That's where Mach's principle comes into play. If there were a universe in which only the two rockets with the twins existed, and nothing else, then I don't think their clocks would change pace with respect to each other. But the total inertia present in our current universe makes a frame of reference in itself. At least that's the way I understand it, but I'm no relativity expert, so maybe I said something stupid.... Mach's principle is something that fascinates me.
Twin paradox
- Thread starter Motanache
- Start date
From post #15 the speed is aproximately 4Km/s(+/-0.5Km/s(observer speed)) relative to Earth.
From post #17 the delay is aprox. 38uS per day.
(from Einstein)
I transform all measures in SI.
v=4000m/s
t=24h*3600s
t'=24h*3600s+38*10^-6s
I will calculate online
Delay is
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+1&wal=header
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4000^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
7.68uS
It is not exact. Just unit is correct.
Is it just an error of my calculation?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4500^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
9.7uS.
I consider the extremes in calculation.
From post #17 the delay is aprox. 38uS per day.
(from Einstein)
I transform all measures in SI.
v=4000m/s
t=24h*3600s
t'=24h*3600s+38*10^-6s
I will calculate online
Delay is
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+1&wal=header
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4000^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
7.68uS
It is not exact. Just unit is correct.
Is it just an error of my calculation?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4500^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
9.7uS.
I consider the extremes in calculation.
Yes, I know about LHC(large hadron collider).
I would like to note that the first sincrotron was made at Dubna (Russia).
At CERN we have sincrotron. Only it is bigger because they had more money.
I know that they take into consideration time dilation.
". The proton is much higher and in the gamma wavelength. The electron is in the high x-ray range....much lower. "
Why a proton which is 2000X(1800x) times havier than electron is corresponding to a higher frequency?
It should be (mecanically thought) as a havier body to resonate at lower frequency.
I know official explanation the de Borglie wavelength.
I would like to note that the first sincrotron was made at Dubna (Russia).
At CERN we have sincrotron. Only it is bigger because they had more money.
I know that they take into consideration time dilation.
". The proton is much higher and in the gamma wavelength. The electron is in the high x-ray range....much lower. "
Why a proton which is 2000X(1800x) times havier than electron is corresponding to a higher frequency?
It should be (mecanically thought) as a havier body to resonate at lower frequency.
I know official explanation the de Borglie wavelength.
If you mean the discrepancy between your numbers and the total of ~38us.From post #15 the speed is aproximately 4Km/s(+/-0.5Km/s(observer speed)) relative to Earth.
From post #17 the delay is aprox. 38uS per day.
(from Einstein)
I transform all measures in SI.
v=4000m/s
t=24h*3600s
t'=24h*3600s+38*10^-6s
I will calculate online
Delay is
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+1&wal=header
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4000^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
7.68uS
It is not exact. Just unit is correct.
Is it just an error of my calculation?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(24*3600)/(1-4500^2/(3*10^8)^2)^0.5-24*3600
9.7uS.
I consider the extremes in calculation.
There are two major relativity offsets. One from S/R for velocity (your slowing numbers) and one from G/R for gravity (45.9 μs/day) that causes a faster clock (a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away).
Motanache....."Why a proton which is 2000X(1800x) times havier than electron is corresponding to a higher frequency?
It should be (mecanically thought) as a havier body to resonate at lower frequency."
I know...it seems backwards from our observations and measurements. But when we compare bodies/mass......we're comparing bodies are composed of multiple parts. So we have to add more parts to make to larger, and have more area/volume....to get heavier. We can also increase the number of parts....in the same area...to increase weight. This would be a density increase that will increase weight. So when we hear 1lb. and 5 lb. we will assume the 5 lb. is larger and heavier. And as you say a lower resonant frequency.
But when a electron or proton is accelerated.....it gains mass.......BUT it's still only one particle. How does that happen? It's the way the particle reacts to acceleration. It not only moves in the direction of the accelerating force........it spins perpendicular to that force. Now at rest.....the particle has a resting spin or a resting frequency. When an AF is applied.....a new spin is super imposed on the resting spin.
