The Soyuz TMA-08M spacecraft carrying three new members of the International Space Station's 35th crew docked at the station this weekend after a perfect journey during which they arrived at the station in less than six hours instead of two days like all the Soyuz flights and shuttles so far.
Soyuz commander Pavel Vinogradov, and his colleagues Alexander Mysorkin and Chris Cassidy, were launched from Baikonur on Friday morning and arrived at the station the same day. The Soyuz arrived at the space station after only four orbits instead of two days after the traditional launch.
The new route was tested for the first time in a manned flight. It was previously used in the last three cargo flights of Progress spacecraft.
The three joined Chris Hadfield from Canada, Tom Mashburn from NASA and Roman Romanenko from Russia who have been staying in the laboratory since December 21, 2012. All six team members participated in the welcome ceremony with the cooperation of senior officials of the agencies and the astronauts' family members who gathered at the Russian control center in the city of stars near Moscow.
The 35th crew will operate as a full six-person crew until May when Hadfield Mashburn and Romanenko return to Earth aboard the Soyuz TMA-07M spacecraft. Their departure will make the three who arrived today the 36th team members under Vinogradov's command who will remain in a limited lineup until the next team members arrive at the end of May. Cassidy, Vinogradov and Misorkin are expected to return to Earth in September. They will perform 137 experiments in the American part of the station and 44 in the Russian part. 430 researchers from all over the world will be involved in these studies that will deal with human behavior research, biology and physical science research, technology development, Earth observation and education.
Cassidy, an officer in the US Navy flew into space for the second time. The last time he visited the station was on the shuttle Endeavor on flight STS-127 in July 2009. Then he also performed three spacewalks that clocked a combined 18 hours outside the station. For Vinogradov this is the third task. He was a Mir crew member for 197 days in 1997-8 and spent 182 days on the International Space Station in 2006 as the 13th crew flight engineer.
For Misrukin, a lieutenant colonel in the Russian Air Force, this is the first space flight. He was trained as an experimental cosmonaut in 2009.
334 תגובות
So let's assume that on the way back, in a period of half an hour according to his watch, the temperature drops by 300 degrees, 10 degrees per minute, and everything is captured on video.
But notice, in that half hour he is actually at rest. Furthermore, if there was another pair of twins parked next to it, and they had not yet started the process, then for them they are at rest and therefore time is ticking at its usual rate and the temperature hardly changes.
A paradoxical situation, isn't it?
Israel Shapira
I didn't just ask about the heat measurement method. I thought you would understand - no matter.
will indeed find the universe colder.
I will neglect the acceleration time.. this time can be extremely short or extremely long, and in both cases it is negligible.
During the movement, I really don't know what will happen…..
Please be aware, most people I know manage to measure the temperature with a thermometer or radiometer. Only a few use a barometer or hygrometer.
So here's the question, with twins as you like:
If the young twin, separated from his brother when the universe was 400,000 years old, stayed in space for an hour and in the meantime his brother aged 10 billion years (what agile and especially long-lived twins).
When the young man returns from his hour-long journey, will he not find the universe much colder than when he left it?
If he takes a video of his watch and his thermometer, when will the video show the fastest temperature drop:
During the acceleration period?
During the journey from the remaining twin?
During the journey back to the remaining twin?
Israel Shapira
How does your thermometer measure temperature? If you mean the average speed of molecules that is one thing. If you mean the age of the universe that's another thing.
Miracles
The only thing I ask is about the temperature. I'm not asking about the twin paradox. Just this: when Jill passes Jack, what will her and his thermometers show?
Israel Shapira
I wanted you to see that acceleration doesn't really affect time. A matter of orders of magnitude.
What I think is this: when the twin returns to Earth, despite his young age, he will agree that Earth's clock is correct. He knows that he has changed the reference system twice and therefore will think that he has returned to the future.
What is fascinating is that I have already answered you about this…… 🙂
But - are you asking what will happen during the movement? This is another question and really not obvious (to me). I will have to think about it….
I don't know what calculation you want me to do. Is the calculation that explains the twin paradox within the framework of special relativity? You brought it up earlier and I agreed with you. So what? What is the connection to energy consumption and co.?
If you're not accelerating, you're standing still, so you can't switch frames of reference.
But that already belongs to history. I asked you a question that you didn't answer: for example XNUMX-XNUMX: When Jill passes by Jack, do they both measure the same temperature in outer space?
Maybe I'll get lucky and you'll answer this time 🙂
Israel Shapira
Acceleration is a way to change a frame of reference. To provide acceleration you need power. To produce power you need to consume energy. Is energy consumption the explanation for the paradox?
I see you haven't done any calculations. And I ask myself - why? You probably don't want me to answer myself 🙂
Miracles
If there is nothing to do with acceleration, then how exactly according to you does the younger twin change his frame of reference and return to the original one?
Israel Shapira
Why insult? 🙂
How many times can it be explained that the twin paradox is not related to accelerations? Maybe do the calculations instead of just arguing? Assume a certain distance and assume a constant acceleration (positive and then negative). Increasing the acceleration decreases the acceleration time and therefore, to a first approximation, the magnitude of the impact has no effect. On the other hand - doubling the distance doubles the time lag.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia - The standard textbook approach treats the twin paradox as a straightforward application of special relativity
And like I said... There is no contradiction between the big bang and the theory of relativity. On the contrary - Einstein predicted the big bang theory.
Israel, if you want a useful conversation - please do some simple calculations. And at least read the wiki 🙂
jubilee
Father is of course right, but what is the point of being righteous if you are not able to justify your righteousness?
I have raised the question here and in other places several times. Everyone explains to me that I am simply wrong, but everyone claims that the reason is different. So far I haven't received a coherent and consistent explanation from anyone except Anonymous, who coherently and consistently claims that the explanation is that I'm just an idiot, which is self-evident even without him.
Take for example the last explanation of the disappearing Nissim: "They both agree that Jill changed the attribution system and returned to the original attribution system."
Mistake. Jill did not change the system of attribution. Unlike the Twin Paradox, Jill doesn't speed up 3 times, in fact she doesn't speed up at all. During the whole adventure she stands still.
A second explanation that is very common among many people: each side sees the other's clocks as slower.
Also a mistake in our case, and this mistake is explained in example XNUMX-XNUMX.
Third explanation: Jill's clocks lag relative to Jack's clocks because he is at rest relative to the CMBR and she is in motion relative to it.
The CMBR was not mentioned in our example. It should work even when the situation is reversed, that is, when Jack is in motion relative to the radiation and Jill is at rest.
Fourth explanation: the temperature of the universe is a factor outside the system.
If this were true, we would not get a perfect match between cosmological time 0 and time 0 calculated according to Friedman's formula.
The simple initial explanation you are looking for of how and why concerns me as well, and I tried to come up with my own explanation in the long article in Cosmo. This does not mean that it is true, although it also explains other phenomena nicely.
I think there is an explanation within the mainstream and I just don't know or understand it. That's why I continue to raise the issue in the hope that maybe someone knowledgeable on the subject can explain. Maybe dad?
Israel - with an apology for the delay in the response.
As mentioned, I do not share my father's opinion. It seems to me that you ignorantly understand relativity. It is also clear that you will need additional physical models. You wonder about the contradictions that emerge between the different models, and rightly so. They are indeed not perfect, and I already put my finger on that a long time ago.
I was not careful with my language in criticizing your way of working. Although it is not organized for my taste, it may be better than my working methods. As long as none of us have reached the light, let us not judge.
Maybe you didn't understand my use of the word "physics". I didn't mean to conjure up ghosts but to find a model simple which explains all the physical phenomena known today and reconciles the contradictions between the various models. We have already exhausted the discussion of "proper" physics and now we are only repeating it again and again.
