Hey Nick at page two ;) you wrote that if you flew fast enough you could see time slow down :)
That's news to me,
Hope you can prove it, as far as i know whatever 'state' you're in, time for you will flow at the same rate, that doesn't mean that you wont see relativistic phenomena like light behaving strange, collecting in the center instead of spread out etc Just to strech my neck out more i will claim that the same goes for falling past the event horizon.
The ''real' difference' as far as i know will only appear when comparing with an earlier state of reference, if you get my relativistic drift.
PS: anyone interested in a killerspree of emoticons
If this is correct, i am confused. You cant simply see the velocity of one twin as minus the velocity of the other and from that draw the conclusion that relative to each other they experience the same thing, since only one of them experiences acceleration: the one in the spaceship. He has to slow down and get back to his brother to compare clocks doesn't he? There was never a paradox to start with.
QUOTE (jabailo+Feb 20 2007, 10:15 PM)
How about this. Forget twins.
Take a rotating body, a disk that is made out of a material with a shelf life of 1 year.
The disk rotates 68% the speed of light.
Eventually, the center, which is at rest, begins to crumble away sooner than the outer edge, which is "aging" more slowly.
How does this affect stars?
HOW FAST CAN STARS SPIN?
Take a rotating body, a disk that is made out of a material with a shelf life of 1 year.
The disk rotates 68% the speed of light.
Eventually, the center, which is at rest, begins to crumble away sooner than the outer edge, which is "aging" more slowly.
How does this affect stars?
HOW FAST CAN STARS SPIN?
This is one of those lame things that's been around and resolved for almost as long as it has existed. The twin "paradox" has never been a true paradox since the twin traveling at .86c has to accelerate. That is, they are not bound by a mutual frame of reference due to the physical impossibility of instant acceleration. By enacting or being bound by the force of his acceleration, the paradox no longer exists.
One twin experiences acceleration which precludes a mutually shared perception, which means the twin in the starship stays younger and the one on earth gets older.
One twin experiences acceleration which precludes a mutually shared perception, which means the twin in the starship stays younger and the one on earth gets older.
Guest_Sean is correct. What most people don't understand is that while uniform velocity and its time dilation effects depend on perspective, acceleration is absolute and permanently alters the clock rate. It is acceleration that makes something age slower. Clocks on earth tick slower than clocks in space due to a stronger gravity field on earth, and gravity is equivalent to acceleration. The Twin Paradox only appears a paradox if you try to use Special Relativity to analyze a General Relativistic phenomenon.
I am no physicist, but I fail to see how this problem represents a "paradox". Its a simple matter of relative velocity. If point "A" (earth?) was moving directly along axis X at positive 75% of the speed of light, with twin 1 sitting on earth; and twin 2 left earth at a negative velocity of 80% of the speed of light (relative to point of departure), then twin 1 who is stationary is actually the one moving at an absolute near-light speed, and twin 2 is moving at an absolute velocity of 5% of the speed of light in a negative direction along the X axis.
The only factor that makes an enigma of this is that no one has yet figured out how to determine the absolute velocity of anything. Maybe one day someone will figure out a way to observe the Doppler effect on light/radiation emissions to determine the absolute velocity of the emitter, but until then... this appears to be more of a riddle than a paradox...
Again, I am no physicist or even close to being so, so feel free to flame me to pieces if I am wrong .. but it just seems to me that people like to make things more complex than need be when they cannot provide a concrete formulation ..
The only factor that makes an enigma of this is that no one has yet figured out how to determine the absolute velocity of anything. Maybe one day someone will figure out a way to observe the Doppler effect on light/radiation emissions to determine the absolute velocity of the emitter, but until then... this appears to be more of a riddle than a paradox...
Again, I am no physicist or even close to being so, so feel free to flame me to pieces if I am wrong .. but it just seems to me that people like to make things more complex than need be when they cannot provide a concrete formulation ..
Whereas the presence of an aether fluid has been discounted generally in the scientific community, one necessary aspect of has never been investigated. Namely, if an aether fluid exists one must assume that its fluid elements recede from each other in accord with the Hubble law. Or one must assume that the distance, d(t) between any two fluid elements of the aether at time, t is given by d(t)= γ(t)d(0), where γ(t) = 1+t/т, т is the Hubble age, and d(0) is the distance at the present time, t=0. This expansion of the aether, called R, is the only one that satisfies the modern Copernican view that the recessional motion of the galaxies and the aether appear the same on a large scale for observers in any galaxy of the universe. In a paper entitled “The Pervasive Hubble Expansion of the Universe” one investigates consequences of this assumption when the aether is an ideal monatomic adiabatic fluid. For this fluid a transformation [1] exists, in exact accord with Euler’s nonlinear equations, which transforms any fluid motion, called M, superimposed on the stationary aether fluid to an initially identical fluid motion, called N, superimposed on R. The motion, N differs from M when t≠0 due to N’s nonlinear interactions with R, called expansion effects. The expansion effects turn out to be a pervasive Hubble law affecting all aspects of N motions. For example, all characteristic distances, volumes, and energies associated with the N motion must have respectively γ, γ^3 and γ^-2 as multiplying factors.
One shows that this fluid dynamic analysis provides irrefutable evidences in support of the thesis that all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe are N motions superimposed on R. The aether fluid is not the light aether proposed in the past. It is a very heavy background fluid with density of order equal to the nuclear density. The analyses are carried out so that the expansion effects are zero presently, t=0, and they change with time at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless, these seemingly minute expansion effects suggest major fundamental changes to physics and astronomy which resolve outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzles and irritated scientist for many years.
A PDF format of the paper is available on the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
One shows that this fluid dynamic analysis provides irrefutable evidences in support of the thesis that all forms of matter, fields, and propagations in the universe are N motions superimposed on R. The aether fluid is not the light aether proposed in the past. It is a very heavy background fluid with density of order equal to the nuclear density. The analyses are carried out so that the expansion effects are zero presently, t=0, and they change with time at the exceedingly slow rates of about one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. Nevertheless, these seemingly minute expansion effects suggest major fundamental changes to physics and astronomy which resolve outstanding questions and paradoxes that have puzzles and irritated scientist for many years.
A PDF format of the paper is available on the web site, www.drleifrongved.com.
yours ideas are very interesting.the non-lineariry of spacetime with the asymmetry
of expansion in the spacetime,through of the differences of density in the fluid.
then the variations of the velocity is in the proportion of the acceleration of the matter in the fluids( spectrum of differences in the density of the fluid)
of expansion in the spacetime,through of the differences of density in the fluid.
then the variations of the velocity is in the proportion of the acceleration of the matter in the fluids( spectrum of differences in the density of the fluid)
The introduction of the Mach principle for the determination of inertial frames is a brilliant contribution. Perhaps this completes SR, and it it does, it is of the greatest significance.
From what it appears, it should be possible to falsify Kak's principle by means of a clever experiment.
Roby
From what it appears, it should be possible to falsify Kak's principle by means of a clever experiment.
Roby
we could to think that the resolution of the called twin paradox,would be solved by
introduction of other coordinate of time as variable to the changes of speeds,through of the curves generated in the ordinary spacetime through of that
fifth-dimension,what can be imaginary (3+2),or real (4+1)dimensional .this linked to the transformations of spacetime by rotations,that does the reversion of sign to CPT.then here have the time variable connected at the spacetime,that split the spacetime in two curvatures of spacetime generated simultaneouly in opposed directions.then the fifth-dimension explain the time-dilatation and twin paradox,through of equations of dirac.
the dirac'equation in a covariant form with respect to proper orthochrous rotations
in(4+1) or (3+2)-dimensional pseudo-orthogonal space.i.e.minkowskian space extended by one real or imaginary dimension is introduced.four-dimensional double-valued irreducible representations of the groups SO(4,1) and SO(3,2) depend on sisteen cayley-klein parameters of which ten are independent.the 5-dimensional equation is invariant under the cpt transformations if the fifth-dimension coordinate changes its sign under C,and that it simultaneouly changes its sign either T and P.a function constructed from jacobian elliptic fuctions,in the limit of a vanishing modulus
of these functions,replaces epx(iwt) in solutions of stationary-state problems.
theiterated 5-dimensional dirac eqs. contains the potential-energy operator of
electron spin density in a non-electromagnetic field.
dirac eq.in 5-dimensions
unfortunely.as i go saying,i haven't symbols to put mathematically as the
equation of dirac and to it applied the term to fifth-coordinate.
introduction of other coordinate of time as variable to the changes of speeds,through of the curves generated in the ordinary spacetime through of that
fifth-dimension,what can be imaginary (3+2),or real (4+1)dimensional .this linked to the transformations of spacetime by rotations,that does the reversion of sign to CPT.then here have the time variable connected at the spacetime,that split the spacetime in two curvatures of spacetime generated simultaneouly in opposed directions.then the fifth-dimension explain the time-dilatation and twin paradox,through of equations of dirac.