The AF(accelerating force) has two components. It has strength.....which powers the acceleration in the force direction. It also has RATE.....which powers the spin acceleration. When the induced spin is double the resting spin......the particle will contract to half of it resting size and the particle spin is now be twice the resting spin. The spin is compressing the electric field of the particle......with the added magnetic field spin caused by the AF. Twice the M field(caused by imposed spin) will contract the electric to half it's size.........which doubles the electric density. When a particle absorbs energy and gains mass......it shrinks. That energy did not go into making mass. It ALL goes into increasing the field density of the particle. Mass is only apparent. It's really nothing more that field density. So a proton or a neutron is small and dense.....while an electron is large and a lot less dense.
If you look at my icon you will see what you have been taught is a H2 molecule. It is not to scale, but attempts to show two protons...the small loops.....and 2 electrons....the larger loops. The community loop represents the completely converged magnetic dipole..........common, tying and holding the atom together......this is what you have been taught is the nuclear strong force. It's simply a M dipole completely converged.
Pardon me.....this is way off topic.....and you probably use the standard model. My point was the heavier the particle....the smaller....and faster it spins(rate wise). And that mass can be particle density.....but down in the weeds.....mass is field density.
And please remember.......the spin velocity is constant. It's the spin period that changes. The spin velocity of a gamma proton is the same as a x-ray electron. This is why the size changes.
See how elegant that is?
It should be (mecanically thought) as a havier body to resonate at lower frequency."
I know...it seems backwards from our observations and measurements. But when we compare bodies/mass......we're comparing bodies are composed of multiple parts. So we have to add more parts to make to larger, and have more area/volume....to get heavier. We can also increase the number of parts....in the same area...to increase weight. This would be a density increase that will increase weight. So when we hear 1lb. and 5 lb. we will assume the 5 lb. is larger and heavier. And as you say a lower resonant frequency.
But when a electron or proton is accelerated.....it gains mass.......BUT it's still only one particle. How does that happen? It's the way the particle reacts to acceleration. It not only moves in the direction of the accelerating force........it spins perpendicular to that force. Now at rest.....the particle has a resting spin or a resting frequency. When an AF is applied.....a new spin is super imposed on the resting spin.
The AF(accelerating force) has two components. It has strength.....which powers the acceleration in the force direction. It also has RATE.....which powers the spin acceleration. When the induced spin is double the resting spin......the particle will contract to half of it resting size and the particle spin is now be twice the resting spin. The spin is compressing the electric field of the particle......with the added magnetic field spin caused by the AF. Twice the M field(caused by imposed spin) will contract the electric to half it's size.........which doubles the electric density. When a particle absorbs energy and gains mass......it shrinks. That energy did not go into making mass. It ALL goes into increasing the field density of the particle. Mass is only apparent. It's really nothing more that field density. So a proton or a neutron is small and dense.....while an electron is large and a lot less dense.
If you look at my icon you will see what you have been taught is a H2 molecule. It is not to scale, but attempts to show two protons...the small loops.....and 2 electrons....the larger loops. The community loop represents the completely converged magnetic dipole..........common, tying and holding the atom together......this is what you have been taught is the nuclear strong force. It's simply a M dipole completely converged.
Pardon me.....this is way off topic.....and you probably use the standard model. My point was the heavier the particle....the smaller....and faster it spins(rate wise). And that mass can be particle density.....but down in the weeds.....mass is field density.
And please remember.......the spin velocity is constant. It's the spin period that changes. The spin velocity of a gamma proton is the same as a x-ray electron. This is why the size changes.
See how elegant that is?
About nuclear dimension we know from the scattering experiments.
For hydrogen aprox. 10^-15m nucleus dimension(proton dimension).
But, how do we fiind an electron dimension ?
Nucleus of hydrogen is like a small stone in center of a stadion.
But the electron?
I know from the point of view of Quantum physics it cannot be.............
However.........it should be..........
The nucleus of any atom is a bit more complicated than that.... check this very interesting article about proton behavior depending on its speed:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-the-innards-of-subatomic-particles/
Motanache.......only because of what you've been taught. I think that the particle world is mechanical. Only it's electrical springs. A nucleus to me is a series tuned circuit. The electrons and protons are at different tones.....and are physically bonded by the resultant field tone. It has some details/weeds to understand the operation.
