 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2007Nonsense and SR
Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet of equality. Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed", of approach and estrangement are not symetric. We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense. R.H. > Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame > and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > R.H. Abstract Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins, and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic gravitational time dilation during the brief periods of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging. Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues that arise. It is concluded that 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... > Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame > and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > R.H. BTW... as stated in the 1920 paper "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html ...the posulates of SR are resolveable: Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Sue... Dear Richard Hachel: > Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged > frame and says that it is necessary to put them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > speed", of approach and estrangement are not > symetric. Observer A should measure the same speed for B, that B measures for A. > We may turn the problem as we want, we find > a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense. No contradiction. "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler David A. Smith > Dear Richard Hachel: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Observer A should measure the same speed for B, that B measures > for A. No. We see that visible speeds are not the same speeds for A and for B. That is a contradiction, a nonsense. For A: Vo=0.8c d/T = 12 al/ 27 years then Vapp=0.444c. For B: d/T =7.2 al / 9 years then Vapp = 0.8c !!! No symmetric. Stella Returns: For A d/T = 12al/3years then Vapp= 4c For B d/T = 7.2 al/9 years then Vapp =0.8c !!! No symmetric. > > We may turn the problem as we want, we find > > a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense. > > No contradiction. Sure??? > "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler > > David A. Smith R.H. Dear Richard Hachel: > "N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > No symmetric. You have made an elementary error. You have performed a "frame jump". B measures A to be traveling away or towards at 0.866c. Guess what speed A measures B to be moving away or towards? 0.866c A simply does not measure the distance travelled to agree with B. But this is little different than the apparent height of a building if you are near or far from it. It is only "perspective". ... > > > We may turn the problem as we want, we find > > > a contradiction, and, worse, a nonsense. > > > No contradiction. > > Sure??? You will be too, if you study. > > "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler David A. Smith >You have made an elementary error. You have performed a "frame >jump". B measures A to be traveling away or towards at 0.866c. Guess >what speed A measures B to be moving away or towards? 0.866c >A simply does not measure the distance travelled to agree with B. But >this is little different than the apparent height of a building if you >are near or far from it. It is only "perspective". I thank you for your answer a lot. Regrettably, you do not understand what I want to say. I mean that a speed must be symmetric, and as much the visible speed is similar as the classic speed. Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria. Here, we have a contradiction, because the Lorentz contraction are badly understood. It' s not sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)/(1+cosµv/c) what we have --->perfect symmetria. However, I do not say that the SR is false. I say that it is very badly explained generaly, and especially, always very badly understood there; with, all in all, obvious contradictions and nonsenses. R.H. Dear Richard Hachel: > >You have made an elementary error. You have > >performed a "frame jump". B measures A to be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Regrettably, you do not understand what I want > to say. I mean that a speed must be symmetric, It is symmetric. Each measures the other to be travelling at the same speed. > and as much the visible speed is similar as > the classic speed. You perform a frame jump when you do this. This is your error, your "contradictions and nonsenses". > Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of > course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and > Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria. It is a frame jump. If you make the measurements in a frame, and use only measurements and "physics" from that frame, everything is in agreement. Except for comparing elapsed time and trip length. But both agree the trip was made, and A brought back pretty pictures to prove it. > Here, we have a contradiction, because the > Lorentz contraction are badly understood. Then it is your job to study and learn it. > It' s not sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but > sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)/(1+cosµv/c) what we have > --->perfect symmetria. However perfect you imagine it to be, it is not in agreement with experiment. Unless "mu" = (n * pi/2 * c/v), n= 1, 3, 5... > However, I do not say that the SR is false. You just say that it is "contradictions and nonsenses" and "un- symmetric". And then provide a "correction" that has an infinite number of wrong results. > I say that it is very badly explained > generaly, and especially, always very badly > understood there; with, all in all, obvious > contradictions and nonsenses. Recall walking in the woods. Imagine someone complaining that the roads in the woods are very rough, and the "walk / don't walk" signs never seem to change. Common sense is comfortable in the terrain it is trained in. If you do not like the presentation in one text, try the one I recommended: "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler. It is only *your* discomfort, not something wrong with the application. Once you get past your discomfort, you might be able to see that it is the