|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Aug 30, 2008 07:18
Thanks to the ever enlighted and enlightening BOfL I came across this
page.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
If anyone could please point out the error in the following, I would
appreciate it.
The paradox begins with twins, named Unprime and Prime, at a train
station, each of their watches reading the same time. One of the twins
leaves the station so the rest of it has to do with the relationship of
differences between their watches and the clock at a distant station
relative to speed which alters physical state.
It begins with this:
==================================
Unprime's Observations: At the Start
Unprime observes his own watch to read t=0 as Prime is racing off at
velocity v. Unprime also sees that Prime's watch reads t'=0.
===================================
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
|
| | 10 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Daniel T.Daniel T. Date: Aug 30, 2008 20:09
In article X.net>, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:
> Thanks to the ever enlighted and enlightening BOfL I came across this
> page.
>
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
>
>
> If anyone could please point out the error in the following, I would
> appreciate it.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Aug 31, 2008 08:12
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:09:42 -0400, Daniel T. wrote:
> You might like this:
Yes, excellent thank you.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Aug 31, 2008 10:06
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:11:11 -0400, Art wrote:
>>A difference in watch time could be seen given any distance, for
>>instance the same watch would show a different time if held at arms
>>length as compared to any shorter distance from the eye. The two watches
>>were different before any movement took place at all.
>
> No. The watches are are both set to read zero at the start of the trip.
Thanks for your reply and possible patience.
I am saying how the watches are set is not how the watches are seen to be.
The length of time needed for light to reach the eye of the observer
would seem to rule out any possibility of 'clock zero' being in the same
instant as 'seen zero'.
Absolute zero inside of an "absolute present" being a necessity in all of
this making any difference significant if differences compound with
distance.
> The Doppler effect is not involved in this analysis
I do not understand how if an object in motion reflects or generates
something with speed to a receiver... Here, can't the Doppler effect be
seen in terms of color shift at least?
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Aug 31, 2008 11:39
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:06:53 +0000, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:11:11 -0400, Art wrote:
>
>>>A difference in watch time could be seen given any distance, for
>>>instance the same watch would show a different time if held at arms
>>>length as compared to any shorter distance from the eye. The two watches
>>>were different before any movement took place at all.
>>
>> No. The watches are are both set to read zero at the start of the trip.
>
>Thanks for your reply and possible patience.
>
>I am saying how the watches are set is not how the watches are seen to be.
>The length of time needed for light to reach the eye of the observer
>would seem to rule out any possibility of 'clock zero' being in the same
>instant as 'seen zero'.
|
| Show full article (3.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Sep 1, 2008 06:54
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:57 -0400, Art wrote:
>> I am saying how the watches are set is not how the watches are seen to
be.
>> The length of time needed for light to reach the eye of the observer
>> would seem to rule out any possibility of 'clock zero' being in the
same
>> instant as 'seen zero'
> And I pointed out that such a consideration is so miniscule compared
> to the time of the trip (measured in years) that it's irrelevant. In
> any event, special relativity is a mathematical construction and
> derivation so that one _defines_ both starting times as zero.
I am not making the observer/observed distinction clear. Would the same
hold true if the two watches were 2 light years apart at the beginning?
> Insofar as "mistaking" time for "change" isn't aging a "change"? Don't
> clocks "measure" that "change"? I fail to see any problem here, so far
> as physics and physical realities are concerned.
The problem, as I see it, is in the number. The unit used to objectify
change, as you put it. It seems to have moved into a metaphorical world
or was so from the start.
|
| Show full article (2.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Sep 1, 2008 07:33
On Sep 1, 9:54Â am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:57 -0400, Art wrote:
>>> I am saying how the watches are set is not how the watches are seen to
> be.
>>> The length of time needed for light to reach the eye of the observer
>>> would seem to rule out any possibility of 'clock zero' being in the
> same
>>> instant as 'seen zero'
>> And I pointed out that such a consideration is so miniscule compared
>> to the time of the trip (measured in years) that it's irrelevant. In
>> any event, special relativity is a mathematical construction and
>> derivation so that one _defines_ Â both starting times as zero.
>
> I am not making the observer/observed distinction clear. Would the same
> hold true if the two watches were 2 light years apart at the beginning?
>
Sure. The clocks would be synchronized to a third clock equidistant
from the two.
|
| Show full article (3.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Sep 2, 2008 06:35
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:25 -0700, tg wrote:
> The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing
> the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I)
> get confused is in trying to shoehorn a particular case into a
> particular model/interpretation/simile/intuition/whatever.
Yes, agree. These analogies are given to illuminate. I just take it from
there.
Another is the recent description of time as dimension is 'the meeting'.
A person gives geographical directions to a meeting place but must also
give a time when the meeting is to happen. therefore....
Another is the teacup falling off of a table.. and so on.
These are very interesting and even more so in questioning them.
> You have to be careful, particularly if you want to claim Eastern- ness,
> not to cling to your version as if it is any less of an illusion than
> any other.
I certainly agree but one has to start somewhere and use some thing or
other. My attempt is to cling to a logic which is not just 'my' logic.
So the reason for the post is to see how this stands up to challenge.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Sep 3, 2008 08:11
On Sep 2, 9:35Â am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:33:25 -0700, tg wrote:
>> The point is that there are a number of metaphorical ways of describing
>> the case, and your own interpretation is just one of them. Where we (I)
>> get confused is in trying to shoehorn a particular case into a
>> particular model/interpretation/simile/intuition/whatever.
>
> Yes, agree. These analogies are given to illuminate. I just take it from
> there.
>
> Another is the recent description of time as dimension is 'the meeting'.
> A person gives geographical directions to a meeting place but must also
> give a time when the meeting is to happen. therefore....
>
> Another is the teacup falling off of a table.. and so on.
>
> These are very interesting and even more so in questioning them.
>
>> You have to be careful, particularly if you want to claim Eastern- ness,
>> not to cling to your version as if it is any less of an illusion than ...
|
| Show full article (2.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