It's an improved Parson's Magneton Theory(1917). It's completely different from the standard model. It's much simpler than QM, and explains the periodic table more accurately.
You can't use this in your work or school.
It's for people who have the time......not a modern student. But it is why I don't believe in time dilation.
It's an improved Parson's Magneton Theory(1917). It's completely different from the standard model. It's much simpler than QM, and explains the periodic table more accurately.
You can't use this in your work or school.
It's for people who have the time......not a modern student. But it is why I don't believe in time dilation.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/what-would-you-read-twice.138543/page-2#post-1164404
It is interesting that this poet wrote about time dilation before Einstein's theory or relativity:
"And thousands of years were passing
In so many moments"
when a legendary creature was flying at very high speed
Explanation is that this poet attended astronomy, physics and medicine courses at Vienna and Paris, meeting great physicists.
It seems that Einstein himself read this poem translated before his theory.
Subsequently Einstein recognizes that he knows about Lorentz transformation.
=====================================================
Now I change the subject
Imagine two conductor wires.
They are parallel.
If current intensity has the same sense, appears attraction between them.
Using an extreme imagination, we neglect wires.
Now, two electrons are moving on parallel trajectories in the same sense at equal distance between them.
They should attract each other.
Here the relativity probably appears.
If these two electrons are at rest in relation to me, then they reject each other.
If they are moving in relation to me, appear an attraction force.
This is length contraction.
==============================================
I searched for attraction between charged particle of a beam depending on their speed.
In other words the dependence between beam divergence and beam energy.
It seems it is not as I expected and maybe this theory is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-as-a-function-of-proton-energy-for-the-most
It is interesting that this poet wrote about time dilation before Einstein's theory or relativity:
"And thousands of years were passing
In so many moments"
when a legendary creature was flying at very high speed
Explanation is that this poet attended astronomy, physics and medicine courses at Vienna and Paris, meeting great physicists.
It seems that Einstein himself read this poem translated before his theory.
Subsequently Einstein recognizes that he knows about Lorentz transformation.
=====================================================
Now I change the subject
Imagine two conductor wires.
They are parallel.
If current intensity has the same sense, appears attraction between them.
Using an extreme imagination, we neglect wires.
Now, two electrons are moving on parallel trajectories in the same sense at equal distance between them.
They should attract each other.
Here the relativity probably appears.
If these two electrons are at rest in relation to me, then they reject each other.
If they are moving in relation to me, appear an attraction force.
This is length contraction.
==============================================
I searched for attraction between charged particle of a beam depending on their speed.
In other words the dependence between beam divergence and beam energy.
It seems it is not as I expected and maybe this theory is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-as-a-function-of-proton-energy-for-the-most
That and more has been done in every case theory checked out there was a short amount of time I found the math in a text book and understood it, however that time is long past ,my own bug a boo was what I called the 3 body problem. if you have 2 space craft accelerat9ing toward the center a at 2/3cthen are they exceeding c to each other? The answer my question the opposite vehicle is approaching at 7/8C relative to each other. That is the key point. You always have to remember point of view is the key issue, that is why it is called relativity, every thing is relative to the observer The people on each space see things relative to themselves. The center has its own point of view where each vehicle is going 2/3 c, This point of view affects the othher two crafts not at all, each pov is separate.
Last edited:
Out of all of Einstein's theories...... he did manage to get ONE thing right. And that was that EM propagates in what he called "chunks". He did not realize that is wasn't a chunk........it's a rotational pie. Yes I said pie.....not pi.
If I say pi.......people will think of a number. But the pie I am speaking of is not a C/D ratio. It takes 2 pie of rotation to complete a cycle. Rotational pie is based on the radius....not the diameter. One pie is a semi circle....or half rotation. Draw an apple pie and cut it half. That semi circle is a "pi" of rotation. A one-half turn sweep. An EM propagation transmits one pie at a time. Em emission is NOT a continuous stream of rotations....it's a half rotation.....then one half cycle of dead time....then another half rotation(pie)....with the opposite polarity. EM propagation is one half cycle at a time. A one half cycle is one half turn. One pulse of one-half turn of torque/twist. That's EM radiation.