the dirac'equation in a covariant form with respect to proper orthochrous rotations
in(4+1) or (3+2)-dimensional pseudo-orthogonal space.i.e.minkowskian space extended by one real or imaginary dimension is introduced.four-dimensional double-valued irreducible representations of the groups SO(4,1) and SO(3,2) depend on sisteen cayley-klein parameters of which ten are independent.the 5-dimensional equation is invariant under the cpt transformations if the fifth-dimension coordinate changes its sign under C,and that it simultaneouly changes its sign either T and P.a function constructed from jacobian elliptic fuctions,in the limit of a vanishing modulus
of these functions,replaces epx(iwt) in solutions of stationary-state problems.
theiterated 5-dimensional dirac eqs. contains the potential-energy operator of
electron spin density in a non-electromagnetic field.
dirac eq.in 5-dimensions
unfortunely.as i go saying,i haven't symbols to put mathematically as the
equation of dirac and to it applied the term to fifth-coordinate.
the time slow down is calculed by the fifth-coordinates,that is the time,that determine the metrics of spacetime.then the the time dilatation is linked to the
fifth-coordinates that revert spacetime,through of spacetime line infinities,each one
with the degrees of curvartures-the curvature tensor-that deform the continuos spacetime,generating disticts curvatures,each one.with a degrees differents between the transition linear to non-linear and vice-versa
fifth-coordinates that revert spacetime,through of spacetime line infinities,each one
with the degrees of curvartures-the curvature tensor-that deform the continuos spacetime,generating disticts curvatures,each one.with a degrees differents between the transition linear to non-linear and vice-versa
GOOD ELF
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR OPPINION ABOUT TWIN PARADOX,TIME DILATATION,AND CONTRACTION OF LENGHTS,PLEASE.
congratulations
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR OPPINION ABOUT TWIN PARADOX,TIME DILATATION,AND CONTRACTION OF LENGHTS,PLEASE.
congratulations
QUOTE (avec+Feb 24 2007, 10:09 PM)
It is acceleration that makes something age slower
The difference between the age of twins is proportional the relative speed difference and the time, not the acceleration.
The difference between the age of twins is proportional the relative speed difference and the time, not the acceleration.
QUOTE (JohnB+Feb 24 2007, 10:09 PM)
...I fail to see how this problem represents a "paradox"...
Of course, the twin paradox is not paradox from the times of general relativity invention. The sentence "Twin Paradox Resolved" should be understood exactly, how it sounds: as the repeated re-solution of the twin phenomena by using of the approach, which can be derived from the GR anyway.
Of course, the twin paradox is not paradox from the times of general relativity invention. The sentence "Twin Paradox Resolved" should be understood exactly, how it sounds: as the repeated re-solution of the twin phenomena by using of the approach, which can be derived from the GR anyway.
thanks for your reply,ZEPHIR,
then for you the twin paradox,exist not.correct?
but if the differeces is between speeds and times,as explain the change of speeds?
if by newton d^2x/dt2=a.then the acceleration as infinitesimal procees,is derative
of the time and velocity,and not of space.then the differential in the point tangent
to the acceleraration the time extend to infinite and the space vanish(or limit tending for zero,with both limit by the right and left).then the differences in the
velocities in the space coupled at the space( as experience of thought of poincaré),
demonstrate that the points of curvatures and the acceleration are bi-univocity correspondence.then these asymmetrics points in the space and time,joined space and time.being here spacetime variables in same rates of changes of speeds,
the acceleration would be given the connection metrics of the curvatures,to turn the linear manifolds in non-linear.through of the asymmetry that are in the essence
of the junction of spacetimes,that is renormalized by a fifth-coordinate,that is the
time-variable at the ordinary time( here whether explain the the space and time
that suffer contraction and slow down,respectively)
then for you the twin paradox,exist not.correct?
but if the differeces is between speeds and times,as explain the change of speeds?
if by newton d^2x/dt2=a.then the acceleration as infinitesimal procees,is derative
of the time and velocity,and not of space.then the differential in the point tangent
to the acceleraration the time extend to infinite and the space vanish(or limit tending for zero,with both limit by the right and left).then the differences in the
velocities in the space coupled at the space( as experience of thought of poincaré),
demonstrate that the points of curvatures and the acceleration are bi-univocity correspondence.then these asymmetrics points in the space and time,joined space and time.being here spacetime variables in same rates of changes of speeds,
the acceleration would be given the connection metrics of the curvatures,to turn the linear manifolds in non-linear.through of the asymmetry that are in the essence
of the junction of spacetimes,that is renormalized by a fifth-coordinate,that is the
time-variable at the ordinary time( here whether explain the the space and time
that suffer contraction and slow down,respectively)
QUOTE (mott.carl+Mar 3 2007, 03:11 PM)
then for you the twin paradox,exist not?
Frankly, the twin paradox doesn't exist with respect of any theory. The DHMTL applet / AVI video of mine illustrates it in detail by the way, every kid can understand it without bombastic articles in press.
The clock of a GPS satellite runs slower then clocks on earth due to the velocity of the satellite going around the earth. By observation, we also see that the satellite is still in the present with all things on the surface of the earth.
If the simple thinking of SR is changed to that of a relationship of physical changes with respect to velocity and not a relationship of time with respect to velocity, then SR makes perfect common sense.
I hate to be the one to put a fly in the ointment but A) GPS satellites are in geosynchronous orbit.
A clock in the basement of a skyscraper will not run at the same speed as one on the 50th floor.
Weight is actually a consequence of resistance to acceleration. You can accelerate weightlessly. Simply step into a gravity well.
The only reason we weigh something on the Earth is because the Earth prevents us from getting to its centre.
To accelerate weightlessly you need to accelerate every essense of your being by the same even amount. Unfortunately we can not achieve that manually.
OK, take two cats...
Frankly, the twin paradox doesn't exist with respect of any theory. The DHMTL applet / AVI video of mine illustrates it in detail by the way, every kid can understand it without bombastic articles in press.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Mar 3 2007, 03:11 PM)
demonstrate that the points of curvatures and the acceleration are bi-univocity correspondence.then these asymmetrics points in the space and time,joined space and time. being here spacetime variables in same rates of changes of speeds...
...even without "bi-univocity correspondence" and "spacetime curvatures variables", "asymmetrics points in the space and time" and other BSs.
If you understand something, the simple picture is enough.
...even without "bi-univocity correspondence" and "spacetime curvatures variables", "asymmetrics points in the space and time" and other BSs.
If you understand something, the simple picture is enough.
zephir
is more easy to explain the contraction of space and time dilatation through of the existence of fluid that fullfil all the space,and the rays of light suffer distortions,modifying the value of speed,depending whether the movement of object is orthogonal or parallel at the fluid,that must be constant motion.the deformations suffered by the objects in relation the speed of light,that suffer the
minor distortion,and anisotropy.then k and k' demonstrate the differences between
the inertial referentials,then the measures between the object in motions and the
speed of light(pratically constant) must imply that the inertial referential must be
equivalents...and therfore the preferential in absolute rest might not exist,the
space and time are variables with the distortion suffered by the speed of light.thence to k and k' the space and time are deformatle to its in motions between itself.then the contraction of the space and time dilatation are due the
motion of the objects in relation the velocities of objects in relation at the fluid
and vice versa.
in interesting the existence of an aether to explain the action and reaction
of the objects in GTR.to explain the conservation of energy,that remain dubious
in GTR and angular momentum.the lose by exchange of gravitational waves between the objects.by GTR must exist gravitational waves and must carry gravitational particles
parallel or orthogonal
is more easy to explain the contraction of space and time dilatation through of the existence of fluid that fullfil all the space,and the rays of light suffer distortions,modifying the value of speed,depending whether the movement of object is orthogonal or parallel at the fluid,that must be constant motion.the deformations suffered by the objects in relation the speed of light,that suffer the
minor distortion,and anisotropy.then k and k' demonstrate the differences between
the inertial referentials,then the measures between the object in motions and the
speed of light(pratically constant) must imply that the inertial referential must be
equivalents...and therfore the preferential in absolute rest might not exist,the
space and time are variables with the distortion suffered by the speed of light.thence to k and k' the space and time are deformatle to its in motions between itself.then the contraction of the space and time dilatation are due the
motion of the objects in relation the velocities of objects in relation at the fluid
and vice versa.
in interesting the existence of an aether to explain the action and reaction
of the objects in GTR.to explain the conservation of energy,that remain dubious
in GTR and angular momentum.the lose by exchange of gravitational waves between the objects.by GTR must exist gravitational waves and must carry gravitational particles
parallel or orthogonal
I see two new related paradoxes on Dr Kak's homepage. It would be interesting to see how the arguments will need to be modified to address these new paradoxes.
Rick
Rick
Here're the new twists to the old paradox at Subhash Kak's homepage:
New Twin Paradox:
One of the two twins goes off in the direction opposite to the Earth’s rotation around the Sun in a spaceship, and starts lagging it further and further. To do so, it must accelerate and then at some point decelerate to establish its orbit. The Earth, since it is going faster, will eventually catch up with this spaceship. When the twins meet and compare their clocks, the clock of which twin would have lost time?
