Simple question about SR paradox

On May 23, 6:14*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 23, 1:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On May 23, 6:26 am, Marc Fleury wrote:

To the point I want clarity on. *I assume I have two inertial frames,
with an atomic clock in each of them. *They have a relative velocity
of v. *SR tells us that the coordinates are lorentz transformed so
that time in both frames with respect to the other has to be
multiplied by sqrt(1-v/c^2) bla bla bla the usual "time slows down in
a moving framework". *I have no problem with slowing down 'time'
understood as coordinates (meaning with no physical, or ontological,
reality and just props in my calculations) but have a profound problem
admitting that both CLOCKS (as counting ticks) will slow down with
respect to the other. *Just by symmetry of the problem, the
proposition seems non-sensical to me.

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved. *
Bull****!
Yet, when you
ask each self-styled physicist, each one will tell you a bull****
resolution or wild interpretation with no sound mathematical basis in
which each one is contradictory of the others. *
You have not addressed any physical arguments. For example, you
have addressed neither Prai Jei's resolution or my own.
As predicted by "1treePetrifiedForset," you will not address any
our arguments till "Hell freezes over." However, I have to disagree
with him on one point. You will not address any our arguments even
after "Hell freezes over".

On May 23, 8:47 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:

So what would happen if the Twins paradox was actually tried?

It has been, several times, in several different ways. Measurements are in
agreement with the predictions of relativity (SR or GR, depending on details).

This is just not true. SR predicts the fallacy in the Twins’
paradox. In real life, one would expect no such paradox. shrug

IMHO the best is by Bailey et al.
* Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol.
. . .

All these experiments show no such twins’ paradox and thus
definitively prove SR wrong. Only the ignorant, the stupid, and the
zealous are claiming otherwise. shrug

On May 23, 10:56*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote: Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

* * *May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
* * What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
* * By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
* * *The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
* * If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

very simply put this is not the twins paradox. At all.

Landau (in a post in another thread) is bang on, but dismisses the
symmetry based on the fact that you have to compare one clock to many
other clocks and that is not symmetric. refer to the other threads.

On 24 mayo, 14:52, Marc Fleury wrote:
On May 23, 10:56*pm, Darwin123 wrote:









On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote: Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

* * *May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
* * What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
* * By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
* * *The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
* * If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

very simply put this is not the twins paradox. At all.

Landau (in a post in another thread) is bang on, but dismisses the
symmetry based on the fact that you have to compare one clock to many
other clocks and that is not symmetric. refer to the other threads.

You are quite wrong in that Landau dismisses symmetry. What he does is
explain why, using relatively moving inertial frames, observers
located at any one of those inertial frames and performing measures of
moving clocks, will determine that those relatively moving clocks run
slow compared with the observers local clocks.
Landau is also quite clear in explaining that the measure of those
moving clocks has to be done by locating several observer helpers,
with synchronized clocks, which take note of the moving clocks
readings.

But Artful, in post number 7, already has shown to you a nice diagram
illustrating all these concepts, so why you keep on insisting you do
not understand is really curious.

Miguel Rios

Miguel Rios

On May 24, 9:06*pm, " wrote:
On 24 mayo, 14:52, Marc Fleury wrote:









On May 23, 10:56*pm, Darwin123 wrote:

On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote: Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

* * *May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
* * What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
* * By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
* * *The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
* * If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

very simply put this is not the twins paradox. At all.

Landau (in a post in another thread) is bang on, but dismisses the
symmetry based on the fact that you have to compare one clock to many
other clocks and that is not symmetric. refer to the other threads.

You are quite wrong in that Landau dismisses symmetry. What he does is
explain why, using relatively moving inertial frames, observers
located at any one of those inertial frames and performing measures of
moving clocks, will determine that those relatively moving clocks run
slow compared with the observers local clocks.
Landau is also quite clear in explaining that the measure of those
moving clocks has to be done by locating several observer helpers,
with synchronized clocks, which take note of the moving clocks
readings.