I have explained the physical process of emission several times on this forum. It got a good laugh.
"chunks" are not photons. There is no such thing. Does a pie have mass? Yes.....because mass is field density......not matter. MASS is NOT MATTER. Matter is charge. The amount of matter...is the amount of charge. If you don't add or subtract charge.......the amount of matter is constant. MASS is the density of the charge fields.......this can change....mass is variable......matter is not. A "photon" has mass.....but it is not matter....or a particle. All EM has mass.
Now for the subject of time dilation. IF time dilation is true.......how do you explain the inverse square law? Is gravity and time dilation responsible for the inverse square law? If there was time dilation.......wouldn't it change the inverse square law......or is it responsible for it? And if it it responsible for the inverse square law of gravity........what is responsible for the inverse square law for electric fields?
And therefore the spherical spreading of a constant density.......DOES NOT cause the inverse square law????? It must be like positive charge flow. Just shut up and except a MATH and PHYSICAL lie.
Do electric fields cause time dilation also.....how bout magnetic fields......dilation also?
Space is an area/region of nothingness......it has no properties to change or vary. Our local space is occupied with noise....i.e. temp. But there is no such thing as virtual particles. And time is a duration of displacement....like length is the distance of displacement. All displacements take time and length. Length comes with time......time comes with length. Velocity can very the ratio.
Gravity is NOT a property of mass or even matter. It is not fundamental. Gravity only appears when matter/charge...... bonds. The attractive force of gravity is an EFFECT....not an AFFECT. E and M are affects....not effects.
You can use a unstable/variable clock to prove general relativity now. But when you use a stable clock......Mr. Einstein will be a footnote. Time, like length does not change.....the units are constant. Time varies the rate of length/displacement........velocity.
A passive observation that is moving at a distance does not change another entity's properties or process........only the measured observation. And remember that all observations are apparent. This is because observation is limited by time, distance and angle.
A helix looks and measures as a sine......from 360 degrees....looks like and measures as left handed and right handed rotation from + and - 180 degrees..........but you only see and measure a helix from 45 degrees. The true structure and path movement.
Planetary orbits are observed and measured as elliptic......but if you follow planet from a few million miles.......you will see and measure a helix.
In the year 1000 AD......building craftsmen and regular people(seamstress) did not use math. They used geometry and fractal patterns for their measurements. A lost art that should be taught and used.
They were not educated......they used their intuitiveness. Man's intuitiveness is man's intellect. It's all we have to satisfy our curiosity/wonder. It's what we use to make/use tools and plan ahead. We have no intelligence.......only the sum of experience. We're dumb as rocks. We don't know who we are. We don't know where we are. We don't know what time it is. We don't know where we came from. AND we don't know where we're going.
Dumb as rocks. The only difference between us and a rock is intuitiveness......not intelligence.
If I say pi.......people will think of a number. But the pie I am speaking of is not a C/D ratio. It takes 2 pie of rotation to complete a cycle. Rotational pie is based on the radius....not the diameter. One pie is a semi circle....or half rotation. Draw an apple pie and cut it half. That semi circle is a "pi" of rotation. A one-half turn sweep. An EM propagation transmits one pie at a time. Em emission is NOT a continuous stream of rotations....it's a half rotation.....then one half cycle of dead time....then another half rotation(pie)....with the opposite polarity. EM propagation is one half cycle at a time. A one half cycle is one half turn. One pulse of one-half turn of torque/twist. That's EM radiation.
I have explained the physical process of emission several times on this forum. It got a good laugh.
"chunks" are not photons. There is no such thing. Does a pie have mass? Yes.....because mass is field density......not matter. MASS is NOT MATTER. Matter is charge. The amount of matter...is the amount of charge. If you don't add or subtract charge.......the amount of matter is constant. MASS is the density of the charge fields.......this can change....mass is variable......matter is not. A "photon" has mass.....but it is not matter....or a particle. All EM has mass.
Now for the subject of time dilation. IF time dilation is true.......how do you explain the inverse square law? Is gravity and time dilation responsible for the inverse square law? If there was time dilation.......wouldn't it change the inverse square law......or is it responsible for it? And if it it responsible for the inverse square law of gravity........what is responsible for the inverse square law for electric fields?
