0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Although i am not sure what you mean by your statement that acceleration is not relative, but doesnt that imply that there is some prefered speed of objects, or absolute motion?
quote: the way i understand it, you are saying that an object somehow keeps track of wether it has been accelerated for the entirety of its' lifespan, in order to make sure that pilot a is in fact older than pilot b. Are you saying that the twin paradox occurs only in the period in which an object is accelerated. so if an object accelerates for a period of one second, does that mean that is the maximum amount of time in which his time can be off for the twins? because once they stop accelerating all frames of reference are equal right?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13i've read, the stella and terrance phenomena for an explanation of the twin paradox. And to me it seems like a way of masking the problem. Both points of view are still equally applicable, the article states that when stella is leaving terrance, terrance views a redshift when shes moving away and a blue shift when shes coming forth. BUT WHY DOESNT STELLA VIEW A REDSHIFT. The article doesn't say that in order for this to work terrance is the only one to observe the redshift. Are we now stating that if you were ACTUALLY accelerated, then you are free from observing the redshift and you are in fact, the actual, prefered, absolute, frame of reference?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13BUT WHY DOESNT STELLA VIEW A REDSHIFT.
quote:Originally posted by Roy PHow do we *know* Stella doesn't see a redshift?
quote:Originally posted by ukmickybut if stella is traveling at 99% of c wouldnt the space in front of her be Length Contracted shortening the wavelength of any photons in front of her, blue shifting everything.
quote:The regular pulses are redshifted to lower frequencies during the Outbound Leg, and blueshifted to higher frequencies during the Inbound Leg … And Stella computes the same for Terence … Stella sees what Terence sees: a slow clock on the Outbound Leg, a fast clock on the Inbound Leg.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Okay, so if they both see redshifts on the outbound leg, and they both see blue shifts on the inbound leg, whys one older?
quote:All well and good, but this discussion at first just seems to sharpen the paradox! Stella sees what Terence sees: a slow clock on the Outbound Leg, a fast clock on the Inbound Leg. Whence comes the asymmetry between Stella and Terence?Answer: in the duration of the Inbound and Outbound Legs, as seen. For Stella, each Leg takes about a year. Terence maintains that Stella's Turnaround takes place at year 7 at a distance of nearly 7 light-years, so he won't see it until nearly year 14. Terence sees an Outbound Leg of long duration, and an Inbound Leg of very short duration.So there's the fundamental asymmetry: the switch from redshift to blueshift occurs at Stella's Turnaround. Stella sees Terence's telescopic image age slowly on her Outbound Leg, but the image more than makes up for its dawdling on the Inbound Leg. Terence sees Stella's image off to a slow start too, but here the image's final burst of rapid aging comes too late to win the race.
quote:All well and good, but this discussion at first just seems to sharpen the paradox! Stella sees what Terence sees: a slow clock on the Outbound Leg, a fast clock on the Inbound Leg. Whence comes the asymmetry between Stella and Terence?Answer: in the duration of the Inbound and Outbound Legs, as seen. For Stella, each Leg takes about a year ... Terence sees an Outbound Leg of long duration, and an Inbound Leg of very short duration.So there's the fundamental asymmetry: the switch from redshift to blueshift occurs at Stella's Turnaround. Stella sees Terence's telescopic image age slowly on her Outbound Leg, but the image more than makes up for its dawdling on the Inbound Leg. Terence sees Stella's image off to a slow start too, but here the image's final burst of rapid aging comes too late to win the race. [In other words, Terrance sees Stella's clock as not going fast enough on the return leg to catch up with the time on his own clock.]