But Artful, in post number 7, already has shown to you a nice diagram
illustrating all these concepts, so why you keep on insisting you do
not understand is really curious.

Miguel Rios

Miguel Rios

From Landau:

We see that "to compare the rates of clocks in two reference
frames we require several clocks in one frame and one in the other",
and that therefore this process is not symmetric with respect to the
two systems.

On May 24, 9:06*pm, " wrote:
On 24 mayo, 14:52, Marc Fleury wrote:









On May 23, 10:56*pm, Darwin123 wrote:

On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote: Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

* * *May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
* * What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
* * By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
* * *The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
* * If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

very simply put this is not the twins paradox. At all.

Landau (in a post in another thread) is bang on, but dismisses the
symmetry based on the fact that you have to compare one clock to many
other clocks and that is not symmetric. refer to the other threads.

You are quite wrong in that Landau dismisses symmetry. What he does is
explain why, using relatively moving inertial frames, observers
located at any one of those inertial frames and performing measures of
moving clocks, will determine that those relatively moving clocks run
slow compared with the observers local clocks.
Landau is also quite clear in explaining that the measure of those
moving clocks has to be done by locating several observer helpers,
with synchronized clocks, which take note of the moving clocks
readings.

But Artful, in post number 7, already has shown to you a nice diagram
illustrating all these concepts, so why you keep on insisting you do
not understand is really curious.

Miguel Rios

Because I honestly do not understand. I have read the andersen and
artful post. Similar to the landau thought experiment (with k k'
frameworks). I have simplified it in the other threads. I still
reach a "syntax error".

On 24 mayo, 15:11, Marc Fleury wrote:
On May 24, 9:06*pm, " wrote:


From Landau:

We see that "to compare the rates of clocks in two reference
frames we require several clocks in one frame and one in the other",
and that therefore this process is not symmetric with respect to the
two systems.

Let us say I have a set of very stable atomic clocks. I am at rest in
an inertial frame and provide some of these clocks to some helpers,
who slowly move to certain locations along the trajectory of your
inertial frame through my frame (that is, you are moving at a speed v
with respect to my frame and I am moving at a speed -v with respect to
your frame). You, on the other hand already got some of these atomic
clocks (all of them, mine, the helpers and yours were synchronized
before the experiment) and some helpers in your frame are provided
with some clocks, and also them move slowly to certain locations along
your frame where I (with my clock) will be passing by (this is exactly
Artful diagram in words).

Well I can assure (for instance, by keeping a couple of those clocks)
that my local clock is ticking at a rate of 1 tick per second. You on
your local frame also can verify that your clock is ticking at one
click per second (you can also check a couple of clocks at your
location to be sure). Now helpers at my frame will see your clock,
whenever your movement makes yourself going through the helpers
location, and they can compare the readings of their local clock with
the reading of your passing clock (see the diagram of artful) and
notice that your clock is ticking slow compared with their clocks.
Vice versa, Your helpers make the same observation about my clock
being slow compared with the clock of your helpers, the instant I pass
through your helpers location.

That is all to it...very simple. From my inertial frame, your clock is
reading slow and from your inertial frame, my clock is running slow.
No contradiction at all.

Miguel Rios

On May 24, 2:52*pm, Marc Fleury wrote:
On May 23, 10:56*pm, Darwin123 wrote:









On May 23, 4:39*pm, Prai Jei wrote: Koobee Wublee set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

This is the twins’ paradox, and it is never resolved.

How much acceleration does the travelling twin experience as he turns round?

How much acceleration does the stay-at-home twin experience as the
travelling twin turns round?

There ain't no symmetry between the twins.

Twin paradox resolved.