Indeed, an interesting question.
Maybe the font on Nissim's computer is not big enough and he misses the questions. I wonder what Mulik would answer..
Miracles
When Jill passes Jack, are they both measuring the same outer space temperature, or are they each measuring a different temperature?
Israel Shapira
Definately not. Both Jill and Jack agree that Jill's season is behind. At the end they both agree that Jill is younger. That is - Jill lands in the future. This case is exactly the twin paradox. They both agree that Jill changed the reference system and returned to the original reference system.
Miracles
In the original paradox, each twin can say that their time is right.
You can see this better in the previous spaceship example. As I recall, both Jack and Jill agree that Shauna is retarded. Does this mean that if at time 0 they are both the same age, then at the time of the meeting Jill is younger than Jack as in the twin paradox?
Israel Shapira
I understand what you are saying. The phenomenon of the twin paradox does exist - there is no debate about that. This is in the case of small differences in time that have no effect on the measured age of the universe.
A good question is what will happen under more extreme conditions, let's say a difference of hundreds of millions of years, which is something that can be measured. But - I don't see a problem. The twin returns in the distant future and discovers a universe that has aged a lot - just like his brother has aged. Therefore - both will agree on the age of the universe.
There is no contradiction here, as far as I understand.
Miracles
In the twins' paradox, at the time of their reunion, each of them's watch shows a different time, even though when they separated the watches showed the same time.
The age of the universe, on the other hand, is one and the same, both when they separated and when they met.
So how can you say that everyone has their time, and that this time is just as legitimate as their brother's?
A few days ago I solved a puzzle. Its essence: Is it possible to synchronize clocks in space without contact between the synchronizers.
If you had answered it, you would have seen the difference between Einstein's knowledge in 1905 when he conceived relativity, and the knowledge today.
jubilee.
I didn't see any reaction from my father (just) but of course he is right: I don't understand the relationship apparently.
So maybe Dad will explain the supposed contradiction between the absolute time of the bang and the relative time of relativity?
Regarding an organized way of working - you are more right than you know (what kind of work by the way?). But yes, show me where my way of working is not in order, so that I can improve my way in the future.
Honorary physics is a term, but I'm more interested in proper physics. What's more, I don't think that metaphysics will solve our dilemmas. But if you have something interesting that ties into the topic, shoot.
Israel, I appreciate the humility you show in your words: "There is an answer to this supposed contradiction, and I simply do not know or understand it." My father pointed out that "most likely you don't understand the private/general relationship". Although I do not share his assessment, and this is because I came to know that you are proficient (if not fully, then at least partially) in the mystery taps of the current theories, but it seems to me that you lack an orderly way of working. It's possible that I'm not seeing things her way, and I'll be happy if you prove the opposite to me. In any case, in order to test and compare several theories (especially those that seem to contradict each other) one must, in my opinion, enter into their metaphysics. We must understand the mechanism that creates the phenomena that these theories represent.
At the beginning of my speech here I said that it seems to me that you lack an organized way of working. If you want, I will bring examples. But I have no doubt that the questions you raise are relevant and weighty. Therefore, if there is anything in what I said to take the wind out of your sails, please ignore it.
Have a good week 🙂
Israel Shapira
The big bang is a prediction of the theory of relativity. I see no contradiction between them. And I didn't understand what it had to do with the twins paradox - after all, we agree that there is no paradox here.
Easy and simple - but does not lead to a contradiction with relativity or the bang.
After all, relativity claims that everyone has their own clock and rhythm. So why don't we synchronize clocks according to a clock with a fast or slow ticking rate, or one whose 0 point is yesterday at noon?
The trouble is that in fast or backward clocks the length of the day is not 24 hours and in clocks whose 0 time is different from the cosmological time, our universe will be older or younger than its real age.
This can be seen beautifully in the twin paradox. If the younger twin is really in a hurry, then when he met his long-lived brother, Halez aged a billion years. However, when both compare their watches, the young man will not be able to claim that his time is as legitimate as his brother's as Einstein claims. Fact: the universe is now colder, and not by a fraction of a degree, but by a considerable margin.
It is different with Einstein. Since there is no beginning or end to time, each twin can claim that his time is just as legitimate as his brother's.
Does this mean that the relationship is wrong? No. It's just that it doesn't fit with the bang theory, or what's more likely, that there is an answer to this supposed contradiction, and I just don't know or understand it.
You burst into an open road. Clearly there is a problem with the basic assumptions. We didn't need all this marathon rambling to prove that. About dark energy, for example, have you heard?
Between the two of us, I'm the lazy one and you're the hardworking one. Synchronizing the clocks in the ways I suggested is easier and simpler than your way.
No need for a modulator. Today there is a special anti-snoring spray, but all the fun is throwing mothballs at them.
Except that I see that my father has already deleted the impersonation and hate messages (thanks, my father).
No need for CMBR either. It was brought only as an example of the fact that all clocks can synchronize to a specific and natural time (the moment of the bang) if they only want to. But it is much simpler to use universal clocks, which consist of a central transmitter that transmits its time to the universe (preferably the moment of the bang, of course, so that the zero point is not arbitrary), and each clock consists of a receiver, a computer and a doppler meter. You can always synchronize clocks this way, just as frogs in an egg can synchronize clocks by measuring the temperature of an egg that cools slowly at night.
If you accept this, you will see that there is a problem with the basic assumptions of relativity.
And Keton's correction: CMBR is the cosmic microwave radiation in the background, and which has no known focal point, cannot be attributed any speed of movement relative to any body, and faithfully represents (as far as Friedman) the age of the universe that was born in the Great Depression. It can be used to synchronize clocks in the way I suggested (receiving a signal containing an arbitrary time and the local temperature at the transmission site and comparing it with the local temperature of the receiving spacecraft).
And regarding the trolls: couldn't you just filter them out like any good frequency modulator?
So that's it! radiation the background The cosmic is the one I meant when I suggested using it to synchronize watches. It started with the series starring Sheldon and Leonard 🙂 and it fades homogeneously at about the same rate as the latter's popularity fades - unfairly 🙁
jubilee.
Very little can be done against a stupid coward who doesn't identify himself and changes his name all the time, spews obscenities and profanity and isn't willing to put any subject up for objective discussion.
But apparently our sites policy is to allow such parasites to harass legitimate commenters. There are those who do not respond and let these sleepers (well, we all know who they are) harass them without an answer. I prefer to use them as a punching bag for practice. It also gives a good overall fitness.
Don't worry, I've been writing here for two years and I still haven't come across even one commenter except as a comment. I don't think I will change.
for our purposes. There are two types of radiation - the cosmic radiation, and the cosmic background radiation. We are dealing with the latter.
If you look at Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
You will find there:
the Sun's resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo.
And as I mentioned, the way this speed is measured in space is by comparing the shift to blue and red in different directions.
The cosmic background radiation is largely the absolute frame of reference you are looking for (shhh, I didn't say site!). But note that for our purposes, absolute time, it does not contribute. If it weren't for it, there wouldn't be any problem to simply measure the temperature of the space, and convert it into absolute time using the Friedman formula. Because of her we have to weigh the doppler, but we will still arrive without a problem at an absolute time.
Israel, Shabbat Shalom.
First, please don't pay attention to the grammar and spelling; I fear that you will become one of them.
Second, it seems to me that you are mixing concepts. As far as I remember from the astrophysics classes at the university, what reaches us from the direction of Regulus (which is in Leo - the "constellation of Leo") is not the cosmic background radiation but a flow of particles which is a sign that our solar system is moving towards that direction. The cosmic background radiation is microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation that reaches us from all directions at (almost) the same temperature.