According to the earthbound twin, it is the twin in the spaceship whose clock would register less time since it was the one that went through acceleration and deceleration. But with respect to the Sun, the twin in the spaceship had lesser speed, and it should have lost less time than the twin who remained on the Earth.
New Triplet Paradox:
Let's say the earth has a hole that goes right through it. Two of the triplets fall right through it and oscillate at high speed through this cylindrical hole. If this continues for a long time, they would be "younger" to their third brother on the ground. Now how about if they fall from opposite ends? They are moving with respect to each other, so how much does each one of them age compared to the triplet on the ground?
Rick
New Twin Paradox:
One of the two twins goes off in the direction opposite to the Earth’s rotation around the Sun in a spaceship, and starts lagging it further and further. To do so, it must accelerate and then at some point decelerate to establish its orbit. The Earth, since it is going faster, will eventually catch up with this spaceship. When the twins meet and compare their clocks, the clock of which twin would have lost time?
According to the earthbound twin, it is the twin in the spaceship whose clock would register less time since it was the one that went through acceleration and deceleration. But with respect to the Sun, the twin in the spaceship had lesser speed, and it should have lost less time than the twin who remained on the Earth.
New Triplet Paradox:
Let's say the earth has a hole that goes right through it. Two of the triplets fall right through it and oscillate at high speed through this cylindrical hole. If this continues for a long time, they would be "younger" to their third brother on the ground. Now how about if they fall from opposite ends? They are moving with respect to each other, so how much does each one of them age compared to the triplet on the ground?
Rick
DEAR ZEPHYR
did some questions in that same topics to you.
the AETHER would solve several questions of STR and GTR.the proper mathemarics of the lorentz's transformations to explain the contraction of space , time-dilatation,and constance of speed of light,through of the existence of a
substance ,that is the aether.
did some questions in that same topics to you.
the AETHER would solve several questions of STR and GTR.the proper mathemarics of the lorentz's transformations to explain the contraction of space , time-dilatation,and constance of speed of light,through of the existence of a
substance ,that is the aether.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Mar 4 2007, 05:08 AM)
did some questions in that same topics to you
Sorry, I missed the question marks in the latest post of yours, together with the meaning and other less important details.
Sorry, I missed the question marks in the latest post of yours, together with the meaning and other less important details.
EDUCATION AND THE TWIN PARADOX
Is acceleration the cause of the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Educational principles in the world of Einstein presuppose oscillating between the absurdity of the answer yes and the absurdity of the answer no until any rationality disappears. Educators should only keep an eye on the oscillation, without hinting at either answer. However even in the world of Einstein educators make mistakes. Sometimes they do drop a hint and then they should repair the harm as quickly as possible. Consider Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
In the previous version of the textbook there was the following additional text:
"This form of the twin paradox loses a bit of the punch of the usual statement of the problem, since we don't compare the ages of the same two people before and after the journey. But on the other hand, THIS VERSION OF THE PROBLEM DOES NOT INVOLVE ACCELERATION."
Needless to say, by hinting that acceleration is immaterial to the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin the educator had made a huge strategic mistake. However in the present version of the textbook the situation is under control again and the oscillation between the two absurdities can continue.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Is acceleration the cause of the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Educational principles in the world of Einstein presuppose oscillating between the absurdity of the answer yes and the absurdity of the answer no until any rationality disappears. Educators should only keep an eye on the oscillation, without hinting at either answer. However even in the world of Einstein educators make mistakes. Sometimes they do drop a hint and then they should repair the harm as quickly as possible. Consider Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
In the previous version of the textbook there was the following additional text:
"This form of the twin paradox loses a bit of the punch of the usual statement of the problem, since we don't compare the ages of the same two people before and after the journey. But on the other hand, THIS VERSION OF THE PROBLEM DOES NOT INVOLVE ACCELERATION."
Needless to say, by hinting that acceleration is immaterial to the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin the educator had made a huge strategic mistake. However in the present version of the textbook the situation is under control again and the oscillation between the two absurdities can continue.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The observation of the twin paradox is an observation that Special Relativity is not a theory of time but a theory of the relationship of the physical changes with respect to changes in velocity. When this is understood, there is no paradox.
If any object moved from the present into the past it no longer exist in the present and would seem to disappear. As indicated by SR any object that moves with greater velocity then any other object time must slow as measured by any type of clock. This change of clock function is proven true. It is also true that any object moving at a greater velocity then any other object does not leave the present time. All you need to prove this is the GPS system.
The clock of a GPS satellite runs slower then clocks on earth due to the velocity of the satellite going around the earth. By observation, we also see that the satellite is still in the present with all things on the surface of the earth.
If the simple thinking of SR is changed to that of a relationship of physical changes with respect to velocity and not a relationship of time with respect to velocity, then SR makes perfect common sense.
If any object moved from the present into the past it no longer exist in the present and would seem to disappear. As indicated by SR any object that moves with greater velocity then any other object time must slow as measured by any type of clock. This change of clock function is proven true. It is also true that any object moving at a greater velocity then any other object does not leave the present time. All you need to prove this is the GPS system.
The clock of a GPS satellite runs slower then clocks on earth due to the velocity of the satellite going around the earth. By observation, we also see that the satellite is still in the present with all things on the surface of the earth.
If the simple thinking of SR is changed to that of a relationship of physical changes with respect to velocity and not a relationship of time with respect to velocity, then SR makes perfect common sense.
QUOTE (tlocity+Mar 11 2007, 09:34 AM)
The clock of a GPS satellite runs slower then clocks on earth due to the velocity of the satellite going around the earth. By observation, we also see that the satellite is still in the present with all things on the surface of the earth.
If the simple thinking of SR is changed to that of a relationship of physical changes with respect to velocity and not a relationship of time with respect to velocity, then SR makes perfect common sense.
I hate to be the one to put a fly in the ointment but A) GPS satellites are in geosynchronous orbit.
A clock in the basement of a skyscraper will not run at the same speed as one on the 50th floor.
Thank you for your input but please check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positi...stem#Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positi...stem#Relativity
Thank you Idiocity! my BOTTOMLESS PITT (of fools belief fact) sudgests andd has some merit? dont ask me why? You See i cant rememer the actual text i was gouing to so venomously attack! It just meanes i have to reread the previous text!!! dont dispare anglo f.ools i have an arm much longer as the milenium evelutionary sofistication of the language of my parents. Love your inversion of sylllabilic logic meaninings. Inversion can be asserted by most continetal counties your sporn has been booted out off!
What sort of a world have we got left with? NOW SEEING wwhat do we do? White wash the prettiest of india/china in AUSTRALIA continent! 7pipi with 7 moved under the square! There is movement ahead that New Zealand is to become the next state of australia! meaning NEW ZED Land. Solar system engeneering wise wouldnt you love if we sqeezed Z!!! into Uranuns
What sort of a world have we got left with? NOW SEEING wwhat do we do? White wash the prettiest of india/china in AUSTRALIA continent! 7pipi with 7 moved under the square! There is movement ahead that New Zealand is to become the next state of australia! meaning NEW ZED Land. Solar system engeneering wise wouldnt you love if we sqeezed Z!!! into Uranuns
Oh F!!! this is not a chat channel! I be tougher and more coherent in the morning! On Gaurd!!! Match Word for Word with me then!!!!
(What was the subjeject again? Umm Umm Be ware of your HEAD'S on Guard!!!
(What was the subjeject again? Umm Umm Be ware of your HEAD'S on Guard!!!
Looks like this will continue to be debated for a long time. Mr Kak may have hit a big home run!!
QUOTE
Weight is a consequence of acceleration.
Weight is actually a consequence of resistance to acceleration. You can accelerate weightlessly. Simply step into a gravity well.
The only reason we weigh something on the Earth is because the Earth prevents us from getting to its centre.
To accelerate weightlessly you need to accelerate every essense of your being by the same even amount. Unfortunately we can not achieve that manually.
I'm just a high school student, so go easy on my ignorance and confusing explanations please.
I was thinking about the twin "paradox", which it has been explained to me that since there is no absolute rest or velocity, the acceleration causes the passage of time on the ship to become slower than that of the earth. When he returns to earth, the opposite acceleration returns him to the normal flow of time on earth.
Now with the same scenario, if the twin in the spaceship were to have a son, and his son were to depart from the spaceship and accelerate away, since there is no absolute velocity, nothing is to say whether an acceleration is increasing or decreasing absolutely, so based on the solution to the twin paradox, the departing son would begin aging more slowly than the father who remains in the ship, regardless of which direction he departs in.
If he were to accelerate towards the earth, which is now relatively moving away from the spaceship, he could match speed with the earth and reunite with his uncle.
My question is, how is it determined if an acceleration will increase or decrease the passage of time for a body? Although time can pass differently in different bodies, the twin in the spaceship should observe the same passage of time for his son as for his twin brother once his son arrives on earth.
This is not to say I think the theory doesn't work, I'm just asking for an explanation of what it is I'm misunderstanding here.
