On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not follow your description of the trains. What is the purpose of > the relative speed being 99.9%c during construction? > Because the reason given for which twin in the classic twin paradox is younger comes down to acceleration, the acceleration is asymmetrical giving as answer that one twin is younger due to experiencing time differently. If the moving train is 'native' to the near light speed frame, and if the other train is likewise native to it's frame, then we have a symmetrical situation. This removes SR's ability to pick which twin should be younger, and it allows us in the final moments of the experiment to continue with the symmetry, or let one twin be younger and one older by creating an asymmetry, which depends on how the trains match velocity! The biggest issue is that we can't have twins in the 2 reference frames 'naturally'. The solution to this is for the 2 non twin observers to quickly establish the rate of times passage and the current 'time' on the other train as they are momentarily aligned (actually with a train you can observe times rates in multiple carriages and read the time on multiple clocks) and before they undergo almost instantaneous velocity changes. Changes that would decide, (in twin speak) if one is old and one is young, or both are middle aged. You should be asking about the muon lifetime dilation which has been > proven. Muons are not conscious, do not carry clocks (besides that of their demise). And have no control over their velocity. Interestingly this makes them immune to time dilation if you insist that time dilation only applies in twin paradox conditions, then didn't accelerate, leave, stop, turn around, accelerate again, stop again. They just flew through, and yet they are 'yonger' on account of not having decayed when expected. As for how I explain it, they are experiencing absolute time dilation due to movement through the aether that is entrained to the Earth Laboratory frame. Use that one for your example if you want to understand how SR works. I > fail to see why you insist upon such weird thought experiments that can not > be tested when we have actual examples to analyze. > As I said, you can't get muons to do anything interesting, lazy bastards. All they do is decay. Almost the solution to cold fusion, but no, again they are too lazy to even get that right! Also the thought experiments CAN be tested, even easily at walking speeds if we had precise enough clocks! Remember electrons create magnetic fields with relativistic length contraction from moving at the dizzying speeds of a snail. Now that is not as dramatic for thought experiment purposes, hey thought experiments have unlimited imaginary budgets and vaguely possible technology from the distant future. Why think small. > I came to the conclusion earlier that it is not productive to discuss > these issues with you since you fail to accept normal electromagnetic > phenomenon. Um, you fail to accept glaring paradoxes. But please, tell me what normal electromagnetic phenomena I do not accept? I am genuinely interested because before I was arguing about electromagnetism from a SR point of view, and you may have notices I do not agree with SR. In other words I was not talking about what I believed. Do you still insist that a moving charge does not generate a magnetic field > in a stationary lab? I have never argued to the contrary, and still do not. The only argument I have made is that if the observer is moving with the charge, then according to SR he should not see a magnetic field from that charge. But according to my own beliefs, if the charge is moving through the lab/earth entrained aether, then it would create a magnetic field even for an observer moving with the charge. However while I want to believe this last one, I merely think it is more likely and not certain. If you tried the same with magnetism you would not see and voltage induced in the coil if it moves with the magnet, not from any reference frame. > And do you still believe that every observer at different relative > velocities to that charged particle must see the exact same magnetic field? If you read our long discussion, you will see I always argues the exact opposite! This is creepy dude, seriously. Bill Beaty has a page on this sort of thing. That is essentially what you were arguing, not what I was arguing! I argued that each observer would see a different strength, polarity and axis of the magnetic field from the particle including none. You 'appeared' to the arguing the same, except that you expect every other frame to appear to act as though it is seeing the same magnetic field as any/every possible observer, even though it sees a different magnetic field. But I would not be certain because much of what you said was contradictory. If you do not accept something as simple as these examples then I can not > make any headway. > We can't even agree on what each other said! > > A person needs to learn to walk before he expects to run. You also need > to realize that SR is king and we are tiny insects attempting to take it on. We really do see things differently, personally I pick more empowering and productive view points.