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13All subtle ways to provide terrance with a superior frame of reference while keeping einsteins postulate that, there is no prefered intertial frame, intact(meaning all motion is relative) My rebuttle has been consistent. Granted all frames of reference are equally valid WHY WOULDN'T STELLA VIEW TERRANCE ACCELERATING?WHY WOULDN'T STELLA VIEW TERRANCE REDSHIFTED? WHY WOULDN'T STELLA VIEW TERRANCE'S TURNAROUND EVENT?Anybody want to become part of the fourth bold statement?[8D]
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13okay I've been away for a little while, where to start. first off, your initial rebuttal says, acceleration is not relative, or you can tell that you are accelerating. This is simply not the case, you can only tell you are accelerating relative to another object. For example, if you are driving a car and you hit the gas, you consequently feel a push from the seat, this is not because YOU are accelerating but the car is, and is pushing you forward. So lets say you painted the windows black and you hit the gas again, this time some force from within your body is pushing you forward, so you and the car are accelerating equally. In this case, you dont feel any push, so how do you SENSE you are accelerating?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Come on, you gonna let me get away with that?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13okay i've been away for a little while, where to start. first off, your initial rebutal says, acceleration is not relative, or you can tell that you are accelerating. This is simply not the case, you can only tell you are accelerating relative to another object. For example, if you are driving a car and you hit the gas, you consequently feel a push from the seat, this is not because YOU are accelerating but the car is, and is pushing you forward. So lets say you painted the windows black and you hit the gas again, this time some force from within your body is pushing you forward, so you and the car are accelerating equally. In this case, you dont feel any push, so how do you SENSE you are accelerating?
quote:Secondly, lets not deflect attention to acceleration because although einstein does say, only inertial frames of reference are equal, einsteins' time dilation equation is not based on acceleration, it is based on relative velocities. And this phenomena does not soley exist in the moments an object is non inertial.
quote:It seems like I still see the same mistakes I was talking about in my last post, with your rebuttal of my statement, why doesn't stella view a redshift. you say it is a question of how long terrance will be redshifted. So my fourth bold statement is,WHY WOULDNT STELLA VIEW TERRANCE REDSHIFTED AS LONG?You also state that it is not a question of wether terrance will view stella to turn around but when.So my fifth bold statement isWHY WOULDNT STELLA VIEW TERRANCE TURNING AROUND AT THE SAME TIME?To get to the heart of my argument, how can you distinguish between two objects using relative motion, when both motions have to be exactly equal at all times?
quote:you also say I am paying to much attention to the visual, I dont think so, all experiments are observed not sensed. Although im not sure where you were going with that.
quote:Also, I just glanced over your second post, you say,I don't know the exact ways it resolves itself, but what one can say is that pilots a and b do not, and cannot, exist in isolation, but exist within the context of the wider universe, which does influence the space within it, and so these pilots, in their space ships must have a motion relative to the motion of the total universe.This is a blatant example of absolute motion. Given newtons third law, every action has an equal an opposite reaction, the overall motion of the universe has to remain constant, or absolute, you might say. so anything relative to the universe as a whole is as absolute a velocity as they come. Secondly, this is clearly not what einstein was saying, he says any non inertial frame of reference is equally valid, not just the frame of reference which is, the entire universe.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Okay so, when I said if a force was acting on your body and the car unifomly, I wasnt implying that I knew of machines that did so, Einstein didnt have to know how to make floating elevators in outer space and build trains that can approach the speed of light. And I didnt think that baseball players would be able to hit baseballs 99.999999999 percent the speed of light, I was assuming if you could. If you need more examples, why dont you ask a goldfish? whose body is exactly the same density as water(in real life its just similar, were assuming here people) fill his fishbowl completely with water, so no air remains, and seal the top. Make sure you paint the bowl black so he can not see outside. Now accelerate the bowl all you want, in a perfectly controlled experiment he has no way of knowing how much he accelerated.
quote:If any object is accelerating uniformly with its surroundings, no experiment can be done to determine acceleration. Unless you fellas can think of one?
quote:You guys need to break yourselves of always thinking of everything in absolute terms, or you will never understand special relativity. Special relativity works with every object, relative to every other object. If you need to bring in more than one reference frame to explain this phenomema, then you are contradicting Einstein.