Thanks
Alex
I was thinking about the twin "paradox", which it has been explained to me that since there is no absolute rest or velocity, the acceleration causes the passage of time on the ship to become slower than that of the earth. When he returns to earth, the opposite acceleration returns him to the normal flow of time on earth.
Now with the same scenario, if the twin in the spaceship were to have a son, and his son were to depart from the spaceship and accelerate away, since there is no absolute velocity, nothing is to say whether an acceleration is increasing or decreasing absolutely, so based on the solution to the twin paradox, the departing son would begin aging more slowly than the father who remains in the ship, regardless of which direction he departs in.
If he were to accelerate towards the earth, which is now relatively moving away from the spaceship, he could match speed with the earth and reunite with his uncle.
My question is, how is it determined if an acceleration will increase or decrease the passage of time for a body? Although time can pass differently in different bodies, the twin in the spaceship should observe the same passage of time for his son as for his twin brother once his son arrives on earth.
This is not to say I think the theory doesn't work, I'm just asking for an explanation of what it is I'm misunderstanding here.
Thanks
Alex
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 16 2007, 03:25 AM)
Acceleration is what leads to speed!!!
Speed, in physics terms, is merely (D2-D1)/t, which is a simplistic representation of the actual formula, but that's another discussion, that is really an average. For bodies whose speed changes, you have to have an equation for the motion to get the appropriate instantaneous speed at any point in time.
Velocity is speed in a direction, so it's a two dimensional measurement, the speed and angle, often stated for example like 20m/s @ 37 degrees north of east. Again, for complex motion, equations are required to derive the instantaneous velocity.
Acceleration is the change in velocity over time, like 9.8m/sec^2 which is really 9.8m/s per sec a=(V2-V1)/t, and through substitution, you get d=1/2 * a * t^2
Now that we have that out of the way...
F=m*a (Force equals mass time acceleration)
If I am moving at 99% the speed of light and not slowing down and not speeding up we get
F=m*0 or F=0, so there is no force being applied to the system and no energy being added to the system. So, by merely going very fast, the system is actually in equilibrium. This means that if you had no visual or aural queues and were traveling at the speed of light, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and standing still, as seen in this example...
10N of force ------>|body|
causes |body| to accelerate ---->
10N of force ------>|body|<------10N of force
now, the |body| can be sitting still because it's clamped in place by 10N of force on both sides, but it can also be moving at 99% the speed of light in either direction indicated by the arrows because the net force is absolutely zero, it won't speed up and it won't slow down.
So, by me saying that it was the acceleration, not the speed, it's because by accelerating, there is force being applied to the body, causing the kinetic energy to increase.
Now, when you're just talking about speed (which you probably mean velocity when it comes to the observer and the mover), given relativistic effects, if you are running away from me and accelerating and approaching C, your mass will increase and mine will not, but, if you are the observer, it looks like I am running away, accelerating and approaching C, however, my mass is not increasing. The fact that energy is being input into you, causing your kinetic energy to increase, what makes you different.
Now, part of Einsteins theory is that when you accelerate, you actually change frames of reference. If two people are standing still, they have the same frame of reference and observe things in a manor that their experiences can be correlated to explain the same motion observed by taking into account their positions relative to each other. Now, two people who have the same velocity (speed and direction) are in the same frame of reference as well, again, you can't tell if you're moving if everything is moving identically with you under constant velocity. BTW, even if your directions changes and your speed doesn't, that is a form of acceleration, and a force is required and you will feel that, so no direction changing allowed.
So, by one party accelerating, in addition to having energy input into their system, they're also changing frames of reference. Every time their speed or direction changes, relative to the things around them, their observations are no longer 1:1 with everything around them.
Speed, in physics terms, is merely (D2-D1)/t, which is a simplistic representation of the actual formula, but that's another discussion, that is really an average. For bodies whose speed changes, you have to have an equation for the motion to get the appropriate instantaneous speed at any point in time.
Velocity is speed in a direction, so it's a two dimensional measurement, the speed and angle, often stated for example like 20m/s @ 37 degrees north of east. Again, for complex motion, equations are required to derive the instantaneous velocity.
Acceleration is the change in velocity over time, like 9.8m/sec^2 which is really 9.8m/s per sec a=(V2-V1)/t, and through substitution, you get d=1/2 * a * t^2
Now that we have that out of the way...
F=m*a (Force equals mass time acceleration)
If I am moving at 99% the speed of light and not slowing down and not speeding up we get
F=m*0 or F=0, so there is no force being applied to the system and no energy being added to the system. So, by merely going very fast, the system is actually in equilibrium. This means that if you had no visual or aural queues and were traveling at the speed of light, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and standing still, as seen in this example...
10N of force ------>|body|
causes |body| to accelerate ---->
10N of force ------>|body|<------10N of force
now, the |body| can be sitting still because it's clamped in place by 10N of force on both sides, but it can also be moving at 99% the speed of light in either direction indicated by the arrows because the net force is absolutely zero, it won't speed up and it won't slow down.
So, by me saying that it was the acceleration, not the speed, it's because by accelerating, there is force being applied to the body, causing the kinetic energy to increase.
Now, when you're just talking about speed (which you probably mean velocity when it comes to the observer and the mover), given relativistic effects, if you are running away from me and accelerating and approaching C, your mass will increase and mine will not, but, if you are the observer, it looks like I am running away, accelerating and approaching C, however, my mass is not increasing. The fact that energy is being input into you, causing your kinetic energy to increase, what makes you different.
Now, part of Einsteins theory is that when you accelerate, you actually change frames of reference. If two people are standing still, they have the same frame of reference and observe things in a manor that their experiences can be correlated to explain the same motion observed by taking into account their positions relative to each other. Now, two people who have the same velocity (speed and direction) are in the same frame of reference as well, again, you can't tell if you're moving if everything is moving identically with you under constant velocity. BTW, even if your directions changes and your speed doesn't, that is a form of acceleration, and a force is required and you will feel that, so no direction changing allowed.
So, by one party accelerating, in addition to having energy input into their system, they're also changing frames of reference. Every time their speed or direction changes, relative to the things around them, their observations are no longer 1:1 with everything around them.
would be the time dilatation a geometric-physical effect?Or just is due ours
calcules that measure the asymmetry equations' motion?
calcules that measure the asymmetry equations' motion?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Apr 14 2007, 01:27 PM)
would be the time dilatation a geometric-physical effect? Or just is due ours calculus that measure the asymmetry equations' motion?
The both, as the equations doesn't work without inertia. And the inertia can still cannot be explained just by equations, by the same way, like the time.
By AWT, whenever the particle is moving through/via Aether foam, it shakes it and it makes it a more dense by the same way, like the soap foam shaking inside of closed vessel. As the result it moves inside of dense blob of Aether formed by de-Broglie wave, which slovens the energy spreading and the clock speed.
The both, as the equations doesn't work without inertia. And the inertia can still cannot be explained just by equations, by the same way, like the time.
By AWT, whenever the particle is moving through/via Aether foam, it shakes it and it makes it a more dense by the same way, like the soap foam shaking inside of closed vessel. As the result it moves inside of dense blob of Aether formed by de-Broglie wave, which slovens the energy spreading and the clock speed.
dear zephir
please send your complete work about AWT.So i will have a amplied idea from yours thoughts.
thank you very much
kind regards
e-mail:antoncar270@yahoo.com.br
please send your complete work about AWT.So i will have a amplied idea from yours thoughts.
thank you very much
kind regards
e-mail:antoncar270@yahoo.com.br
The simple resolution for the "twin paradox" can be summed up in two words:Lorentz contraction. The space travelling twin gets to the distant star and back sooner in his frame of reference than he does in the Earth-fixed frame because he has a shorter distance to go.
Regarding the arguments that fixate on time rather than distance, it is not impossible for two clocks to both be running slower than each other! The reason being that what a given clock does varies from one frame of reference to another.