It's not enough that you're ignorant and a coward, so on top of that you're also lazy.
After all, the Shatanz car corruption claim is wrong. What happened, you changed again?
I see that Avi Blizovsky deleted your comment in which you exaggerated your profanity. Let's hope he pays a little more attention to all the impersonators and parasites who creep into his site from all corners and bully the legitimate commenters, before it's too late and everyone here gets infected with the troll epidemic.
Come on, pretend one more time, curse one more time, say the last word and fly away.
Last chance, snooze.
Either you explain what's wrong with the Shatanz car puzzle - or I'll have to end the discussion with you for good.
Another time a clown, another time Shapira, another time the flying spaghetti monster, another time a soft landing...
When are you going to do something new, snooze. Isn't it time to contact the young and dumb cousin who won all the awards?
"So either you start talking to the point or..." - Here's another joke from the creator of the Shafira clown.
You know, if you ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster you'll have an easier time synchronizing your spaceship's clock with Earth time.
soft landing
Sure I'm smarter than Einstein, you should know. You are smarter than all of us.
I would have continued this debate with you willingly, but my grandfather, peace be upon him, before he passed away, made me swear not to have discussions with anonymous snobs (alek) who call themselves names like Shimon Shakshuka, Falafel and Dangerous.
So either you start talking to the point, or you overlap. After all, Grandpa…
"Einstein invented without leaving the office"
really?
Oh sorry, I forgot you're smarter than Einstein.
Where do you perform these experiments, if I may ask? in the bathroom?
Of course I did. Every day I perform two or three experiments. sometimes even four.
what's the point Einstein invented all relativity without leaving the office. Thought experiments, Aalek. Can we therefore stop fearing the Iranian bomb?
Run to Mashbir Danji, I heard that they are selling similitude today at sale prices.
Israel
Did you do an experiment?
How exactly is cosmic background radiation measured?
Even the snow on TV is the Kensmit radiation. How will you measure? You need tools like a telescope, for example, that knows how to separate frequency resolutions.. How will you do this?
Are you going to launch a telescope into space?
The cosmic background radiation has a speed and a direction (about 300 km/s towards the Leo constellation relative to the Earth). When you measure it in the same direction, you get that because of the speed there is a red or blue shift, depending on whether you measure with or against the direction of the radiation. This way you can know what her speed is, and hence your speed relative to her, but you must measure in both directions.
In the universal clock that we proposed, the electromagnetic signal comes from only one direction, the place of the transmitter. Therefore the Doppler is unidirectional.
Please remind me what "unidirectional doppler" is
Don't post more than one link in one response, lest you get blocked.
A commenter can do "Let's be smart about him" and give another link under his own name.
waiting for me
Good, passed. Let's try again:
Why complicate? There is no need for communication between A and B. Just go to the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
This is Friedman's formula for the relationship between temperature and time elapsed since the big bang.
Now go to the link:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein's original paper on relativity,
And you will see that the first chapter is dedicated to clock synchronization.
This is a legitimate problem in 1905 when the belief is that time extends from minus infinity to infinity, and the only way is to decide on an arbitrary time and synchronize. Today the situation is different, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about a 13.7 billion year old universe.
We have already proposed the way you suggested before and called it "Clocks of the Universe". However, universal clocks tick at the same rate as temperature clocks, but their zero point is arbitrary, while the zero point of temperature clocks is natural, the bang, before which there was simply no time. The advantage of universal watches is the simplicity of the operation, and one-way doppler.
In the future, if universe clocks are implemented, every space traveler will be able to know the absolute time as you can today know Newark time by glancing at a cell phone.
The response did not go through (new computer). We will try to see if it will pass.
Why complicate? There is no need at all to communicate between A and B. Just go to the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
This is Friedman's formula for the relationship between temperature and time since the Big Bang.
Below is a small calculator, if you enter the temperature into it, you will get the time that has passed since the bang.
Therefore there is no problem to synchronize clocks.
If you look at Link:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein's original paper on relativity,
You will see that the first chapter is dedicated to the topic of synchronization. However, in 1905 they did not know about the cosmic radiation temperature and the bang, and thought that time continued from minus infinity to infinity. That's why the concept of absolute time had no meaning, only an agreed upon time.
We already proposed the way you suggested before and called it "universal clocks". But there is no difference in terms of the ticking rate of such a universal clock and a temperature clock, and its 0 point is arbitrary, while the 0 point of the temperature clock is natural, because before the bang there was simply no time.
The advantage of a universal watch is that its doppler is unidirectional. If they wanted to build such a system in the future, then every tourist in space would be able to know the time here with a simple measurement, just like you know what time it is by glancing at your mobile phone.
So we came to the conclusion that today there is a way to synchronize clocks, as follows: a. Sends a signal containing an arbitrary time (say 0) and a temperature reading; B receives the signal, finds the difference between the temperature transmitted by A and his local temperature and adds the difference to A's arbitrary time.
This knowledge did not exist in 1905, but other tools were not lacking. For example, if the transmission intensity of the light beam is known (and it is possible to agree on it in advance), it is possible to calculate the distance that the beam traveled on the way from the transmitter to the receiver, and hence also the time that has passed.
What do you think?
Anonymous (unidentified) user
He is right in his last comment. He is not right in that he claims that it is impossible to solve the twin paradox only with the assumptions of special relativity.
Miracles: If. Here he is right in every word, so why did you keep trying to convince him that he is wrong? Not at all clear
another one
You are absolutely right on every word here. It's a shame that you don't try to read what I've written many times already.
The symmetry is broken by the fact that the distance of movement in the two reference systems is different. If in the reference system of the Earth and the distant star the distance is 40 light minutes, and if the speed of the spacecraft is 0.8c then the distance of movement in the axis system of the spacecraft is 24 light minutes. 0.8 squared is 0.64. 1-0.64 = 0.36. The root of 0.36 is 0.6. 0.6 times 40 is 24
This is the calculation... simple 🙂 Both viewers agree on this calculation and both agree on the time difference - there is definitely no real paradox.
I'll say it again - read Israel Shapira's link. Very nicely explained there.
Sorry - I don't really know the formulas of general relativity.
I also don't really remember the Lawrence transformations by heart.
I do remember but this -
And I've already said many times - yes, what you say sounds logical - but no, it's not what you get from the formulas.
That's how it is - it also makes sense that if you launch a missile at half the speed of light from a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light - it will move at the speed of light - and yet not reality.
Secondary acceleration here is the only thing that breaks the symmetry. If this is not what it was then how would you solve the paradox? A paragraph does not tolerate paradoxes - the private and general relativity could not exist if something so basic could not be resolved.
Israel Shapira
Double the "rest time" - the distance of the route will be doubled and therefore the lag on the clock will also be doubled.
Double the force of the acceleration - the acceleration time will be cut in half and there will be a very small gap on the lag.
The reason for the delay in time is the change in the length of the route in the 2 axis systems. check me out….
jubilee.
Did you get that there is no diversion? even better. So there is no need to measure the Doppler, and any two observers passing each other will always agree on the temperature and therefore the time, and no matter what their relative speed is, right?
Will they have a problem then synchronizing the rays in my puzzle and being able to open the box of eternal life?
And could they have done it according to the knowledge in 1905?
Miracles.
The "continuous flight" you are referring to is basically immobility in any respect. What someone else claims (if I understood correctly) is: if the time periods of acceleration from the remaining twin and back is negligible, then most of the time the two twins spent in inertial motion which is basically rest. If they both rest most of the time, why does one get old and his brother doesn't? Is there a difference between two inertial systems? What about postulate A?
The tiebreaker is the acceleration, which only the younger brother experiences.
It is true that if Jane reversed her direction she would be even younger than Jack, but any such reversal means acceleration.