quote:The theory was called "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to inertial frames.
quote:A fundamental principle of all physics is the equivalence of inertial reference frames. In practical terms, this equivalence means that scientists living inside an enclosed box moving uniformly cannot detect their motion by any experiment done exclusively inside the box.By contrast, bodies are subject to so-called fictitious forces in non-inertial reference frames; that is, forces that result from the acceleration of the reference frame itself and not from any physical force acting on the body. Examples of fictitious forces are the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force in rotating reference frames. Therefore, scientists living inside a box that is being rotated or otherwise accelerated can measure their acceleration by observing the fictitious forces on bodies inside the box.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13You also state that it is not a question of wether terrance will view stella to turn around but when.So my fifth bold statement isWHY WOULDNT STELLA VIEW TERRANCE TURNING AROUND AT THE SAME TIME?
quote:Relativity of simultaneity means that events that are considered to be simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in another reference frame moving with respect to the first. For example imagine there were volcanoes located on Mars and Venus. We on earth may see these two volcanoes on the different planets erupt and conclude (after appropriate corrections for light travel) that the eruptions were simultaneous; we could calculate the Greenwich Mean Time at which the eruptions occurred. The inhabitants of a distant galaxy, travelling away from ours at a great speed, may one day observe these same eruptions and find that they were not simultaneous, that one occurred before the other. The concept of “simultaneous” or “simultaneity” is not an absolute, but a relative property – it depends on one’s frame of reference.In Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, relative simultaneity seems to be inextricably linked with the (logically) separate phenomenon of time dilation, which concerns the different rates at which time passes (or identical clocks tick) in two different reference frames. However these two different things are not necessarily linked. For example, Einstein’s (1960) demonstration of relativity of simultaneity (lightning strikes both ends of a moving train, seen as simultaneous on the embankment but not on the train) makes no reference to clocks or the rates at which they are running. No conclusions need be drawn about the rate of moving clocks from this example alone.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13how do you put links in posts?
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Um actually, I dont really feel like learning links right now
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13And to anothersomeone, your accelerometer would not work if it was accelerating uniformly with whatever it was measuring. Im not talking about accelerating it by pushing a side of the accelerometer. The meter has to be uniformly acclerating with its surroundings. Would your meter work free falling in a gravitational field? Key word, free falling. Also there is a big difference between using internal systems and using absolute motion.
quote:gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime One of the defining features of general relativity is the idea that gravitational 'force' is replaced by geometry. In general relativity, phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories) are taken in general relativity to represent inertial motion in a curved spacetime. So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13I knew I would get that response if I brought up gravity. That free falling accelerometers don't work because gravity doesn't "really" accelerate things. Regardless of that, if you accelerate an accelerometer, uniformly with its surroundings it still gets no reading. Even if you don't use gravity.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13you can use multiple forces, in whatever magnitudes. Your argument is that it is impossible to accelerate an object uniformly without using gravity, that is not the case.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13yes, use multiple forces to accelerate the atoms equally.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13Then use Electric charge, and Nuclear strong force. Cant you just drop this argument? The only way you can win is if you prove that accelerating an object uniformly is impossible. Which makes einsteins equivalence principle meaningless. Im implying if you did, what would happen, I dont need to make the experiment.
quote:Originally posted by thebrain13lets say there are two spaceships containing one pilot each, they are identical twins of course. We'll call them pilot a and pilot b. pilot b fires his engines and travels at 99 percent the speed of light away from pilot a for one year. Then turns around and comes back. Einstain says that from pilot a's perspective pilot b would have aged less than him. However Since velocity is relative to each observer, pilot b sees pilot a speeding away from him and then returning. So pilot b should see a younger pilot a. So my question is when the two meet each other after the trip which one is younger?
quote:. Einstain says that from pilot a's perspective pilot b would have aged less than him.