Regarding the arguments that fixate on time rather than distance, it is not impossible for two clocks to both be running slower than each other! The reason being that what a given clock does varies from one frame of reference to another.
if we think that motion is relative to all frames uniform relative motions,having
the speed of light as constant only one,but generated also through of both
lorentz transformations,then space and time are fusioned,and spacetime are
variables with the speed of light.then the speed of light is variable in the
elliptic curvatures geometry,that become c constant in the rate of dilatation and
contraction of spacetime.then could measure a revesal lorentz transfoprmations,that implies the time with splitted in two times( a calculed in the
closed spacetime curves,as reverse time dilatation,that are the variations( or
deformation of spacetime) of curvatures of the space.is possible that relativistic
effect,(that is asymmetry,therefore space and time are not completely symmetric,thence the absolute motion must not be measured),disappear,the both
the twin in the return of spaceships have the same spacetime.is the elastic effect
in the spacetime with the increase and decrease of the speed,permit these
symmetry changes( topologic changes),that are asymmetries that are annuled
in opposite directions rotations ( spinorial geometry),that does appear two times
ithat generate the spacetime curves,that are variables in correspondence with
the variations of velocity,and thence have the spacetime metrics,some alterations of asymmetry in that rotations would be linked the non-inertial as gravity,where
generates,that metric potential,that are associated to the distortions of the space and time,that are asymmetris,and generate the different spacetime curvatures,depending of twisting and bending( rotations and translations)
the speed of light as constant only one,but generated also through of both
lorentz transformations,then space and time are fusioned,and spacetime are
variables with the speed of light.then the speed of light is variable in the
elliptic curvatures geometry,that become c constant in the rate of dilatation and
contraction of spacetime.then could measure a revesal lorentz transfoprmations,that implies the time with splitted in two times( a calculed in the
closed spacetime curves,as reverse time dilatation,that are the variations( or
deformation of spacetime) of curvatures of the space.is possible that relativistic
effect,(that is asymmetry,therefore space and time are not completely symmetric,thence the absolute motion must not be measured),disappear,the both
the twin in the return of spaceships have the same spacetime.is the elastic effect
in the spacetime with the increase and decrease of the speed,permit these
symmetry changes( topologic changes),that are asymmetries that are annuled
in opposite directions rotations ( spinorial geometry),that does appear two times
ithat generate the spacetime curves,that are variables in correspondence with
the variations of velocity,and thence have the spacetime metrics,some alterations of asymmetry in that rotations would be linked the non-inertial as gravity,where
generates,that metric potential,that are associated to the distortions of the space and time,that are asymmetris,and generate the different spacetime curvatures,depending of twisting and bending( rotations and translations)
I don't see why this is a paradox at all :) Yeah i know :)
i look at it this way, one is traveling at a higher speed. No matter ;) how you want to treat A, B, and the universe, someone have 'created' a faster motion as seen from time. Motion binds relativistic mass, relativistic mass binds time, time will move slower when bound to large amounts of mass. Naturally :) he will be the older one, our 'Earthling when compared to the 'starman' as they meet again. The Earthlings mass never changed, but the 'starmans' did. from that i can draw the conclusion that both mass, gravity, time and motion are intimately bound to the concept of spacetime, also that it will be very difficult to treat them as 'independent' forces to play with. Change one parameter and you will 'persuade' the others. On the other tentacle i find time the hardest parameter to understand. We talk about three states when it comes to time, the past, the now, and the future. Of those three states i only know one. The past. 'Now' will always have passed me by before i noticed :) , and the future is my definition of from a thought up 'past'. So what i define and create my world around, will always be the past, it is from there i build my concepts of a future, and its from there i expect it to exist a now. Now i know that this may seem simplistic but it works for me :)
Now, what the electromagnetic force is i don't know, and what charge is i don't know either, but i'm expecting you guy's and gal's to explain it to me ::))
And yes, the photon is the entity i most closely relate to time.
i look at it this way, one is traveling at a higher speed. No matter ;) how you want to treat A, B, and the universe, someone have 'created' a faster motion as seen from time. Motion binds relativistic mass, relativistic mass binds time, time will move slower when bound to large amounts of mass. Naturally :) he will be the older one, our 'Earthling when compared to the 'starman' as they meet again. The Earthlings mass never changed, but the 'starmans' did. from that i can draw the conclusion that both mass, gravity, time and motion are intimately bound to the concept of spacetime, also that it will be very difficult to treat them as 'independent' forces to play with. Change one parameter and you will 'persuade' the others. On the other tentacle i find time the hardest parameter to understand. We talk about three states when it comes to time, the past, the now, and the future. Of those three states i only know one. The past. 'Now' will always have passed me by before i noticed :) , and the future is my definition of from a thought up 'past'. So what i define and create my world around, will always be the past, it is from there i build my concepts of a future, and its from there i expect it to exist a now. Now i know that this may seem simplistic but it works for me :)
Now, what the electromagnetic force is i don't know, and what charge is i don't know either, but i'm expecting you guy's and gal's to explain it to me ::))
And yes, the photon is the entity i most closely relate to time.
twin paradox is just a relation geometric and topologic between the differents
curvatures that correspond to the moduli of speeds,or the changes of velocities
provoked by the changes of vectors-directions in the curvatures that correspond to the deformations of space and time,and therefore generating the curvatures of spacetimes,through of the asymmetry by rotations between the left-handed and right-handed spins( that is the functionality of the "internal rotations"-measure of space and time).
then the curvatures,with that the twin traveller,has there it inertial referential systems.when it change the direction-vector,in the curve,to return to earth,and appear the opposed curvatures,(that is the antiparticles,with reverse time dilatation,that annule the lorentz transformation( linked to the stuckelberg-feynman
transformations).then the twins would not suffer any alterations in the time,when
the spaceships return to the earth
curvatures that correspond to the moduli of speeds,or the changes of velocities
provoked by the changes of vectors-directions in the curvatures that correspond to the deformations of space and time,and therefore generating the curvatures of spacetimes,through of the asymmetry by rotations between the left-handed and right-handed spins( that is the functionality of the "internal rotations"-measure of space and time).
then the curvatures,with that the twin traveller,has there it inertial referential systems.when it change the direction-vector,in the curve,to return to earth,and appear the opposed curvatures,(that is the antiparticles,with reverse time dilatation,that annule the lorentz transformation( linked to the stuckelberg-feynman
transformations).then the twins would not suffer any alterations in the time,when
the spaceships return to the earth
thats cool with me :)
i'm not trying to convert anyone, i just wanted to tell how i looked at it.
and one thing more. " someone have 'created' a faster motion as seen from ( The observers ) time." :)
That is also a great mystery to me, we are allowed to do that, the universe itself are allowed to do it, but as far as i know, we are the only ones that seems to choose?
Why i put in a 'observer?' Its similar to 'carbonlifes' description of 'absolute /or real/ time' the way you can decide what came before the other event. the observer is that metric, and it seems to me to be a true metric of the universe. we give it different descriptions depending on our views but it does exist.
i'm not trying to convert anyone, i just wanted to tell how i looked at it.
and one thing more. " someone have 'created' a faster motion as seen from ( The observers ) time." :)
That is also a great mystery to me, we are allowed to do that, the universe itself are allowed to do it, but as far as i know, we are the only ones that seems to choose?
Why i put in a 'observer?' Its similar to 'carbonlifes' description of 'absolute /or real/ time' the way you can decide what came before the other event. the observer is that metric, and it seems to me to be a true metric of the universe. we give it different descriptions depending on our views but it does exist.
I'm a latecomer to this thread, and have not participated in the last 10 pages of discussion, but in my mind, this LSU professor has not solved any paradox.
I believe the paradox is this:
EINSTEIN'S POSTULATE: All motion is relative (i.e. there is no absolute reference point in the universe), therefore you cannot say that the space-traveling twin is speeding away and the earth-bound twin is stationary. It's just as true that the space-traveling twin is stationary, and the earth-bound twin is speeding away.
EXPERIMENT: Experiments show that only the space-traveling twin's time is slowed. How can this be true, if it's just as true that the earth-bound twin is speeding away?
THEORY: Maybe it's not the "speed" of the twin, but the acceleration forces that slow the time.
ALTERNATE THEORY: Or maybe Einstein's postulate is wrong and there is an absolute reference point.
---
The LSU professor who claims to have "solved" the paradox by using "distant stars" as a reference point is not solving anything... he's just disregarding Einstein's postulate and using the stars as a general indication of an "absolute reference point".
I believe the paradox is this:
EINSTEIN'S POSTULATE: All motion is relative (i.e. there is no absolute reference point in the universe), therefore you cannot say that the space-traveling twin is speeding away and the earth-bound twin is stationary. It's just as true that the space-traveling twin is stationary, and the earth-bound twin is speeding away.
EXPERIMENT: Experiments show that only the space-traveling twin's time is slowed. How can this be true, if it's just as true that the earth-bound twin is speeding away?
THEORY: Maybe it's not the "speed" of the twin, but the acceleration forces that slow the time.
ALTERNATE THEORY: Or maybe Einstein's postulate is wrong and there is an absolute reference point.
---
The LSU professor who claims to have "solved" the paradox by using "distant stars" as a reference point is not solving anything... he's just disregarding Einstein's postulate and using the stars as a general indication of an "absolute reference point".
The paradox being...
" But, in the previous scenario, the paradox is that the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion – in relation to the sibling – and therefore should be the one aging more slowly. Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory "
First of all, what am i missing here? There is no Paradox according to how i view it, motion exist, its a property of its own not to be confused with time even though it, as everything else we do, takes place in time. There is ways to decide two events place in time as seen from the observer. Einstein didn't explain it? That depends on how you think about it, to me he did explain it even though he didn't explain the absolute 'why' and 'how' this phenomena occur. It is a property of spacetime, not a property of thought, and as i see it as long as you accept spacetime to treat time in this way nothing very complicated to explain.