Therefore when you write: "But speed also has a non-negligible effect", you can just as well write: "Immobility also has a non-negligible effect". Because there is no difference between constant speed and rest.
Israel Shapira and one other
Israel - read the link you sent again. At the end of the king - reverse directions. You will get that Jane is 4 seconds younger than Jack. It is true that acceleration slows down time - but as I have explained repeatedly, and you also mentioned (!) - the magnitude and meaning of the acceleration are meaningless compared to the time of continuous flight.
Another one - you are right that gravity has a big effect on time. But speed also has a non-negligible effect.
Come on - try to solve it with the equations of general relativity - see what you come up with. Why just talk?
Israel, I tried to calibrate the temperature watch under doppler and I could not. Simply, at whatever speed I drove, and in whatever direction, no deviation was registered. From this I conclude that the cosmic background radiation probably does not originate from one source or individual sources (which is actually a condition for the existence of the Doppler effect) but that this radiation is created in the "empty" space at each and every point in the universe. In fact, this is one of the mysteries that physicists have yet to solve (along with dark matter and dark energy). The cosmic background radiation is the same in every direction and distance from which it comes. Without going into details at the moment, this indicates a movement of information at a speed that far exceeds the speed of light - which is a serious violation of the laws of the state of physics.
Not Hebrew, main.
The comments go on and on, but I think you are both right.
And you are both wrong.
Miracles - you can't talk about the twin paradox without involving acceleration. The example I gave where you see the lengthening of time even in inertial systems, is solved by clock synchronization. The question you asked about spaceships is incomplete, as B noted in one of his responses. If you want, I'll show you why.
Another one - it is true that there is no paradox of twins without acceleration, but the amount of time that the younger twin spends in acceleration is negligible compared to the amount of time that he is in inertial motion, which is the Hebrew cause of the time difference between the twins.
If you were to try to solve the riddle of my eternal life, you might encounter a whole new problem on the subject of time dilation.
A)
Not related - the event is either in your end unit or in the satellite - the effect is also caused by gravitational differences - which is just like acceleration.
B) Yes - and therefore a thought experiment is not quite the way to work here.
c) In this case - yes - completely - a professor of Astrophysics is not something insignificant - he deals with this paragraph as part of his partner research all the time - it is likely that he knows what he is talking about. Are you a professor of Astrophysics or something else in Fisca Charlotti?
d) True - this is the paradox - and the solution to the paradox is that the acceleration/gravity is different and therefore there is no symmetry in the system.
Different time in different systems is not the same.
The Twin Paradox is exactly the story about the twins and not another script with other systems - what you are talking about is simply a normal private relationship. And it's not the twin paradox.
another one
A) Not true. We know that the clocks in GPS satellites run at a different speed than the clocks in the ground segment.
b) Relativity is really not intuitive. Newton's first law is not intuitive either. To test this, ask a small child what would happen to a rocket in space whose engine stopped.
c) So what is true is necessarily what someone with more education says?
d) The paradox is that the spaceship moves relative to the earth at the same relative speed - but more time passes on the earth than in the spaceship.
True - you can ignore the acceleration and consider only the speed. I showed that the calculation works out very nicely. The point is that the distance traveled by the spacecraft is different in the two axis systems. The distance in the Earth-Mars axis system is constant but the distance seen by the spacecraft depends on its speed. Hence the time difference. regardless of acceleration. The speed is the same in the 2 sets of axes + the distance is different ==> the time will be different.
That's all 🙂
Miracles-
a) You can check the time difference only in the same system and in the same place.
b) private and general relationships are not always intuitive (does a barn ladder remind you of something?) and simply using a simple thought experiment like this will not always give you correct results.
c) Acceleration is the explanation I know - the person who taught me this was not a website but a professor of astrophysics from the Technion.
d) It is still not clear to me where the paradox is in your script.
You explained the twin paradox as I know it and how it was solved in the model of a relative clause.
From what I understood from you, you agree if what I said and if that means that referring to acceleration is somehow not the solution.
So what is the solution?
t one another
You gave no explanation. You said you remember something…..I gave a detailed explanation. I gave you an explanation without any acceleration, and showed that the acceleration goal is meaningless.
Your last sentence is correct. But it's a reverse paradox 🙂 Take a clock into space, at low speed. Bring her back slowly. You will see that the time on the clock in the spaceship shows a later time. That is - in space you age faster. And here it has nothing to do with speed.
Please - read here to understand http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/paradoxes-of-relativity.html
I'm just telling you what I remember from the course.
And I'm pretty sure it's the other way around - as long as you don't find an error in my explanation, you should accept my claim.
I told you - yes, the acceleration is what changes.
and miracles
According to the theory of relativity - there is no difference between gravitation and acceleration - those who are inside a spaceship cannot tell the difference if the spaceship is accelerating or if the spaceship is standing on a planet with appropriate gravity.
another one
It's a shame you don't pay attention to what I wrote. As long as you don't find an error in my explanation, you should accept my argument.
And by the way - special relativity also has accelerations. General relativity adds gravity.
So that's it - no - acceleration is everything.
It's written in my notebook somewhere and it's not that simple - but the acceleration is what makes the difference here -
It's not intuitive - but private relativity isn't very intuitive either.
Everything comes from formulas and receives confirmations in all kinds of ways-
This is exactly the field that is beyond private relativity but not yet exactly in the world of general relativity.
another one
Let's assume that the spaceship still stops me from Mars. Suppose the journey is many years long and the time difference is 10 years. Now think about slowing down for a month, a day, a second or a millisecond. There is a huge difference in slowdowns here. Think even about a situation where the spaceship, in the last stage of the flight, accelerates to a huge speed, brakes, travels backwards, forwards, sideways, and all this for a month - the maximum it can affect is only a month....
But if we double the distance at the same speed - we will already get a difference of 20 years.
That is - the acceleration/deceleration is almost meaningless.
If I remember correctly - comparing ages is meaningless as long as the systems do not unite
A system that moves next to a system without accelerating or decelerating - there is no opportunity to compare the ages of twins, so it is not a paradox.
Nissim: Don't you see how it is possible to synchronize a watch with GPS?
You really are a dummy.
After all, the GPS works on the basis of an atomic clock.
Good.
I think you've had enough in life... we'll leave you alone
Israel Shapira
I don't see how you would sync a watch to GPS. When will you know when the signal is released? A GPS device uses a fourth satellite to solve this problem. The information provided by the shelter is after processing and I don't know of a way to know the arrival time...
t one another
Let's look at the following situation. There are three viewers. One on Earth, one on Mars and one in a spaceship. Observers on Earth and Mars synchronize clocks. Now - the spaceship passes by the Earth and at the moment of the suit the observer in the spaceship also synchronizes a clock. He flew at high speed (and constant throughout the experiment) to Mars. When it reaches Mars there will be a time difference between the spacecraft and the other two observers.
That is - the observer in the spaceship aged less than the observer on Mars (who is the same age as the observer on Earth). But - the Earth "moved away" from the spaceship just as the spaceship moved away from the Earth - and here's the paradox - without any accelerations and no shoes.
Well - you received an experiment that was considered the classic experiment and you saw that there is indeed a gap in ages - without accelerations.
I'm sure that Israel Shapira also agrees with that 🙂
jubilee
When you measure radiation temperature, you use a radiation meter. If you would like to know your speed relative to the radiation, you can measure it in two directions, forward and backward, and by comparing the red and blue deviations calculate your speed relative to it. The calculation of the stationary radiation temperature where you are is easy to calculate, especially if you are using a Macintosh computer.
Therefore any two passengers passing each other can always agree on a common time, the time elapsed since the Big Bang calculated using the relevant Friedman formula.
