Sue... wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Sue... wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Dear Sue:

Sue... wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear lkoluk2003:

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you did the math, observer A sees observer B's clock
go very slowly on A's outbound, continue slowly for some
time with A inbound (since B's start-of-return doesn't reach
A until later) then sees B's clock rate increase until it
meets A at Earth, with net 0 difference at Earth.

So three observers in a symmetric situation yields two
results, because only two unique paths are described.

It is the words that trick your common sense, not the facts.
Use the math.
In response to your complaints about the elastic properties
of today's garden hose material and the possibility of
"bead bunching", we are proud to announce the all new and
improved
Three clocks, two different elapsed times. Argument? Beads, hoses?
I'm not looking to buy Manhattan...
)

Uhmm Kimosabe, Manhattan cost you heapum wampum.

I'll let the web publishing of Unnikrishnan, Fitzpatrick and MIT
serve as my argument for *this* thread because the OP doesn't
mention resolution of the postulates and that is where an SR
discussion needs to go to be productive for the OP.

We can discuss equal length path techniques in a thread
where electromagnetism is not the focus. I was just injecting
some humor, not intending to do anything to interfere with
the remote possibility that the discussion might wander off
into the physics arena. ;-)


Regards,

Sue...
There is no risk that you ever will wander into the physics arena.
You are babbling a lot about hoses and marbles, but you are
utterly unable to explain how you would use them to prove
your claims.

I've made no claims in this tread other than beads on a
string count as well as marbles in a hose. I can understand
why you might disagree... your telekinesis teacher told
you too.

You flee like hell every time someone asks you to do so.
Like you did now.

Perhaps I find this more interesting than telekinesis and snake
worship.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Learn some physics so you're not such a bore.


Sue...

Paul

...and did again.

Paul

Sue... wrote:
Clocks don't measure time and don't respond in any predictable
manner to motion so only fools would consicer making calculations.

Sue...

:-)

Paul

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) yazdi:
Dear lkoluk2003:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
Let A B are the twins and C is a third observer. The twins
move away from the earth in opposite directions and C
remains rest on the earth. Assume their clock is
synchronized just before the movement. After
accelaration twins continue to their journey in a constant
speed. After some time they return back and land on the
earth. Let from the C's point of view, the twins all
accelarate at the same time and with the same amount.
The only difference between the twins is that they travel
in opposite directions. After returning back they
compare their clocks. If SR is true,

"true" is not part of science. "what is observed, within our
ability to measure" is part of science.

according to C, the twins clock will slow down with the
same amount and their clocks must be the same. On
the other hand, according to the twin A, twin B's clock
must be slow down and not the same with his/her
clock. The same thing is true for twin B. Of course
there can be only one result. However, according to
SR, three observer comes out with three different
results.

If you did the math, observer A sees observer B's clock go very
slowly on A's outbound, continue slowly for some time with A
inbound (since B's start-of-return doesn't reach A until later)
then sees B's clock rate increase until it meets A at Earth, with
net 0 difference at Earth.

So three observers in a symmetric situation yields two results,
because only two unique paths are described.

It is the words that trick your common sense, not the facts. Use
the math.

David A. Smith
What I know from SR is that a clock moving with a constant speed will
slow down regardless of the direction of movement. The clock formula is
t=t'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t is the clock rate of twin A and t' is the
clock rate of twin B from the point of view of A. Although there are
two different value of the square root, one is positive and other is
negative. However, always the positive value is used because of there
is a similar formula for length contraction. The length formula is
l=l'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Also l'/t' must be equal to l/t. If the negative
value were used, a negative length would be obtained. So since v
enters into the equation as v^2, the direction is not important.

Lokman Kolukisa

Mike Fontenot yazdi:
Lokman Kolukisa ) wrote:
[...]
If SR is true, according to C, the twins clock will slow down
with the same amount and their clocks must be the same.

That's correct. Since C is unaccelerated during the entire
voyages by A and B, C can make use of the time-dilation
result for the entire trips: According to C, A and B will each
age at the same constant rate, which is less than the rate of
ageing of C.

On the other
hand, according to the twin A, twin B's clock must be slow down and not
the same with his/her clock.

That's only true during the two periods where A is not accelerating.
The time-dilation result only holds during periods of time where
the observer is unaccelerated. For A, there are two such periods:
during his outbound leg, and during his inbound leg.

When A accelerates at his turnaround point, he will conclude that
B suddenly ages. When he adds the three components of B's total
ageing (B's ageing during A's outbound leg + B's ageing during A's
turnaround + B's ageing during A's inbound leg), he will get the
same total that C got. (And B will come to the same conclusions
about A's ageing, as A concluded about B's ageing.)