And therefore the spherical spreading of a constant density.......DOES NOT cause the inverse square law????? It must be like positive charge flow. Just shut up and except a MATH and PHYSICAL lie.
Do electric fields cause time dilation also.....how bout magnetic fields......dilation also?
Space is an area/region of nothingness......it has no properties to change or vary. Our local space is occupied with noise....i.e. temp. But there is no such thing as virtual particles. And time is a duration of displacement....like length is the distance of displacement. All displacements take time and length. Length comes with time......time comes with length. Velocity can very the ratio.
Gravity is NOT a property of mass or even matter. It is not fundamental. Gravity only appears when matter/charge...... bonds. The attractive force of gravity is an EFFECT....not an AFFECT. E and M are affects....not effects.
You can use a unstable/variable clock to prove general relativity now. But when you use a stable clock......Mr. Einstein will be a footnote. Time, like length does not change.....the units are constant. Time varies the rate of length/displacement........velocity.
A passive observation that is moving at a distance does not change another entity's properties or process........only the measured observation. And remember that all observations are apparent. This is because observation is limited by time, distance and angle.
A helix looks and measures as a sine......from 360 degrees....looks like and measures as left handed and right handed rotation from + and - 180 degrees..........but you only see and measure a helix from 45 degrees. The true structure and path movement.
Planetary orbits are observed and measured as elliptic......but if you follow planet from a few million miles.......you will see and measure a helix.
In the year 1000 AD......building craftsmen and regular people(seamstress) did not use math. They used geometry and fractal patterns for their measurements. A lost art that should be taught and used.
They were not educated......they used their intuitiveness. Man's intuitiveness is man's intellect. It's all we have to satisfy our curiosity/wonder. It's what we use to make/use tools and plan ahead. We have no intelligence.......only the sum of experience. We're dumb as rocks. We don't know who we are. We don't know where we are. We don't know what time it is. We don't know where we came from. AND we don't know where we're going.
Dumb as rocks. The only difference between us and a rock is intuitiveness......not intelligence.
I can't stop laughing...
!That document is a precursor to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit ...
I prefer science that
1.makes predictions
2. has repeatable experinents.(see #1)
3.Math is a descriptive language It has rules how to handle units of measurement that work very well.
I don't claim to understand photons, but have made my share of radio waves (to my Dad's displeasure) even as a novice
Relativity has met my 1st two criteria very well The fact I don' remember the math is on me.
1.makes predictions
2. has repeatable experinents.(see #1)
3.Math is a descriptive language It has rules how to handle units of measurement that work very well.
I don't claim to understand photons, but have made my share of radio waves (to my Dad's displeasure) even as a novice
Relativity has met my 1st two criteria very well The fact I don' remember the math is on me.
Thank you for the discussion.
Still in science we work with models.
Most are not interested if it's right or not.
For example, in our imagination the light is both wave and particle. The stupidest concept.
People are interested if it is useful or not.
Can we draw a conclusion from this discussion to be used in the technique?
Still in science we work with models.
Most are not interested if it's right or not.
For example, in our imagination the light is both wave and particle. The stupidest concept.
People are interested if it is useful or not.
Can we draw a conclusion from this discussion to be used in the technique?
My personal visualization (which is probably wrong)is a photon is the point in space where the magnetic line of force and electric line of force intersect,which appears to be a particle, but is totally dependent on both waves for its existence.The waves must be coherent with each other an 90° apart
If a theory works, We use it until something better comes along, A partial theory is better than none.
If a theory works, We use it until something better comes along, A partial theory is better than none.
Last edited:
Good you brought it here, César. Maybe he got two or three points from the RAND's guy paper. Gracias NSAspook.
I should have started to read Sagan long time ago.
You May Also Like
-
Switch Roundup: New Devices Make Switches Smaller and Faster
by Aaron Carman
-
With an Eye on On-Device AI, Qualcomm Rolls Out New Snapdragon SoC
by Duane Benson
-
Introspect Technology Introduces LPDDR5/LPDDR5X Protocol Analyzer
by Duane Benson
-
Keysight Introduces First Integrated Toolset for Quantum System Design
by Duane Benson