Therefore, they have no problem synchronizing their clocks to the same time, contrary to the knowledge that existed in 1905. So, there was really no possibility of synchronizing clocks except through a connection between them - Einstein proposed to do this using light rays, the speed of which is the same for every measurer, hence relativity.
However, this does not mean that there is no universal time, which can always be measured by measuring the cosmic background radiation, i.e. the cosmological clock.
Nissim - thanks for the detailed answers. I am trying to build a device that can accurately measure the arrival time of a signal from a GPS satellite. Since every GPS device does exactly that, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too complicated.
Miracles - First of all, Wikipedia is not a XNUMX% reliable source for anything - between Wikipedia and an astrophysics professor - I prefer the professor.
You are the one who brought the source of Wikipedia in Hebrew and I just quoted it.
The second thing is not in the general relativity volume, but the acceleration is the tiebreaker here - the course I studied is in the transition between private and general. And you didn't say otherwise - I really don't understand what I said that you disagree with - you keep saying I'm wrong and then say something that is pretty much exactly what I said.
another one
There is also an explanation here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gr.html
t one another
Amazing!!!! This is really what is written in the Hebrew wiki!!! But let's read in English:
Resolution of the paradox in special relativity
The standard textbook approach treats the twin paradox as a straightforward application of special relativity. Here the Earth and the ship are not in a symmetrical relationship: regardless of whether we view the situation from the perspective of the Earth or the ship, the ship experiences additional acceleration forces. The ship has a turnaround in which it undergoes non-inertial motion, while the Earth has no such turnaround. Since there is no symmetry, it is not paradoxical if one twin is younger than the other. Nevertheless it is still useful to show that special relativity is self-consistent, and how the calculation is done from the standpoint of the traveling twin.
Special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent. But the space ship jumps frames (accelerates) when it performs a U-turn. In contrast, the twin who stays at Earth remains in the same inertial frame for the entire duration of his brother's flight. No accelerating or decelerating forces applied to the twin on Earth.
There are indeed not two but three relevant inertial frames: the one in which the Earth-based twin remains at rest, the one in which the traveling twin is at rest on his outward trip, and the one in which he is at rest on his way home. It is during the acceleration at the U-turn that the traveling twin switches frames. That is when he must adjust his calculated age relative to the Earth-based twin.
Minkowski diagram of the twin paradox. Time is relative, but both twins are not equivalent (the ship experiences additional acceleration due to changes in the direction of travel).
In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present. The present from the point of view of a given observer is defined as the set of events that are simultaneous for that observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference (see relativity of simultaneity), so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) simultaneity plane in Minkowski space, then switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane.
In the spacetime diagram on the right, drawn for the reference frame of the Earth-based twin, that twin's world line coincides with the vertical axis (his position is constant in space, moving only in time). On the first leg of the trip, the second twin moves to the right (black sloped line); and on the second leg, back to the left. Blue lines show the planes of simultaneity for the traveling twin during the first leg of the journey; red lines, during the second leg. Just before turnaround, the traveling twin calculates the age of the Earth-based twin by measuring the interval along the vertical axis from the origin to the upper blue line. Just after turnaround, if he recalculates, he'll measure the interval from the origin to the lower red line. In a sense, during the U-turn the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the world line of the Earth-based twin. The traveling twin reckons that there has been a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.
The twin paradox illustrates a feature of the special relativistic spacetime model, the Minkowski space. The world lines of the inertially moving bodies are the geodesics of Minkowskian spacetime. In Minkowski geometry the world lines of inertially moving bodies maximize the proper time elapsed between two events.
In English the explanation is correct. And there is no need for a general relationship.
Nissim - It is not clear to me where what you said contradicts what I wrote.
But I will continue and quote from Wikipedia:
"But in fact there is no symmetry between the two. The twin who remains on Earth remains all the time in the same reference system - that of Earth. In contrast, the traveling twin changed reference systems. Initially it was in a system moving at speed v+ relative to the Earth, but then it reversed its direction and moved to a reference system moving at speed v-. In this rotation it was he who started the engines, and not the earth, so in this period of time he was accelerating, while his twin brother was in motion at a constant speed. When he was in acceleration, the laws of relativity applied to him
General And not the private one, and they are actually the ones who caused the slowed aging."
Israel Shapira (I guess)
I don't understand exactly what you want. The receiver has several channels. You need to decode at least 4 channels to get a location (because we don't have an atomic clock in hand....). And all the channels are on the same two frequencies…..
The first step, as I said, is the use of a noise signal (as if random). After that, you receive blocks of information 30 seconds long and at a frequency of 50 Hz. That is 1500 bit. In such a block there are 3 data types - clock data, almanac data and ephemeris data. The almanac contains information about all the satellites and the ephemeris information (in a higher frequency) about the specific satellite.
If you want to see the information itself then there are several known protocols. I worked with NMEA 0183 and there is another protocol called TIPY.
And you can write a lot more here …….
The honorable Mr. Nissim
Please no wiki and all my blocks there
Again not one on earth and one in space - two symmetrical twins in space
Thanks
another one
Kudos to your professor... but my explanation is correct.
Too bad you didn't try to understand my explanation. He is really simple. If something is not clear there - ask. If there is a mistake in the explanation - say what the mistake is.
I know I'm wasting my time - but here is the beginning of the Wikipedia entry
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
And if it's hard for you... Here is the entry in Hebrew
"The twin paradox is a paradoxical thought experiment in the special theory of relativity according to which a person travels at a constant speed, the time he will measure between two events in which he is physically located (and therefore for him they happen in the same place) will be shorter than the time measured by any person who is in a different frame of reference, in which the two events happen in places Different."
Successfully ……..
Another honorable one Hello again
If one sees black from his side and the other sees white from his side, then they are probably in parallel worlds
Sincerely, thanks
Water blowing
There is a solution to this in general relations - I just don't know it -
You can ask someone who understands.
Another one, the honorable Shalom
Regarding the twins paradox - take a symmetrical example for the final, see that it is symmetrical and you will understand that there is a contradiction.
Not one on earth and one in space - both are in space and accelerate one relative to the other.
Have a good day and continue arguing later about negative time if you feel like it because this and parallel worlds is the solution to the paradox.
Thanks
another one
So…. Your explanation of the twin paradox must have been incredibly complicated. There is a very simple explanation according to the assumptions of special relativity. The description of the paradox you give is correct and it really seems paradoxical. But the symmetry assumption is wrong. I have already explained several times but I will explain again.
Suppose the spacecraft flies to a point 20 light years away at a speed of 0.8c
In terms of the twin who forgot him at home - the time he passes is 50 years.
In terms of the traveling twin - the distance to the point is shortened and is only 12 light years. That is, the time that passes in terms of the traveling twin is 30 years.
That is - there is an age difference between you without any acceleration.
Now pay attention - let's assume a very strong acceleration so that the speed increases to 0.8c in a very short time, and the deceleration accordingly. In this enormous acceleration, time almost stopped. That is, in a very short time the twin does not age. Therefore, there is a very small difference in ages. In total we will get the same result as before.
That is - extremely strong acceleration does not affect the situation and does not seem relevant to the paradox.
And if you want to introduce the theory of general relativity into the story - remember that the twin who stays at home is in a gravitational field and this will actually reduce the age difference.
Do you get the explanation?
----------
No - it's true that it sounds counterintuitive - it doesn't sound like that to me either - but that's what it is - the one who accelerated - even for a short moment as we wish - is the one who will be affected by the effect and not the other - talking here about the area between private and general relations.
(Space-time and black holes course with Noam Soker - and I really don't remember the math - but that's how it is.)
Regardless of acceleration, the brothers are symmetrical - without acceleration or gravitation - as far as the brother in the spaceship is concerned, the other brother on Earth moves at a speed close to the speed of light and has traveled 10 light years and back.