* * *May I add the the acceleration that breaks the symmetry has to be
associated with an external force on the observer's instruments.
* * What confuses people is the mistaken belief that there is no
absolute acceleration in SR. There is no absolute velocity in SR but
there is absolute acceleration.
* * By absolute acceleration, I mean the external force on the
observer's instrument divided by the mass of the instrument. Perhaps I
should call that the dynamic force.
* * *The dynamic force places the observer in a series of inertial
frames. The observer can not stay in one inertial frame if a dynamic
force is acting upon it. Therefore, the law of reciprocity does not
apply to an observer that switches from one inertial frame to the
other. In this one sense, the force is important in SR.
* * If there were no such thing as absolute acceleration, then the
cranks would be right. There would be a symmetry between the twins.

very simply put this is not the twins paradox. At all.

Landau (in a post in another thread) is bang on, but dismisses the
symmetry based on the fact that you have to compare one clock to many
other clocks and that is not symmetric. refer to the other threads.
This is the twins conundrum. It is not a paradox because an
external force acts on the rocket twin and not on the earth twin.
In order to turn around, the rocket has to turn on its engine. A
contact force is applied to all the instruments in the rocket,
including the twin himself. The measurement protocols correct for all
effects of the stress on the instruments. The instruments and the twin
supposedly is immune to the stress caused by the contact forces.
However, the force has an effect on the objects other then stress.
The force effects the time as seen by rocket twin, not earth twin.
Unless some force accelerates the earth twin.
I will put it another way. The twin in the rocket is jumping
through several inertial frames. While a force is acting on him, his
instruments are passing from one inertial frame to another. Therefore,
the law of reciprocity can not apply to the rocket twin. While the
rocket twin stays in one inertial frame, the law of reciprocity
applies to him. The same laws of the universe that apply to him
applies to all inertial frames. However, while he jumps frames then
different laws of physics applies to him then to his earth twin.

On May 24, 9:36*pm, " wrote:
On 24 mayo, 15:11, Marc Fleury wrote:

On May 24, 9:06*pm, " wrote:

From Landau:

We see that "to compare the rates of clocks in two reference
frames we require several clocks in one frame and one in the other",
and that therefore this process is not symmetric with respect to the
two systems.

Let us say I have a set of very stable atomic clocks. I am at rest in
an inertial frame and provide some of these clocks to some helpers,
who slowly move to certain locations along the trajectory of your
inertial frame through my frame (that is, you are moving at a speed v
with respect to my frame and I am moving at a speed -v with respect to
your frame). You, on the other hand already got some of these atomic
clocks (all of them, mine, the helpers and yours were synchronized
before the experiment) and some helpers in your frame are provided
with some clocks, and also them move slowly to certain locations along
your frame where I (with my clock) will be passing by (this is exactly
Artful diagram in words).


yes

Well I can assure (for instance, by keeping a couple of those clocks)
that my local clock is ticking at a rate of 1 tick per second. You on
your local frame also can verify that your clock is ticking at one
click per second (you can also check a couple of clocks at your
location to be sure). Now helpers at my frame will see your clock,
whenever your movement makes yourself going through the helpers
location, and they can compare the readings of their local clock with
the reading of your passing clock (see the diagram of artful) and
notice that your clock is ticking slow compared with their clocks.
Vice versa, Your helpers make the same observation about my clock
being slow compared with the clock of your helpers, the instant I pass
through your helpers location.

yes, this is what SR says.

That is all to it...very simple. From my inertial frame, your clock is
reading slow and from your inertial frame, my clock is running slow.
No contradiction at all.

Yes that is what SR says, but again I simplify the example and reach
(in my mind at least) a contradiction.

Take the 2 clocks in K and one in L. K and L are inertial in v
relative movement. I will go fast, since you seem to be quick so won't
waste your time with all the ASCII art (plus already did it in other
threads).

Event 0 clock K0 and L0 are together
Event 1 clock K1 and L0 are together

Event 0 and Event 1 happen irrespectively of an observer. At event
one,
in the K frame: L0: 1000 K1: 800
in the L frame: L0: 800 K1: 1000

we are talking about the same simultaneous event where the clocks K1
and L0 crossing. The readings of the clock is unique. Do you really
mean you do not see a contradiction here?

Miguel Rios

accelerating atoms with internal (angular) momenta;
wheee!