The amount of the ageing of the object that occurs during the
acceleration of the observer is proportional to their separation.
That's why the initial and final accelerations by the observer at
the beginning and end of the trips don't cause any ageing of the
object, but the acceleration of the observer at the turnaround
does cause a sudden ageing of the object (according to the
accelerating observer).

The abrupt ageing during the turnaround occurs both for
instantaneous speed changes, and for finite accelerations
(whenever the separation at the turnaround is sufficiently
great). For a detailed example with 1g accelerations, see my
web page:

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

For more information about the abrupt change in the age of the
object during accelerations by the observer, see my paper:

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

Mike Fontenot
So are you say that the ageing during acceleration vanishes the affect
of slow down caused by constant speed? What I know from GR(General
Relativity) is that affect of acceleration is equal to the affect of
gravitation. It is known that in gravitational fields the clock slows
down. So such an ageing is not possible during an acceleration.

Lokman Kolukisa

Paul B. Andersen yazdi:
wrote:
Hi,
I am not a physics, just an amateur. However, I treat myself as a
logician, so the paradoxes are in my interest. After I read the
discussions about the special relativity(SR) and twin's paradox,
believe that it can not be resolved within SR. The defenders of SR
claims that there is an asymmetry in the conditions of the twins and so
there is no paradox. However, one can easily think of an experiment in
which the twins are in symmetric conditions.

Let A B are the twins and C is a third observer. The twins move away
from the earth in opposite directions and C remains rest on the earth.
Assume their clock is synchronized just before the movement. After
accelaration twins continue to their journey in a constant speed. After
some time they return back and land on the earth. Let from the C's
point of view, the twins all accelarate at the same time and with the
same amount. The only difference between the twins is that they travel
in opposite directions. After returning back they compare their
clocks. If SR is true, according to C, the twins clock will slow down
with the same amount and their clocks must be the same. On the other
hand, according to the twin A, twin B's clock must be slow down and not
the same with his/her clock. The same thing is true for twin B. Of
course there can be only one result. However, according to SR, three
observer comes out with three different results.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Show your calculations, please.
The LT should be simple for one who prides himself of being
a logician.

Paul


For just objections relating to accelarations: the accelaration times
of the twins can be made arbitrararily smaller according to the
duration in which the twins travel at a constant speed, so their
affects can be vanished without a significant error.

Lokman Kolukisa

There is no need for calculations. I use the following
assumptions/facts:

1. If A and B is moving with a constant speed relative to C, then B is
moving with a constant speed relative to A.
2. According to SR, a clock moving with a constant speed slows down
independent of the direction. I.e. slow rate is dependent on speed not
direction.
3. Acceleration affects can be taken arbitrarily small.

From the point of view of C, the cases are symmetric, so he/she
predicts that the clocks of A and B must be the same at the end. From
the point of view of A, he/she is standing but C and B are moving.
However, we are not deal with the clock of C, so consider only B. B
moves away with a constant speed, then accelerates and turn around. In
the second part of the journey, B comes closer with a constant speed
and then meet with A and C. Since the clock rate does not dependent on
the direction, B's clock will always slow down. Note that even the
acceleration affects are considered, this situation does not change.
The affect of acceleration is equivalent to the affects of gravitation,
so during acceleration, the clock will slow down further.

Lokman Kolukisa

wrote:
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) yazdi:
Dear lkoluk2003:

wrote in message
oups.com...
...
Let A B are the twins and C is a third observer. The twins
move away from the earth in opposite directions and C
remains rest on the earth. Assume their clock is
synchronized just before the movement. After
accelaration twins continue to their journey in a constant
speed. After some time they return back and land on the
earth. Let from the C's point of view, the twins all
accelarate at the same time and with the same amount.
The only difference between the twins is that they travel
in opposite directions. After returning back they
compare their clocks. If SR is true,

"true" is not part of science. "what is observed, within our
ability to measure" is part of science.

according to C, the twins clock will slow down with the
same amount and their clocks must be the same. On
the other hand, according to the twin A, twin B's clock
must be slow down and not the same with his/her
clock. The same thing is true for twin B. Of course
there can be only one result. However, according to
SR, three observer comes out with three different
results.

If you did the math, observer A sees observer B's clock go very
slowly on A's outbound, continue slowly for some time with A
inbound (since B's start-of-return doesn't reach A until later)
then sees B's clock rate increase until it meets A at Earth, with
net 0 difference at Earth.

So three observers in a symmetric situation yields two results,
because only two unique paths are described.