Hence the paradox.
Miracles
I want to see the information that refers to the hospitals I am in.
What are the processes (step by step) that happen when the information is received on the device and if possible, "on the fly".
I heard you are a GPS expert, we would love to hear...
Israel Shapira
The signal from each satellite is also not clean. The problem is extremely weak power. And the solution is to absorb information over time and connect the signals. When connecting signals, the signal-to-noise ratio improves (I think according to the square root of the number of samples). The signal has a very high frequency above 1 gigabyte. If you want to demodulate you will need a suitable circuit. And in any case you need the 2 frequencies. What information do you want to see?
So yes you meant it 🙂
Doppler? I mean measure with two thermometers? Where will you stick them?
If during the eternal life that will be granted to me I have to participate in marathon discussions on the science website, I give up 🙁
I waited. There's probably a good reason.
jubilee
Shhh... Don't tell me. Give Jama'a a chance to gain eternal life.
But since you already asked - what is the problem with weighing the two-way doppler to know what your speed is relative to the radiation?
Miracles
Thanks for the information.
So you are saying that a block of information is transmitted from each satellite every 30 seconds? Why can't I tune in to single satellite broadcasts for example? After all, every GPS device does this, and with several satellites.
Israel Shapira
The signal from GPS is extremely weak and it is transmitted in such a way that it is necessary to carry out a scheme over time to receive information. There are two waves (in the civil sphere). The transmission frequency itself is approximately 1.2GHz and 1.5Ghz. The information itself, modulated in a strange way though.... It is at 50Hz and a block of information is transmitted every 30 seconds (1500 bits). And there are 2 types of science - Almanac and Ephemeris.
There are standard protocols that are the information that the receiver outputs. For example NMEA 0182 (if I remember correctly). It's a serial protocol that's easy to understand.
Don't expect to see anything on the scope ….. at best you will see a very noisy wave at 1 MHz
Israel, at first I thought you meant the thermometer that measures the temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is the same everywhere in the universe and decreases with time. Even if we accept as a solid fact that there are devices that allow the above-mentioned temperature to be translated into a time reading on a standard clock (according to the Friedman formula), it is still not clear whether because of the movement of the spacecraft the reading of the thermometer is not distorted. After all, temperature is a measure of kinetic energy, and this is expressed in the speed of movement of particles. So I understand that this is not what you meant. Please standardize
"The truth is that we need some practical jokes, let LJ Baumer have it."
You can use this.
You are an entertainer, we are. The truth is that we need some lighthearted jokes, let LJ Baumer have them.
Regarding the spacecraft - consider the matter closed.
Sometimes it's convenient not to write points, so I'm not bothered by it and I have no problem staying anonymous whenever it's convenient for me. In any case, I recognize it so it doesn't matter.
Regarding the cars, there is no need to enter into the debate again.
As for eternal life... only on the condition that you arrange for me a spaceship in first gear, its speed is a record
we,
I don't believe there are any mistakes in the Shatanz car puzzle. If so, show. You are welcome to try to solve the new spacecraft puzzle. You may also gain eternal life.
And you can already leave the anonymity.
Israel,
The car puzzle has mistakes.
I didn't talk about the riddle of spaceships.
And the last riddle is exactly suitable for miracles.
:))
Miracles The fact that you spew nonsense will not make you educated. With your logic you can only get lost in the movie you are living. If you have a problem with reality, go to a psychologist. You are pitiful.
Miracles
As someone who understands GPSs, do you perhaps know what is the typical time period of pulses coming from a GPS satellite?, whether and how I can receive it using some radio receiver? Or how can I extract it from a GPS receiver so that I can display it on an oscilloscope?
Thanks.
And in the meantime, since Michael is a bit overlapping on the topic of puzzles, here is the daily puzzle:
Somewhere in the thick of space, many thousands of light-years away from the globe of our country, in an area nicknamed "Tiz al Nabi" on our website, there is a cube of empty space whose area is equal to 10 light-years.
In Tiz al Nabi there is nothing - no suns, no planets, no comets, no meteors. Only darkness over an abyss. Actually not even an abyss (of course not an abyss - after all, there is nothing there!).
There is only one thing there, in the center of Tiz al Nabi: a closed box containing the secret of eternal life.
However, it is not so easy to reach the same secret: in order to open the same box, it must be illuminated from two directions, from two different spaceships, at a great distance from the box when neither can see or communicate with each other, within a period of time that does not exceed one hour measured by the atomic clock in the box
The ships must make their way on different routes through different galaxies, at different speeds and accelerations and without any connection between them, and they are not allowed to accumulate data on the path they took.
Many hundreds of adventurers set off to win the coveted prize. None of them succeeded. They always found that when they reached the area of the box, their clocks were completely out of sync due to the different speeds and accelerations they experienced on the way, and therefore they are unable to synchronize the rays so that they hit the box within the requested time.
The essence of the puzzle:
It is said that two ships are equipped with as precise an instrument as they desire. Will they be able to meet the task and win eternal life?
1. With the knowledge that Einstein had in 1905 when he conceived relativity.
2. With the knowledge we have today.
Try, you kind commenters, to solve the riddle, and maybe you too will win eternal life.
Miracles:
I'm sorry to say this but your words are just gibberish!
Did you really do the experiment with Achilles and the tortoise?
Hint for the answer: No!
That is why it is a model.
The truth is that even if you did the experiment it would be a model which is what your brain interprets about reality.
But I really don't have the strength anymore.
another one
You are of course right that there are no proofs in physics.
Regarding Achilles and the tortoise - you are right in your distinction that a column and a series are different things. This is a very common confusion even among lecturers at the Technion...
In any case, in my opinion this is not the solution to this paradox. But that's just my opinion….
another one
So…. Your explanation of the twin paradox must have been incredibly complicated. There is a very simple explanation according to the assumptions of special relativity. The description of the paradox you give is correct and it really seems paradoxical. But the symmetry assumption is wrong. I have already explained several times but I will explain again.
Suppose the spacecraft flies to a point 20 light years away at a speed of 0.8c
In terms of the twin who forgot him at home - the time he passes is 50 years.
In terms of the traveling twin - the distance to the point is shortened and is only 12 light years. That is, the time that passes in terms of the traveling twin is 30 years.
That is - there is an age difference between you without any acceleration.
Now pay attention - let's assume a very strong acceleration so that the speed increases to 0.8c in a very short time, and the deceleration accordingly. In this enormous acceleration, time almost stopped. That is, in a very short time the twin does not age. Therefore, there is a very small difference in ages. In total we will get the same result as before.
That is - extremely strong acceleration does not affect the situation and does not seem relevant to the paradox.
And if you want to introduce the theory of general relativity into the story - remember that the twin who stays at home is in a gravitational field and this will actually reduce the age difference.
Do you get the explanation?
Miracles
If you want to argue with the physics professor who explained this to me in a special course that deals with this topic as part of the bachelor's degree in physics -
Feel free - I may not have explained the idea correctly, but the twin paradox as I know it is this:
There are two twins - one gets on a spaceship and travels as close as we want to the speed of light for 10 years - then it changes direction and carries another 10 years back home -
According to the formulas, little time passed for the twin in the spaceship and 20 years for the one that remained - the "paradox" is that from the point of view of the brother in the spaceship in his frame of reference - it is the twin on Earth that moved away from him at a speed approaching the speed of light and returned - so doesn't it make sense that he is the one who will hardly age? - the "Symmetry" here disappears when you understand that the brother in the spaceship is experiencing great acceleration - which according to general relativity is indistinguishable from the twin - and this is what makes all the difference and solves the "paradox".
