrote:

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
Question:
Is it possible to explain the Twin Experiment from the moving point of view
?

No The reason you would consider one clock moving and the
other stationary is a clue as to why.


IMO this is not possible.

When the two Observers meet they realize that there clocks are not the same.
To be more specific: The clock of the moving observer runs behind.
The clock of the moving observer runs slow.

No... there is no mechanism in SR to alter the appearance of
clocks except the length of the light path. When
the twins are together. that length is zero.


To explain the Observer at rest will say:
Look on my clock I read 10000 counts.
Based on the speed v (Lorentz Transformation) gamma is 0.5
That means your clock should read 5000 counts.
Which is what we measure. qed.

Correct. The motion of the clocks wrt the dielectric
media is zero.


The question is: Is it possible to explain this also from the
point of view of moving observer ?

Yes.... just so the motion is zero. For other values it
doesn't work.


IMO this it not possible.
The moving Observer has to accept what the Observer at rest tells him.

Not true If they watch Dr. Who via equal lengths of video cable,
they need pay no attention to each other.


For more details goto : http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/dirk3.htm

ROFL
Putting the handle of a malicious subject line
trasher is not a good way to get someone to
click on a URL.



At that url there is also a sketch which explains this from the
moving point of view.
But that sketch is wrong so it seems.

I will take your word that it is wrong. Possibly
viral too.


The url shows that before the point of return
both observers will observe the same.
The "trick" is that the moving observer does not stay
at rest in his original frame.

Yes, the matter that interacts in a real-world light
path has to be considered to avoid the paradox.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

... Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.

C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
-----

Sue...


Nicolaas Vroom.

http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/

So Ms Sue ... having read your witty comments, and the relevant WIKI
pages, truth is the entire matter is of max flakiness. I didn't say
"wrong" or unknown, or that at least 2-earthly--mutants don't comprehend
it; just ... flakey like a piecrust with too much butter.

This lurker speculates that current "opportunity costs" of getting the
Twin Paradox correct are so high it's (almost ) better being in error (eg)
plump for an aether.

Call it what you will. We can't by royal decree proclaim we are
going ignore matter that exists at a density of at least 1 atom
per cubic centimeter and still claim we have some repressentation
of a world where that is in fact the case.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...string.html#c2

--C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf

Sue...



nss
********

Sorcerer wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| OK.
| I will show a scenario where we see it from the travelling
| twin's point of view.


Points of view are not relevant, ****head.

Quite.
Your point of view is irrelevant and of
no interest to anybody.
So shut up.

Paul