If you want your universe to be absolutely relativistic, a universe where all 'forces' act on all participants equally regardless of how choose to do what, you're creating a universe that doesn't fit to the specifications we have around us. We have sent up spaceships with clocks, those clocks have slowed down, exactly as could be expected. The spaceships and clocks have returned to Earth, or are someone suggesting that The Earth returned to the Spaceship (then also including the solar system, the galaxy, and yes the whole universe). That would make our universe a frightfully complicated place where all 'laws' we imagine to have would lose their value, except in a 'sandbox'. I'm perfectly satisfied with Einstein's view of how spacetime acts. I still want to know why though. Check out Carbonlifes explanation of the 'gold standard' of time, i don't have the link here but in it he explains why there always will be possible to decide 'events' place in time. Now, if everything is relative this shouldn't be possible, should it? The universe is a ordered place, where things happen according to logic, that's why we believe logic to be the metric to apply when trying to understand it, if i'm wrong and the universe is chaotic? Well, perhaps alchemy and magic would be better then :)
" But, in the previous scenario, the paradox is that the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion – in relation to the sibling – and therefore should be the one aging more slowly. Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory "
First of all, what am i missing here? There is no Paradox according to how i view it, motion exist, its a property of its own not to be confused with time even though it, as everything else we do, takes place in time. There is ways to decide two events place in time as seen from the observer. Einstein didn't explain it? That depends on how you think about it, to me he did explain it even though he didn't explain the absolute 'why' and 'how' this phenomena occur. It is a property of spacetime, not a property of thought, and as i see it as long as you accept spacetime to treat time in this way nothing very complicated to explain.
If you want your universe to be absolutely relativistic, a universe where all 'forces' act on all participants equally regardless of how choose to do what, you're creating a universe that doesn't fit to the specifications we have around us. We have sent up spaceships with clocks, those clocks have slowed down, exactly as could be expected. The spaceships and clocks have returned to Earth, or are someone suggesting that The Earth returned to the Spaceship (then also including the solar system, the galaxy, and yes the whole universe). That would make our universe a frightfully complicated place where all 'laws' we imagine to have would lose their value, except in a 'sandbox'. I'm perfectly satisfied with Einstein's view of how spacetime acts. I still want to know why though. Check out Carbonlifes explanation of the 'gold standard' of time, i don't have the link here but in it he explains why there always will be possible to decide 'events' place in time. Now, if everything is relative this shouldn't be possible, should it? The universe is a ordered place, where things happen according to logic, that's why we believe logic to be the metric to apply when trying to understand it, if i'm wrong and the universe is chaotic? Well, perhaps alchemy and magic would be better then :)
There is no twin paradox. There is however, an error in an assumption made in Relativity. Relativity is correct with respect to changes in clocks and all clock type functions but clocks do not indicate real time.
Real time is past, present, and future. Time is dynamic and there is only one now. If you change real time you would move out of the present into the past time or future time. This is not time travel to past or future events of our universe. Our universe exists at only one position in time at any instant. This ability to move any direction in time without moving to past events is in agreement with time being nothing more then a transition in the time dimension.
The error in the assumption about time is shown when a clock or a twin experiences a change of physical clock function but never leaves the present time. The change of clock functions is a physical change and has nothing to do with time. Clock functions include all physical changes such as aging, chemical, or atomic. As stated in Relativity these changes take place do to velocity or gravity.
This paper is just the recognition that the time distance from the Big Bang is absolute for all objects and functions in the universe. The time distance from the BB does not change with changes in velocity or gravity.
Changes do to velocity or gravity are absolute as indicated by changes in mass with velocity. Acceleration has nothing to do with changes in clock function with velocity. Clock time changes are dependent on the length of time a clock travels at a given velocity. This may be seen with the GPS system. Clocks on the GPS satellites continue to run slower and accumulate less and less time as long as they are in orbit at a higher velocity.
I have stated this explanation many time and have never received a reply in opposition but people go on and on with ideas and theories that have no basis in observation or reality. How do you expect to do real science or understand the universe if you live in denial of reality?
I guess the old saying still applies. “Never let the truth interfere with a good story”
Forget developing theories just try finding the answers to problems and the theories will be the result.
Real time is past, present, and future. Time is dynamic and there is only one now. If you change real time you would move out of the present into the past time or future time. This is not time travel to past or future events of our universe. Our universe exists at only one position in time at any instant. This ability to move any direction in time without moving to past events is in agreement with time being nothing more then a transition in the time dimension.
The error in the assumption about time is shown when a clock or a twin experiences a change of physical clock function but never leaves the present time. The change of clock functions is a physical change and has nothing to do with time. Clock functions include all physical changes such as aging, chemical, or atomic. As stated in Relativity these changes take place do to velocity or gravity.
This paper is just the recognition that the time distance from the Big Bang is absolute for all objects and functions in the universe. The time distance from the BB does not change with changes in velocity or gravity.
Changes do to velocity or gravity are absolute as indicated by changes in mass with velocity. Acceleration has nothing to do with changes in clock function with velocity. Clock time changes are dependent on the length of time a clock travels at a given velocity. This may be seen with the GPS system. Clocks on the GPS satellites continue to run slower and accumulate less and less time as long as they are in orbit at a higher velocity.
I have stated this explanation many time and have never received a reply in opposition but people go on and on with ideas and theories that have no basis in observation or reality. How do you expect to do real science or understand the universe if you live in denial of reality?
I guess the old saying still applies. “Never let the truth interfere with a good story”
Forget developing theories just try finding the answers to problems and the theories will be the result.
Quote: real time is past present and future/ the only real time is now
Hmm: Real conscious presence is now because we are 3D/T beings.
However there is more to the universe than 3 energy-like dimension with 1 time like dimension. Thats my speculation. Time from Alpha <=> Omega could all be present as in now.
When a photon is emitted trillions of years ago then received trillions of years later our 3D perceptions are the passage of time. However in other time-like dimensions the fact is that emission/reception was instantaneous, furthermore the trajectory photon's took in their trillion year seeming journey was determine by our 3D conscious interpretation of time: present: real time: feel free to debate: loll
Hmm: Real conscious presence is now because we are 3D/T beings.
However there is more to the universe than 3 energy-like dimension with 1 time like dimension. Thats my speculation. Time from Alpha <=> Omega could all be present as in now.
When a photon is emitted trillions of years ago then received trillions of years later our 3D perceptions are the passage of time. However in other time-like dimensions the fact is that emission/reception was instantaneous, furthermore the trajectory photon's took in their trillion year seeming journey was determine by our 3D conscious interpretation of time: present: real time: feel free to debate: loll
I found the link wherein carbonlife (guest_carbonlife ) talks about 'Invariant intervals between EVENTS ' Read it. He's very good. The only thing bugging me is that he refers to acceleration as being the time'changing' effect whereas i see motion in itself to be a factor, as i see motion=relativistic mass=slowdown time. Ah well, one can't be happy all time :) http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry134681
So, i wonder wonder why, why do guest_carbonlife refer to acceleration as being the cause of relativistic time. What's wrong with motion? Can anyone enlighten me to what i am missing?
One good thing about thought experiment is that one can really be imaginative. What if universe were like a globe and if twin that had gone on space voyage takes a full circle and returns to same point thus eliminating the acceleration and deceleration.
I was searching for the twin paradox and came across a site that offers a solution..
www.newphysicsworld.com. I am not well versed with these concepts so I cannot make any judgment but arguments in this theory appear to be logical.
www.newphysicsworld.com. I am not well versed with these concepts so I cannot make any judgment but arguments in this theory appear to be logical.
hi,
i understand biological aging to be function of "genes" + environment + genes-environment interaction component.
einstein set up a "physical aging" paradox that when one of a twin goes on a long journey to a distant star at near speed of light then time as observed by him would be slower. (i add for him and him alone) - his gerontion process will be subject to the physical / chemical forces prevalent in the environment there.
can it be true that when he returns he would find his twin much older or even gone on and his twin's grand children living. If he did not take this factor and return soon he might even be returning to the world that has gone on to be something like in the movie "planet of the apes" ?
one complete revolution of the earth around the sun is reckoned as one year - (assuming the speed of earth to be fairly constant). The twin on earth would age normally - reckoned in years. say 20 years go by. the twin on earth would be 50 if his brother started off when they were 30.
something is screwy about the clock carried by the twin on the spaceship if it does not work constantly and show the same time as the time his brother's clock on earth does - and this has a base reference point of one complete revolution of the earth around the sun.
(1) there will be no paradox if reliable clocks/watches were used (2) there will be no paradox if things were not taken for granted - such as speed of light because speed is distance again upon "time" - your time or mine or his?
i understand biological aging to be function of "genes" + environment + genes-environment interaction component.
einstein set up a "physical aging" paradox that when one of a twin goes on a long journey to a distant star at near speed of light then time as observed by him would be slower. (i add for him and him alone) - his gerontion process will be subject to the physical / chemical forces prevalent in the environment there.
can it be true that when he returns he would find his twin much older or even gone on and his twin's grand children living. If he did not take this factor and return soon he might even be returning to the world that has gone on to be something like in the movie "planet of the apes" ?
one complete revolution of the earth around the sun is reckoned as one year - (assuming the speed of earth to be fairly constant). The twin on earth would age normally - reckoned in years. say 20 years go by. the twin on earth would be 50 if his brother started off when they were 30.
something is screwy about the clock carried by the twin on the spaceship if it does not work constantly and show the same time as the time his brother's clock on earth does - and this has a base reference point of one complete revolution of the earth around the sun.