Regarding Achilles and the tortoise - the problem naturally stems from the fact that time converges together with Achilles and therefore there is no progress.
Indeed, there is no such thing as the sum of an infinite column, but only the limit of an infinite column - but this is a problem of mathematics and not of reality, therefore they invented the Hadua so that they could find these sizes and deal with this paradox.
One last thing, proof is not a term from empirical science and research - only mathematicians and logicians have proofs -
In physics there are only confirmations.
Michael Rothschild
What you say is getting more and more wrong. Achilles and the tortoise is not a paradox in logic!
The problem is not with a model of reality. The problem is with reality 🙂 After all, Achilles beats the tortoise in reality. This is what bothers us - this is the paradox! In the abstract model Achilles does not reach the tortoise at all. In reality yes.
We made assumptions:
1. In reality - the distance (or time) is continuous
2. In reality - Achilles defeats the tortoise
To remind you, Diogenes' solution was to simply get up and walk…… and your solution (and that of many) is to say that the sum of the infinite column is finite. Both of you do not understand, in my opinion, the problem.
Miracles:
You are not the only one who thinks so and it is not up for debate.
Actually it doesn't belong in any discussion but we will leave it for now.
Do you disagree that what we are discussing is a model of reality (as we imagine it in our minds)?
Do you agree that the model is abstract?
If so - then the claim that there is no abstract thing in the world - has no relevance to the discussion (besides the fact that she claims that it and all the thoughts involved in it do not exist at all).
I never claimed that there could not be an infinite number of events. I only claimed that this thought is a proposal for a different model of reality and not an explanation for the paradox.
Read the link I pointed to and you will see that paradox, as I have already said, is a phrase that belongs to the realm of logic.
Reality is not relevant at all!
The only question in understanding the paradox is whether there is a logical error here and what that logical error is.
You are welcome to continue talking about the quantum model of time but know that as long as you do so you are not referring to the paradox.
By the way - I don't know what reason you have to return to the quantum of time because I have no argument with you on the matter. I don't know if time is quantum (and neither do you. In fact, there is no one in the world who does).
The above is also a reference to your claim that we do not agree with the concept of infinity.
You agree with the concept of infinity but you just think that the number of events in the time sequence cannot be infinite.
This is a claim about (the model of) reality and not about the concept of infinity.
Note that you are not willing to accept infinite events with nothing to do with the paradox. It's an argument you have with some model of reality and it's an argument that can only be decided experimentally.
Such an experiment has not been done so far and the fact that the problem has a solution from the field of logic and mathematics proves that even the experiment of Achilles and the tortoise is not evidence that time is quantum.
This.
There is a limit to the effort I am willing to invest without anyone trying to understand what I am saying.
Michael Rothschild
So I think we disagree on the concept of "infinity". The problem is the occurrence of infinite events. My claim is that the solution may be that there is a wrong assumption - the assumption that there are indeed infinite events.
My claim does not contradict anything I know of in the world.
What's wrong here?
And what I mean by "there is an argument so and so" is that I am not the only one who thinks like that ……..no more than that.
t one another
You are simply wrong. Read the article that Israel refers to. Accelerations have nothing to do with the twin paradox. I would be happy to show you the calculation, without any need for acceleration.
By the way - this was proven in an experiment many years ago. And in the experiment there were no accelerations...
Miracles:
The term "paradox" is meant to describe a problem in logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A contradiction to the behavior of the world can arise from wrong logic or a wrong model, but it is not necessarily a paradox.
Once you propose another model you never face the logical problem and therefore do not solve the paradox.
Logic and mathematics are the same lady in the change of glory and the solution of the mathematical problem is therefore the only solution to the paradox.
There are paradoxes that deal with the physical world, but their right to be called a paradox stems from the logical problem that is created. If no logical problem arises but only a contradiction with nature then it is not a paradox but only a wrong model of nature.
In our case there is simply a logical error in the consideration that ignores the fact that the time series converges and allows itself to use a phrase like "never" (which refers to the entire timeline) after seeing an infinite number of events that are all before 10:00
This is a mathematical error and is the reason for the feeling of paradox (because in a different way of calculation we see that Achilles reaches the turtle and even passes it).
What you propose is to ignore the mathematical error, to say that the wrong consideration is correct, and consequently to replace the model of physics.
This is a mistake from start to finish.
By the way, I'm completely calm.
And by the way: I never said that philosophy has no place in the world, but philosophy is the love of thought or wisdom and not the love of gossip. A considerable part of those who are called philosophers today do not deserve the title. Because of "these philosophers" they say that to be a scientist you need paper, a pencil, an eraser and a trash can and to be a philosopher you only need paper and a pencil.
And a few more things: "There is an argument that such and such" is not an argument. This is at best a quote and at worst hand waving.
There is almost every claim in the world that mortals are capable of putting out of their mouths and it means nothing.
The specific philosophical claim you describe is an example of bad philosophy because it says nothing - simply nothing.
Regardless of what is in the world - what is in our minds are only abstract models (that is - at the proper level of abstraction - at a more basic level of course our minds only have elementary particles) and we are only able to talk about these abstract models.
By the way - to say that our thoughts (including the abstract models in them) do not exist in the world is just nonsense.
The twin "paradox" is exactly about acceleration (or gravity) it can be shown by using formulas.
(Not that I remember it by heart - I have the notebook somewhere).
I'm not quite able to follow the problem you're talking about - the twin paradox is that one twin accelerates and the other doesn't.
Come on. so be it. 🙂
I have to go, but then I have a question for you about GPS satellites.
Israel Shapira
Here you are wrong 🙂 In special relativity there are definitely accelerations. But, the twin paradox does not talk about accelerations at all. Think Jill stops at point C2. If they were twins before the flight then there is now a 2 second difference between them.
The example you gave illustrates exactly what I said. There is an age difference that has nothing to do with acceleration.
In a simple way - the special theory of relativity claims that c is constant in any frame of reference (even in accelerated axis systems).
General relativity shows equivalence between acceleration and gravity.
Miracles
If I understood your words correctly, then because of the symmetry Jill and Jane will meet at point C2 and their clocks will read 8.
Jack's watch will show 10 as before.
This is not the half-twin paradox - in the twin paradox the same twins meet. You showed the solution to the paradox according to special relativity, which does not include accelerations. But the general solution talks about acceleration, which is not included in the examples we have talked about so far.
anonymous
Read the example again. There is no resetting of clocks at the meeting point - it was done before, 8 seconds ago according to Jill's clock.
In our case the meeting point is c, or d, indicated in your response, and that's where the observations were made.
The problem is that Nissim claims that each side will see the other's clock as lagging behind at the meeting point, contrary to logic and written in the article.
Israel Shapira
I understood your point. This is exactly the "twin paradox" - but only half way. Jack aged 10 seconds and Gil aged 8 seconds. They both agree to it. You are 100% right about that.
But... I was thinking of a different situation. Thus the example you gave, in which we will duplicate it in the form of a mirror around C2. Jane leaves the new point on the right side completely symmetrically. My question - what will Jill see on Jane's watch and vice versa? My feeling is that you will say that they both agree that 8 seconds have passed. And I think you are right……
but …. (There's always a but….) – Will Jane and Jill meet at point C2 ??? I think the answer is yes…. Although it is very counterintuitive to me 🙂
Israel:
If two systems pass by each other then at the common zero point of time and space the same photographs will be obtained. The same clock readings. But at the points far from the zero point other readings will be obtained.
At a point some distance (spatial) from the main point, the readings of the times will be different from the readings of the times at the main point.
If A passes B then they can always reset the clocks at their meeting point. Then of course the reading of the clocks will be the same ie zero on both clocks. But if with regard to GUD that are at certain distances from the main one, the readings will be different.
