xyzt

Still stand by that. Ok no hard feelings then, you don't have to respond if you don't want to.

I already corrected your multiple, oft-repeated, misconceptions. Repeatedly. The fact that you do not understand what they are is your problem.

Agreed. But perhaps you would like to elaborate on your answer. I agree than twin B experiences acceleration, but in this paradox we only consider special relativity. In that case, ok the velocity goes negetive, fine, I agree, but I do not see how to extrapolate that to solve the paradox.

Well, you will need to take back your gratuitous negative feedbacks first.Like I said earlier, SR handles accelerated motion.

 

Conclusions from calculations:

 

• All clocks experience the same time dilation, and the observer outside the train will see each clock pulsing at 1Hz. (v = 0.87c)

This is, of course false. An external observer will measure the clock frequency to be larger than 2hz when the clock approaches and less than 2hz when the clock moves away. This is basic Doppler effect. Feel free to continue your practice of giving me negative feedback for correcting your glaring mistakes.

 

This leads to an interesting new conclusion:

assumption: 2 systems at rest within the same reference frame separated by a finite distance L cannot cause an affect on one another faster than t = L/c.

If event A causes event B, then event A occurs before or simultaneously with event B in any reference frame.

 

This is just as false as the rest of your posts.

[math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math]

so:

[math]dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)[/math]

The above shows that the sign of [math]dt'[/math] may be :

-the same

or

-opposite

the sign of [math]dt[/math]

depending on :

-[math]dt>vdx/c^2[/math]

-[math]dt<vdx/c^2[/math]

I gave you negative feedback because I out of 4 posts, not a single one added any value and you were getting rude and personal. I stand by it.

 

I do not see where is special relative the sign makes any difference in the calculations. I am open to that idea, please just show me your logic.

The fact that you don't understand the answers doesn't mean that they do not explain your misunderstandings.

You seem quite happy with the explanation that "one twin is different", but you can't seem to articulate why that makes a difference (within special relativity). Relative velocities remain the same at all points. If I did not want to learn, I would not have posted this thread in the first place, that is a rather stupid claim.

Is doppler shift of light caused by time dilation, length contraction, or both?

Giving me negative feedbacks like a coward will not change anything. The reason the twin that turns around accumulates less time is the faCt that while he turns around the other twin accumulates extra time.

One experiences acceleration, sure, but what if there was a worm hole that allowed him to change direction instantly, lets remove that variable completely.

No, they don't, the situation is STILL asymmetric, one twin changed direction, the other one didn't. You don't seem to want to learn.

That is interesting since then observation would just mean detecting the photons, how do we know objects actually change length, perhaps it is just how we perceive the photons?

Yes, but that is general relativity. Do you need to go there to solve the paradox?

No, you do not need GR, SR handles accelerated motion just fine. You only need to learn to make the distinction between the twins. So far, you haven't.

 

Reply:

If an electron approaching from the center changed direction by 180 degrees the radiation would go to the center.

 

Electron does not "approach from the center". You cannot make up sh!t and throw it around trying to see if it sticks to the wall.

I did, they both experience the same time dilatation, since the relative motion is same for both.

 

 

But their motion is not symmetric, one is accelerated, the other one is not. You need to learn to make the distinction.

how ? explain.

i cannot teach you basic mechanics. based on your posts, no one can.

in the planets we have extra centripetal force in addition to the gravitational force between the planet and the sun, the force is inversely proportional to the radius of the rotation ®, let say the mass is (m) the linear velocity around the sun is (V) the velocity around the axis is (v), then the force F will be:

F= ( m*v*V)/r

basic mechanics says that the above is wrong.

 

 

 

Just derived from Maxwell's equations? I thought they were derived from the nature of mass ultimately. The definition I supplied intended to indicate that equilibration between cause and effect is set between BB and baryogenesis and put into motion at reionisation.

the correct definition provides the correlation between aminosynthesis and the incertitude principle as applied to the chairs gravitating around the mad hatter tea table in alice in wonderland.

 

Yes, I agree again. But aren't all three clocks on the train in the same reference frame?

yes, but they have different x coordinates. so, according to sr, they will be synchronized only in the frame of the train. in all other frames, they will not.

 

 

 

 

 

But still that doesn't explain that clocks in different parts of the train would be showing a different time. If the flashes at both sides occur simultaneously, they would arrive in the middle at the same time and red/blue shift simply accounts for the observer moving to or from the source, right?

this is a DIFFERENT issue, it was explained to you that , in relativity, simultaneity is frame dependent

 

 

 

My understanding of the basis of relativity is that length contraction mediates the dynamics of fermion proximity into nucleon stabilities of varying limitations. Pauli exclusion regulated exponential expansion into length contraction through baryogenesis.

the word salad mediates the relationship between the cyclotron radius and the height of the foot of the dinner table.