It is the words that trick your common sense, not the facts. Use
the math.

David A. Smith
What I know from SR is that a clock moving with a constant speed will
slow down regardless of the direction of movement.

You seem to have removed a light path and inserted a
statement about direction and asserted behavior about
a mechanism we have no knowledge of.

As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as
*judged*
from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two
strokes of the clock is not one second, but

http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its
motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

The constantcy of c manifest itself as a retarded potenital,
never advanced so a receeding motion is all that applies to
the tho't experiments.

Advanced potentials?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node51.html
Retarded potentials
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html
(length contraction is applied in the time domain in eq 511) ^

Sue...


The clock formula is
t=t'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t is the clock rate of twin A and t' is the
clock rate of twin B from the point of view of A. Although there are
two different value of the square root, one is positive and other is
negative. However, always the positive value is used because of there
is a similar formula for length contraction. The length formula is
l=l'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Also l'/t' must be equal to l/t. If the negative
value were used, a negative length would be obtained. So since v
enters into the equation as v^2, the direction is not important.

Lokman Kolukisa

"Retarded Potential" wrote in message oups.com...

| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

"Let us now consider a moving charge. Such a charge is continually emitting spherical waves..."

Explain why you continue to cite drivel written by a moron. Your only excuse is
that you wish people who know no better to imagine you have a clue, Retarded Potential.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../ship2star.gif (122 kB)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../star2ship.gif (122 kB)

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Michelson and Sagnac would agree with me.
After all, I learnt it from them, not a halfwit in Texas or a half-baked
aetherialist/relativist nitwit named "Runaround Sue" aka "Retarded Potential".
Nor do I believe the sky is turning, even though I can see it is.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050714.html

Moving charges do not emit spherical waves at all, that requires
acceleration.

Get used to the idea that the modern physics professor is a drooling
moron babbling nonsense, most of them are tusselader like our own
dear ASSistant Professor Andersen and your beloved Texan heart-throb
Richard Fitzpatrick 2006-02-02 , who has gone completely off his rocker
comparing water with aether.
Androcles.

Sorcerer wrote:
"Retarded Potential" wrote in message oups.com...

| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

"Let us now consider a moving charge. Such a charge is continually emitting spherical waves..."

Explain why you continue to cite drivel written by a moron.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/cv.pdf

Show us your CV.

Sue...

"Retarded Potential" wrote in message ups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| "Retarded Potential" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html
|
| "Let us now consider a moving charge. Such a charge is continually emitting spherical waves..."
|
| Explain why you continue to cite drivel written by a moron.


Did you snip something relevant?

| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

"Let us now consider a moving charge. Such a charge is continually emitting spherical waves..."

Explain why you continue to cite drivel written by a moron. Your only excuse is
that you wish people who know no better to imagine you have a clue, Retarded Potential.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../ship2star.gif (122 kB)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../star2ship.gif (122 kB)

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Michelson and Sagnac would agree with me.
After all, I learnt it from them, not a halfwit in Texas or a half-baked
aetherialist/relativist nitwit named "Runaround Sue" aka "Retarded Potential".
Nor do I believe the sky is turning, even though I can see it is.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050714.html

Moving charges do not emit spherical waves at all, that requires
acceleration.

Get used to the idea that the modern physics professor is a drooling
moron babbling nonsense, most of them are tusselader like our own
dear ASSistant Professor Andersen and your beloved Texan heart-throb
Richard Fitzpatrick 2006-02-02 , who has gone completely off his rocker
comparing water with aether.
Androcles.

Dear lkoluk2003:

wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) yazdi:
....
What I know from SR is that a clock moving with a
constant speed will slow down regardless of the
direction of movement.

*Only* compared to a clock moving at a different speed (inclusive
of zero). Within the frame of the moving clock, all processes
appear normal.

The clock formula is t=t'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t is
the clock rate of twin A and t' is the clock rate of
twin B from the point of view of A. Although there
are two different value of the square root,

No. The square root is defined to be only the positive inverse
of the square function. It is a function, and cannot have +/-
and still be a function.

one is positive and other is negative.

No.

However, always the positive value is used
because of there is a similar formula for
length contraction.

The positive value is used, because only the positive value is
the result of the *function* sqrt(). The binomial theorem, for
example, two solutions inherent in its derivation... one with
(+1) * sqrt() and one with (-1) * sqrt().

The length formula is l=l'.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Also
l'/t' must be equal to l/t. If the negative value were
used, a negative length would be obtained. So
since v enters into the equation as v^2, the
direction is not important.

And this all has nothing to do with your original "paradox".

David A. Smith