(1) there will be no paradox if reliable clocks/watches were used (2) there will be no paradox if things were not taken for granted - such as speed of light because speed is distance again upon "time" - your time or mine or his?
Acceleration slows time. Look at gravitational time from your head to your feet. It slows.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
Hmmm,
What happens if you take accelleration out of the picture.
Instead of having twin B doing his accelleration in a very short time have him accelerate at earth gravities accelleration of 9.8 M/S/S.
This will create a nice artificial gravity in his ship.
Einstein said that gravity and accelleration are equivalent.
Now the two twins have identical accelleration.
Ignoring relativity, twin B will think he has reached light speed in about 10 years.
So say he continues the accelleration for 15 years to a speed, ignoring relativity of 1.5c and then turns his ship around to decelerate back to zero speed in another 15 years.
So how far does twin b travel? Does he travel the distance corresponding to him having travelled at 1.5c or just a speed close to c? Does he age differently then his twin?
If twin B ages differently than it seems to support a notion that there is such a thing as a zero speed reference. This zero speed reference would have to be related to the average speed of the masses in the vicinity. Still this seems to run contrary to Einstein saying that its all relative. This would almost suggest there is an aether.
Well thats all I got so far.
It just looks like in this case if there is a difference in aging it would have to do with an absolute speed reference. If this is the case I would suggest that the Michelson-Morley experiment was influenced by nearby mass, namely the mass of the Earth creating an absolute zero speed reference but that would lead me back to an aether like theory. It seems to me that the author was trying to put forward a theory of an absolute speed reference created by masses in space, perhaps he is correct but it still seems like a contradiction to Einstein's theory.
What happens if you take accelleration out of the picture.
Instead of having twin B doing his accelleration in a very short time have him accelerate at earth gravities accelleration of 9.8 M/S/S.
This will create a nice artificial gravity in his ship.
Einstein said that gravity and accelleration are equivalent.
Now the two twins have identical accelleration.
Ignoring relativity, twin B will think he has reached light speed in about 10 years.
So say he continues the accelleration for 15 years to a speed, ignoring relativity of 1.5c and then turns his ship around to decelerate back to zero speed in another 15 years.
So how far does twin b travel? Does he travel the distance corresponding to him having travelled at 1.5c or just a speed close to c? Does he age differently then his twin?
If twin B ages differently than it seems to support a notion that there is such a thing as a zero speed reference. This zero speed reference would have to be related to the average speed of the masses in the vicinity. Still this seems to run contrary to Einstein saying that its all relative. This would almost suggest there is an aether.
Well thats all I got so far.
It just looks like in this case if there is a difference in aging it would have to do with an absolute speed reference. If this is the case I would suggest that the Michelson-Morley experiment was influenced by nearby mass, namely the mass of the Earth creating an absolute zero speed reference but that would lead me back to an aether like theory. It seems to me that the author was trying to put forward a theory of an absolute speed reference created by masses in space, perhaps he is correct but it still seems like a contradiction to Einstein's theory.
Very nice :) You got a ferment imagination red :)
I will re read that tomorrow and think (well it should be possible, in theory at least :) some more. It's a very cool concept. how long would he be able to accelerate at that gravity before reaching 'c'? It indicates that there is something i'm missing totally here :)
Ah well, what's new :)
I will re read that tomorrow and think (well it should be possible, in theory at least :) some more. It's a very cool concept. how long would he be able to accelerate at that gravity before reaching 'c'? It indicates that there is something i'm missing totally here :)
Ah well, what's new :)
:oPossibly the professor did something interesting, but you wouldn't know it from this article. The most galling thing about it is the claim that no one could resolve the "paradox", that no prior analysis was satisfactory.
Actually it's quite easy to show that the only mind-boggling thing that underlies the supposed paradox is the fact that the speed of light does not vary, regardless of the speed of the source relative to the detector of the light. In other words, if you measure the speed of light from the headlights of an automobile that is speeding toward you, you get exactly the same value as the one that you get if the automobile is parked and going nowhere.
If you can figure out why that is true, then you've done something. Nothing else about special relativity requires explanation. The fact that the twin who accelerated returns younger than the one who never accelerated follows from the utter constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the frame of reference (regardless of the motion of the source or detector).
I here only assert these things. It takes about 80 pages of a good book on special relativity to show the math. Want to really understand it? Get such a book and read it, carefully.
Actually it's quite easy to show that the only mind-boggling thing that underlies the supposed paradox is the fact that the speed of light does not vary, regardless of the speed of the source relative to the detector of the light. In other words, if you measure the speed of light from the headlights of an automobile that is speeding toward you, you get exactly the same value as the one that you get if the automobile is parked and going nowhere.
If you can figure out why that is true, then you've done something. Nothing else about special relativity requires explanation. The fact that the twin who accelerated returns younger than the one who never accelerated follows from the utter constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the frame of reference (regardless of the motion of the source or detector).
I here only assert these things. It takes about 80 pages of a good book on special relativity to show the math. Want to really understand it? Get such a book and read it, carefully.
Red : Not that i've been thinking overly much, but the notion of his acceleration being the same as the twin's can't be true can it? I mean that acceleration starts from the frame of the twin, right :) So compared to the twin's motion there will be a difference :)
And yeah Mike, you're quite right. Why can't light vary. It's like a reference of absolute definition. No other behavior allowed :) " The fact that the twin who accelerated returns younger than the one who never accelerated follows from the utter constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the frame of reference (regardless of the motion of the source or detector). " Would you like to comment on that one :) Are you binding time to the speed of light? like that mathematical concept that says that time 'has the speed of light' ?? It's a very strange idea, has it been tested experimentally. Awh, the headache :)
And yeah Mike, you're quite right. Why can't light vary. It's like a reference of absolute definition. No other behavior allowed :) " The fact that the twin who accelerated returns younger than the one who never accelerated follows from the utter constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the motion of the frame of reference (regardless of the motion of the source or detector). " Would you like to comment on that one :) Are you binding time to the speed of light? like that mathematical concept that says that time 'has the speed of light' ?? It's a very strange idea, has it been tested experimentally. Awh, the headache :)
With respect to the first comment my reply is as follows:
You are right that light emitted by the head lights of a moving car and a stationary car both move with the same velocity relative to the ground. By Doppler’s law the frequency of light from the moving car is higher. This has nothing to do with the relativity principle. The relativity principle states that light received by a moving car has the same velocity relative to the moving car as it has relative to the ground.
A more interesting example of the relativity principle is as follows. Consider a light wave emitted at time, t = -t1 by a distant galaxy that moves away from us at half the speed of light and received here at the present time, t = 0. The wave has moved relative to us a distance ĉt1, where ĉ is the constant light velocity measured here at time t = 0. The distance moved relative to the emitting galaxy is 1.5 ĉt1. Moreover, since the emitting galaxy moves rapidly relative to us it ages slower than our galaxy. Observers in the distant galaxy would by the same law conclude that it is our galaxy that ages slower.
I find these things unacceptable. If you read my paper you will find an other explanation that is free of such paradoxical assumptions. One changes solutions of present theories of mathematical physics by one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. For example, the light velocity relative to all galaxies slow at this time by about 3 cm/sec per year.
With respect to the second comment I have no reply.
You are right that light emitted by the head lights of a moving car and a stationary car both move with the same velocity relative to the ground. By Doppler’s law the frequency of light from the moving car is higher. This has nothing to do with the relativity principle. The relativity principle states that light received by a moving car has the same velocity relative to the moving car as it has relative to the ground.
A more interesting example of the relativity principle is as follows. Consider a light wave emitted at time, t = -t1 by a distant galaxy that moves away from us at half the speed of light and received here at the present time, t = 0. The wave has moved relative to us a distance ĉt1, where ĉ is the constant light velocity measured here at time t = 0. The distance moved relative to the emitting galaxy is 1.5 ĉt1. Moreover, since the emitting galaxy moves rapidly relative to us it ages slower than our galaxy. Observers in the distant galaxy would by the same law conclude that it is our galaxy that ages slower.
I find these things unacceptable. If you read my paper you will find an other explanation that is free of such paradoxical assumptions. One changes solutions of present theories of mathematical physics by one part in 10.5 billion parts per year. For example, the light velocity relative to all galaxies slow at this time by about 3 cm/sec per year.
With respect to the second comment I have no reply.
It's kind of funny isn't it. When you have a accelerated body emanating light moving towards you the acceleration of that body will translate/transfer to higher energy in the case of light being emitted of said object instead of getting translated/transfered into lights higher velocity.