postulates and the unstated assumptions that are a theory's weak spots. Arguing about the "flavor" of a result is "contradictions and nonsenses". David A. Smith > > to say. I mean that a speed must be symmetric, > > It is symmetric. Not in the Langevin concept. > Each measures the other to be travelling at the same > speed. No. And this is a nonsense, a contradiction of Einstein symmetrical theory. > > and as much the visible speed is similar as > > the classic speed. > > You perform a frame jump when you do this. This is your error, your > "contradictions and nonsenses". No. Nothing to see with "frame jump" here. The frame jump explain other things, but not no-symmetrical visible speed. > > Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of > > course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and > > Uapp=0.8c. It's a great problem of symmetria. > > It is a frame jump. Noooooo ! No have frame jump here ! Terrence sees Stella, and Stella sees Terrence. It's all. In galilean frame. It's all. And it's not symmetric ----> Then, there is a contradiction. If v=0.8c Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! And when she returns: Terrence sees Vapp=4c Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!! Why ??? R.H. Dear Richard Hachel: > dlzcwrote: > > > to say. I mean that a speed must be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not in the Langevin concept. Only how you choose to read it. > > Each measures the other to be travelling > > at the same speed. > > No. t_A = time for round trip in A's frame. l_A = distance travelled in A's frame. t_B = time that A was gone in B's frame. l_B = 2 x the rest frame distance to the star A visits. l_A / t_A = l_B / t_B Symmetric. > And this is a nonsense, a contradiction of > Einstein symmetrical theory. You don't like symmetry now? Why not? > > > and as much the visible speed is similar as > > > the classic speed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nothing to see with "frame jump" here. Time in one frame, but distance from another... a frame jump. > The frame jump explain other things, but > not no-symmetrical visible speed. It is symmetric. You want to imagine it is not. > > > Now, in the langevin, it is not. Of > > > course, Vo=Uo=0.8c but Vapp=0.444c and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No have frame jump here ! Time and distance from one frame, not one from each of two frames. > Terrence sees Stella, and Stella sees > Terrence. It's all. And they each agree on closing / departing speed. > In galilean frame. It's all. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c Terrence sees 0.8c > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > > And when she returns: > > Terrence sees Vapp=4c Terrence sees 0.8c > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > > To Stella, Uapp=v ----> Ridiculus !!! > > Why ??? Because you perform a frame jump. Terrence can measure the distance too. Terrence measures everything in Terrence's frame. Terrence does not have to rely on some Holy Book to use Stella's value of distance. Why do you not like symmetry? Why do you insist on using another frame's measurements? If I tell you that the distance to the store is 1.3 miles, you would be telling me that it is some other value. Because the distance is a function of what path is taken. A follows a different path from B, between A's departure and A' arrival. Why is there a big surprise? David A. Smith > > If v=0.8c > > > > Terrence sees Vapp=0.444c > > Terrence sees 0.8c No. Vapp=v/(1+v/c) Vapp=0.4444c > > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Terrence sees 0.8c No. Vapp=v/(1-v/c)= 4c > > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because you perform a frame jump. Terrence can measure the distance > too. Terrence measures everything in Terrence's frame. Yes. He measures d=12 (year light) He measures 27 years (Doppler effect) Vapp=12/27=0.4444c Idem with I take Vapp=0.8/(1+0.8)= 0.4444c When Stella return: he measures d=12 ; Tapp=3 years (Doppler effect) Well, Vapp=12/3 = 4c. Idem: Vapp=0.8/(1-0.8)= 4c. But impossible that Stella sees the same effect with SR. It's NOT symmetric. CQFD. > David A. Smith R.H. Dear Richard Hachel: > dlzcwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Vapp=0.4444c Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where only measurements are in the frame of the object. > > > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Vapp=v/(1-v/c)= 4c Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where only measurements are in the frame of the object. > > > Stella sees Uapp=0.8c !!! > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Idem with I take Vapp=0.8/(1+0.8)= 0.4444c You know, your dislike of silliness apparently applies to sound. Because your formula shows a similar problem for any motion near "the speed of the medium". > When Stella return: he measures d=12 ; > Tapp=3 years (Doppler effect) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > CQFD. Formula out of strange bodily orifice. Use version I supplied, where only measurements are in the frame of the object. One-way trip time for Terrence: (15 / gamma) years One-way distance that Terrance measures for each leg once attaining 0.8c: (12 / gamma) light years Round trip time Stella measures: 30 years One-way distance that Stella measures: 24 ly (12 / gamma) / (15 / gamma) = 30 / 24 = same average speed... symmetric You have your silliness because: - you neglect the speed of light over a long distance, and - you use a (rest frame) textbook value of distance... not what is measured. You make frame jumps. David A. Smith > Einstein says that it does not exists a privileged frame Where? Maybe he did write that somewhere, but not everyone means the same thing when they talk about reality and being. > and says that it is necessary to put them all in the same feet > of equality. That was based on experience: since the time of Newton that experience had not changed. > Now, in Langevin's travelor, the mutuel "visible speed", > of approach and estrangement are not symetric. That's not what he wrote. Have you actually read that paper? In it he answers questions that you haven't asked yet. > We may turn the problem as we want, we find a contradiction, > and, worse, a nonsense. Now I'm sure that you haven't read it... Harald. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.