 

 

 

If all parts of the train start accelerating at the exact same time and at an exact same rate than I really see no reason why clocks in the back of the train would be going any differently from clocks in the middle and in the front.

if a light signal is sent from the back of the train to the front , in the direction of travel, it will be detected as redshifted because it was sent when the source was traveling at speed [math]v[/math] and it was detected when the receiver was traveling at speed [math]v'>v[/math] AWAY from the signal wavefront.

conversely, if a light signal is sent from the front of the train to the back , against the direction of travel, it will be detected as blueshifted because it was sent when the source was traveling at speed [math]v[/math] and it was detected when the receiver was traveling at speed [math]v'>v[/math] TOWARDS from the signal wavefront.

THIS IS WHY

 

The explanation is straight forward if you attempt at all to follow it. I should have asked what the accepted definition of Newton's and Einstein's equations are in terms of defining force and mass as quantities but I thought that might be obvious to someone genuinely reading the words I posted. If there is something specific in that which you quoted please clarify it.

i read what you posted: it is pure nonsense

 

Through the exercise, I began by attempting to clarify the nature of mass and the condition of forces as mediation of the two identified principals through baryogensis, ie; length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion. Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons. The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron.

 

As a description of the relation between F=ma and E=mc2 as the mediation of pauli exclusion into length contraction the intention of the equation I constructed might be better translated.

i don't think you are trying to learn anything, you are simply posting gobbly-gook, you are just stringing buzzwords.

 

Space is a maintenance of vacuum. I understand this. I'm following what Mordred posts on vacuum because his explanations approximate my understanding the closest.

bs

More likely they become a gamma ray and its antiparticle, a neutrino of energy even beyond that of the Tau neutrino. But what is solved by maintaining that photons (and possibly antiphotons) create quarks in the exact number and type to create electrons or protons (and their antiparticles, always in exactly the same numbers), rather than just forming the only stable particles known to physics, directly

yet,mainstream physics shows the above to be total rubbish

 

This seemed simple enough and I hoped to continue with classical physics, but I was bothered that "local" is opposed to "global" and that global should refer to the shape of the whole universe, not merely the difference between free falling near the Earth and floating relatively nearby in space, which seems "local" with respect to the entire universe. Then I realized I still had the above problem. If one obserever is free falling above Earth's atmoshpere and the other observer is in low Earth orbit, and if the free falling and orbiting observers pass through the same event, i.e., the same point in space at the same time, then, at that event, i.e., that point on the spacetime manifold, both observers should have the SAME set of local inertial frames, since they are passing through the same point in space at the same time and both of their accelerometers read zero. But they can't be in the same inertial frame since each observer measures the other as accelerating.

 

So it seems I can't avoid certain general-relativistic ideas, even when trying to avoid them and just stick to classical physics.

 

Any help with the resolution of this paradox will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

P.S. I would like to avoid the mathematical formalism of special or general relativity, if possible, in the resolution of this problem. Intuitively, I strongly suspect it isn't needed, as these ideas are fundamental to an understanding of inertial frames, and as such should be relatively simple to explain.

Here is another way of showing that there is no paradox:

1. Using the Equivalence Principle, we can consider that the hovering observer is accelerating AWAY from the Earth, someplace far away in space, where there is no gravitating body. This observer measures a non-null proper acceleration and also measures the other observer accelerating past him TOWARDS the Earth (the acceleration he measures is coordinate acceleration)

2. The freefalling observer measures a null proper acceleration for himself and a non-null coordinate acceleration for the other observer (moving AWAY from the Earth).

No paradox.

PeterDonis at

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inertial-reference-frames.797217/

gave an excellent explanation, definitely worth a read. I'm no longer confused about these ideas.

He gave you the same answer I gave you relative to co-mingling of proper and coordinate acceleration:

 

That Big Bang Process can not be created anywhere else other than the Center Of the Universe.

 

Other Blasts, Explosions including Nuclear, Star Action, and every other conceivable phenomena do release Energy and Force but none of these can convert mass into that Purest Energy Stream coming out of the Bang !

Have you considered studying instead of making up stuff? Fringe stuff, I mean.

I'm reviewing physics after ~30yrs of neglect, starting with Halliday & Resnick (and the internet).

 

Here's what I understand to be standard Newtonian/classical inertial frames:

1. There exists a set of reference frames, called inertial frames, in which mass, time, force, acceleration, etc. are (Galilean) invariant but position, velocity, translational and angular momentum, work, kinetic energy, etc. aren't.

2. Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted into measurements in another frame by a Galilean transformation of coordinates.

3. All inertial frames are in relative rectilinear motion.

4. Any two frames are inertial if and only if they measure the same accelerations for all particles.

5. A frame is inertial if and only if a perfect accelerometer at rest measures no acceleration.

Also:

6. A frame is inertial if and only if physical laws are observed to be in their simplest forms.

 

When I got to the Equivalence principle:

1. Inertial mass = gravitational mass.

2. No experiment can determine whether you're in a free falling elevator or an elevator floating out in space. It is understood that the free falling elevator is just above the Earth's atmosphere and that the elevator in space is far from any gravitational source. Also, the free falling elevator is small enough, and falls for a short enough time period, that tidal deviations are below the level of experimental detection.

 

I had the following problem: I realized that #5 above was not true in the classical sense. Given two observers, each with a damped-spring accelerometer, one observer is in free fall above Earth's atmosphere and the other is floating out in space, then each observer will see that both accelerometers measure zero acceleration, even though they are accelerating with respect to each other. Each observer knows that his zero acceleration measurement proves that he is in an inertial frame, but also can see that the other observer's accelerometer aslo measures zero acceleration, that that therefore the other observer must also be in an inertial frame. And yet each observer clearly measures, in thier own inertial frame, that the other observer is accelerating.

 

I had assumed I would be able to do classical physics without having to worry about relativity, and that I could do relativity when I was ready. I guess was wrong.

 

I tried several things to get around the problem:

1. #5 above isn't really Newtonian, it must actually be an idea from relativity. This doesn't work since it can clearly be seen that #3-#5 above are all more or less equivalent.

2. I reasoned that the speeds and gravitaional fields involved were not relativistic, that somehow then the problem should go away and that the frames involved should be able to be described as noninertial in the classical sense. But this leads nowhere, if my accelerometer reads zero. I'm in an inertial frame.

3. I tried to convince myself that the 2 observers can't read each other's accelerometer, i.e., a signal sent between them would somehow be messed up by some "relativistic effect," but I knew this was rediculous since the speeds and field strengths involved weren't relativistic.

 

I gave up and opened my old general relativity book (Gravitation by MTW). The 1st chapter describes inertial motion:

Following a geodesic (free fall, orbit, etc.) = natural (weightless) motion of a particle = local inertial (i.e., Lorentz) frame = particles move at constant speed in straight lines. Physics (physical laws) is simple when viewed locally.

 

So I tried to revise my definition of an inertial frame:

1. For any particle moving in Nature, there exists a set of local reference frames, called inertial frames, in which mass, time, force, acceleration, etc. are (Lorentzian) invariant but position, velocity, translational and angular momentum, work, kinetic energy, etc. aren't.

2. Measurements in one local inertial frame can be converted into measurements in another local frame by a Lorentzian transformation of coordinates (Galilean at low speed).

3. All local inertial frames are in relative rectilinear motion.

4. Any two local frames are inertial if and only if they measure the same accelerations for all particles.

5. A local frame is inertial if and only if a perfect accelerometer at rest measures no acceleration.

Also:

6. A local frame is inertial if and only if physical laws are observed to be in their simplest forms.

 

This seemed simple enough and I hoped to continue with classical physics, but I was bothered that "local" is opposed to "global" and that global should refer to the shape of the whole universe, not merely the difference between free falling near the Earth and floating relatively nearby in space, which seems "local" with respect to the entire universe. Then I realized I still had the above problem. If one obserever is free falling above Earth's atmoshpere and the other observer is in low Earth orbit, and if the free falling and orbiting observers pass through the same event, i.e., the same point in space at the same time, then, at that event, i.e., that point on the spacetime manifold, both observers should have the SAME set of local inertial frames, since they are passing through the same point in space at the same time and both of their accelerometers read zero. But they can't be in the same inertial frame since each observer measures the other as accelerating.

 

So it seems I can't avoid certain general-relativistic ideas, even when trying to avoid them and just stick to classical physics.

 

Any help with the resolution of this paradox will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

P.S. I would like to avoid the mathematical formalism of special or general relativity, if possible, in the resolution of this problem. Intuitively, I strongly suspect it isn't needed, as these ideas are fundamental to an understanding of inertial frames, and as such should be relatively simple to explain.

What the two observers measure about themselves is PROPER acceleration.

What the two observers measure about each other is COORDINATE acceleration.

Coordinate acceleration is DIFFERENT from proper acceleration.

 

Of course, it helps to have a fair amount of disposable income if you want to personally test it.

Nah, I have a collection of Swiss chronometers (Longines,Omega, IWC, Patek Philippe) dating back to the mid-1800's that one can use