As for your example of galaxies moving relative each other i do agree that it is a open question which one is moving and which one is f ex standing 'still'. If we only had two objects moving apart from each other it would be impossible to say which one was 'slowing down time' as compared to the other. But as far as i understand it's not motion but acceleration that are the 'suspect' here :)
So let's say that we have two object accelerating from each other, there, as far as i can see, will be no way to say which one is the 'culprit' here and if acceleration slows down time, we won't notice it :) The only way to define relative motion as i see it, is by giving it approximate values defining some point as 'at rest' compared to other points in spacetime. That doesn't mean that Einstein was wrong. His theories have been proved and proved again :) It just means that our frame of reference can't be absolute as in a static environment. But using a dynamic approach carbonlifes description at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry134681 is perfectly correct as far as i understand. And as we don't have any exact point of reference in spacetime this is the only viable approach to defining motion and acceleration.
As for your example of galaxies moving relative each other i do agree that it is a open question which one is moving and which one is f ex standing 'still'. If we only had two objects moving apart from each other it would be impossible to say which one was 'slowing down time' as compared to the other. But as far as i understand it's not motion but acceleration that are the 'suspect' here :)
So let's say that we have two object accelerating from each other, there, as far as i can see, will be no way to say which one is the 'culprit' here and if acceleration slows down time, we won't notice it :) The only way to define relative motion as i see it, is by giving it approximate values defining some point as 'at rest' compared to other points in spacetime. That doesn't mean that Einstein was wrong. His theories have been proved and proved again :) It just means that our frame of reference can't be absolute as in a static environment. But using a dynamic approach carbonlifes description at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry134681 is perfectly correct as far as i understand. And as we don't have any exact point of reference in spacetime this is the only viable approach to defining motion and acceleration.
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 14 2007, 10:58 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
Only the fast moving twin experiences time slowdown. That is why there is no paradox.
The fast moving twin would always see the stay at home twins clock going fast. You cannot have both clock"s going slower than the other.
Relativistic effects are not reciprocal. The application of the reciprocity of relativistic effects is the problem.
Sorry Charlie. Both are not moving from their own frame of reference. Or put another way, to each twin, the other is the one in motion.
Only the fast moving twin experiences time slowdown. That is why there is no paradox.
The fast moving twin would always see the stay at home twins clock going fast. You cannot have both clock"s going slower than the other.
Relativistic effects are not reciprocal. The application of the reciprocity of relativistic effects is the problem.
Sorry Charlie. Both are not moving from their own frame of reference. Or put another way, to each twin, the other is the one in motion.
Overd0g :) how are you thinking here? In the twin paradox one of the ahh, persons :) leave his 'frame' and start to accelerate as compared to his 'old' timeframe, no? Therefore he will exchange acceleration/motion to 'time' as compared with his twin that are 'standing bye', both can't experience the same time dilation.
Only the one traveling as compared to the one 'resting' in the old 'time frame' will find (hmmm:) the 'time stretching'.
Or am i once more bicycling in the blue yonder here :).
I think Nick has it straight there, everything is relative something and nothing can be proved to be at rest except as a reference to something else emanating from that said point , or if you like the observer observing two moving frames as compared from his point of reference or... ?
You are perfectly right in saying that each twin can choose his frame as the non moving one, but only one of them left their (shared) original time frame, so in that aspect i'm in total agreement with Nick. There are no fixed 'unmoving' points in spacetime. No 'exact' points of reference. 'Common' time are a result of belonging to the same restmass and motion/acceleration aka 'timeframe'. We can use stars residing at a very great distance as 'fixed' points, but that doesn't mean that they are unmoving relative us.
Only the one traveling as compared to the one 'resting' in the old 'time frame' will find (hmmm:) the 'time stretching'.
Or am i once more bicycling in the blue yonder here :).
I think Nick has it straight there, everything is relative something and nothing can be proved to be at rest except as a reference to something else emanating from that said point , or if you like the observer observing two moving frames as compared from his point of reference or... ?
You are perfectly right in saying that each twin can choose his frame as the non moving one, but only one of them left their (shared) original time frame, so in that aspect i'm in total agreement with Nick. There are no fixed 'unmoving' points in spacetime. No 'exact' points of reference. 'Common' time are a result of belonging to the same restmass and motion/acceleration aka 'timeframe'. We can use stars residing at a very great distance as 'fixed' points, but that doesn't mean that they are unmoving relative us.
OK, take two cats...
Spatial compression. Two cats traveling on spacecraft accelerating in opposite directions on a curve that will intersect as some point. Each would experience spatial compression due to the acceleration. If the accellerations were the same the same compression would occur and no time dilation would be detected between the two ships. But if one were accellerating at a different rate then the one accellerating at a higher rate would experience less time because of a greater spatial compression. Two cats on spacecraft travelling at constant velocity do not experience any spatial compression and therefore no time dilation. The spatial compression effect is also found in gravity wells, where mass drags at the fabric of space, compressing it, and causing time dilation.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Jul 17 2007, 06:08 PM)
I'm a latecomer to this thread, and have not participated in the last 10 pages of discussion, but in my mind, this LSU professor has not solved any paradox.
I believe the paradox is this:
EINSTEIN'S POSTULATE: All motion is relative (i.e. there is no absolute reference point in the universe), therefore you cannot say that the space-traveling twin is speeding away and the earth-bound twin is stationary. It's just as true that the space-traveling twin is stationary, and the earth-bound twin is speeding away.
EXPERIMENT: Experiments show that only the space-traveling twin's time is slowed. How can this be true, if it's just as true that the earth-bound twin is speeding away?
THEORY: Maybe it's not the "speed" of the twin, but the acceleration forces that slow the time.
ALTERNATE THEORY: Or maybe Einstein's postulate is wrong and there is an absolute reference point.
---
The LSU professor who claims to have "solved" the paradox by using "distant stars" as a reference point is not solving anything... he's just disregarding Einstein's postulate and using the stars as a general indication of an "absolute reference point".
I agree, it sounds as if the LSU professor is simply rotating his frame of reference in order to have a stationary 'point' for the velocity to be referenced to (if that makes any sense at all). in all actuality there is no absolute frame of reference since all parts of the universe (even the fabric itself) are moving relative to all other parts (expansion or contraction).
As far as AE's postulate it implies a velocity vector and not acceleration, which would be different as energy is being applied to one frame and not the other. At constant velocity the vectors would cancel because the frames are moving with equal but opposite vectors therefore, no dilation effect. simple really.
I believe the paradox is this:
EINSTEIN'S POSTULATE: All motion is relative (i.e. there is no absolute reference point in the universe), therefore you cannot say that the space-traveling twin is speeding away and the earth-bound twin is stationary. It's just as true that the space-traveling twin is stationary, and the earth-bound twin is speeding away.
EXPERIMENT: Experiments show that only the space-traveling twin's time is slowed. How can this be true, if it's just as true that the earth-bound twin is speeding away?
THEORY: Maybe it's not the "speed" of the twin, but the acceleration forces that slow the time.
ALTERNATE THEORY: Or maybe Einstein's postulate is wrong and there is an absolute reference point.
---
The LSU professor who claims to have "solved" the paradox by using "distant stars" as a reference point is not solving anything... he's just disregarding Einstein's postulate and using the stars as a general indication of an "absolute reference point".
I agree, it sounds as if the LSU professor is simply rotating his frame of reference in order to have a stationary 'point' for the velocity to be referenced to (if that makes any sense at all). in all actuality there is no absolute frame of reference since all parts of the universe (even the fabric itself) are moving relative to all other parts (expansion or contraction).
As far as AE's postulate it implies a velocity vector and not acceleration, which would be different as energy is being applied to one frame and not the other. At constant velocity the vectors would cancel because the frames are moving with equal but opposite vectors therefore, no dilation effect. simple really.
QUOTE (rshelton3000+Oct 3 2007, 02:56 PM)
Spatial compression. Two cats traveling on spacecraft accelerating in opposite directions on a curve that will intersect as some point. Each would experience spatial compression due to the acceleration. If the accellerations were the same the same compression would occur and no time dilation would be detected between the two ships. But if one were accellerating at a different rate then the one accellerating at a higher rate would experience less time because of a greater spatial compression. Two cats on spacecraft travelling at constant velocity do not experience any spatial compression and therefore no time dilation. The spatial compression effect is also found in gravity wells, where mass drags at the fabric of space, compressing it, and causing time dilation.
Just a thought.
Just a thought? Does this all make sense to you?
Just a thought.
Just a thought? Does this all make sense to you?
QUOTE (rshelton3000+Oct 3 2007, 02:56 PM)
The spatial compression effect is also found in gravity wells, where mass drags at the fabric of space, compressing it, and causing time dilation.
Are you saying that this fabric has some sort of texture that causes mass to "drag".
How strong is this fabric? With all of this dragging from encounters with mass, does this fabric get worn out or lose some of its substance in the dragging?
Are you saying that this fabric has some sort of texture that causes mass to "drag".
How strong is this fabric? With all of this dragging from encounters with mass, does this fabric get worn out or lose some of its substance in the dragging?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.