Miracles
So what do you claim - that in the example I gave when Jill passes by Jack she will see her watch showing 10 and his watch 8, and this is also what a photo of the two watches from her vantage point will show?
R.H. Rafai.M
1. There is such a claim in philosophy. She also has a name. And some believe in it. And there are articles on the subject.
2. I did not claim that this claim resolves the paradox.
3. It is obvious that you do not understand what I understand and what I do not understand.
Good.
We can say a few more things, regarding the delay...
"There is a philosophical claim that there are no abstract objects in the world." - Miracles, a philosophical claim does not solve a paradox in the world exactly to the same extent that an exercise in mathematics does not solve the paradox in the world.
It is obvious to you that you do not understand the fact that people are the ones who solve the paradoxes using knowledge, and tools like mathematics or philosophy or whataver....
Israel Shapira
Pay attention to the sentence you quote: two pictures from the same place at the same time. This is exactly the problem - what is the same time in different reference systems?
I will ask you a simple question. Let's look at the clock in a low and fast spaceship - do you claim that the clock in the spaceship will look like the clock on Earth? Let's assume a spaceship that passes over the viewer exactly every hour. Will the clock in the spacecraft also move forward by an hour?
And just so you know, experiments that showed the time lag were already done 40 years ago...
Michael Rothschild
cool it. All I'm saying is that a math exercise doesn't solve a paradox in the world. There is a philosophical claim that there are no abstract objects in the world.
So you say philosophy has no place in the world. So we probably have nothing more to talk about.
Miracles.
Despair Yashtani Despair.
For the last time: I am not debating with you on the issue of "whether or not there is time dilation", but on the question: will two passengers passing each other see - or take - identical pictures of the state of the clocks.
I linked you to a relevant example, identical to the example I gave about the spacecraft passing over the Earth on its way to Mars.
In the same example, Jill passes a clock that is synchronized with Jack's clock and is stationary relative to it (like the Earth and Mars in my example). Shauna and the same clock show 0 when it passes by (as in my example). When Jill comes to Jack, who answers shows 8 seconds and his watch shows 10 (as in my example).
If it were true in your argument, then Jill would have seen Jack's watch as behind, that is, she would have seen 10 on her watch and 8 on his watch.
But wonder and wonder! They both agree that they see - and therefore take pictures - that the clock lags behind its clock!
How then does relativity claim that each sees the other's clock as slower?
Here in the article appears a scholarly, mainly mathematical (and correct) explanation of how they reach this conclusion.
However, without a doubt, in both photographs - on her part and on his part - Shaunan is relatively behind his time.
And that's all I asked about.
Just to be sure, if you continue reading the article, you will see that:
two snapshots taken from the same place at the same time must show the same thing!
So one of the two: either you explain to me what I didn't understand in the article, or I will come to the inevitable conclusion that you have decided to drive me insane.
David - I hope you understood the point of my words about miracles. The question was what short-range photographs would show, not calculations involving distance. The answer: they will see the same picture.
Ghosts:
I never had a problem admitting my mistake, if I recognized it. I don't see any error in my argument here, nor in the riddle of the Shatanz cars.
Miracles:
The scientists used to be called the philosophers of nature.
At a certain inflationary stage, more people who do not understand science decided that they should also be called "philosophers".
Everything else is history and politics.
There are many antisemites and this does not convince me of their righteousness.
There are a lot of Muslims and this does not convince me of their righteousness.
There are a lot of baseless arguments and they do not convince me of the rightness of their claims.
For some reason, you are ready to accept the convergence in a mathematical problem and it seems absurd to you when its parameters are given names.
This is a problem for which the only reason can be a prejudice and the fact that you avoid answering my questions testifies to about a thousand witnesses of a situation of lack of willingness to discuss the conclusion.
Which of my wishes do you not know how to answer?
If it's about those concerning Harty, then it's a situation where you tried to convince me with a book you didn't read or didn't understand.
If it is about the mere mention of Harty (who in your opinion says that mathematics is not necessary for science) only to defend one mathematical model and reject another mathematical model, then this is demagoguery.
If it is about the contradiction between your unwillingness to accept any conclusion in nature and your willingness to accept the same conclusion in a mathematical model that is no different from the description of nature by the person who invented the paradox, then it is about rejecting the explanation for reasons that do not relate to the problem being discussed - a question that intellectual honesty requires you to give yourself An answer to it.
Israel,
By "everyone sees the other's watches as no better" the reference is to the watches themselves. The passenger in the spaceship sees the spaceship clock as advancing more slowly, and the observer in the spaceship sees the spaceship clock as advancing more slowly. ZA, if we assume that the spacecraft has a telescope that follows the spacecraft, sees the time displayed there, takes into account the distance that the light had to travel from the spacecraft to the spacecraft and compares the time to its clock, it will see the clock in the spacecraft as ticking more slowly. Conversely, if the spaceship has a telescope that points to the Earth, watches the clock that is there and takes into account the distance that the light had to travel to reach the spaceship (the distance this time is shorter!) he will see that the clock on Earth is ticking more slowly. Bringing Mars into the story just creates confusion.
Nissim: It seems that apart from Babylon, you don't know anything.
You keep evading. Maybe you will answer the questions that MR asked you? We are interested in knowing where he went wrong, as you said. (And beyond the criticism of you - I really hope you don't take it too hard - there is also a piece of advice: be a bit like Israel Shapira [Rev. The Riddle of the Shatanz Cars], he at least admits when he's wrong).
Israel Shapira
I'm glad you see some logic in the continuity problem in the real world 🙂
Uncle
We think exactly the same. Maybe you will convince our friend Israel? 🙂
Israel Shapira
Regarding the trains/spaceships, you are wrong. This is what the theory says - I showed you the calculations: the shortening of the distance is exactly what causes the lag in times. Beyond that, I explained to you that it also happens in reality.
Israel - we see the lag in the clocks in reality. I have no idea why you are arguing with facts you probably don't know.
Regarding Mars - the twin approaching us is shortened. You are confusing distance with length - and I will explain. If we photograph the stars during the suit, they will be at the same distance. This is true when the observer from Earth sees a suit.
But - it doesn't matter when we take a picture, we will accept that the moving star is compressed. It's quite complicated, because shooting at such speeds is not easy at all. Let's suppose that we activate a flash of light from all kinds of points on the stars at the moment of the suit. But, we encounter the problem of lack of simultaneity in systems in motion.
Let's simplify - we will activate only 2 flashes, at both ends of the moving star at a certain moment. Will the national viewer see them at the same time? what are you saying?
Michael Rothschild
The thought that it is possible to end an endless series of events bothers me. If you don't see the problem then you don't see the problem. I didn't come to convince anyone.
The fact that respected philosophers see it as a problem at least shows that the issue is not resolved as you say with such confidence.
And again - you presented a question to which I do not know the answer. What are you trying to infer from this???
Miracles:
The fact that there are other people in the field of philosophy who do not understand the problem and the solution will not convince me.
You didn't give a reason why it doesn't work, and you also didn't answer the other questions I posed to you.
It doesn't seem to me that you are debating and your comments seem to me to be mere insistence.
Miracles
You force me to bother - and more on Saturday! Take it on your conscience.
Here is what I answered you in the past about your question, note the date:
To your question: all the photographs will show the same time on the clocks of the 2 trains calculated by the relevant Lorentz transformation.
Please explain the problematic of Zeno's paradox.
April 24th, 2013
Old comments
The fact that you replaced trains with spaceships does not change the essence of the question.
Regarding the second part of your question, indeed each spaceship sees the other as inferior by about 0.97C, but the distance between them is even shorter (Lorentz again), which compensates for the 3 minutes that disappear.
If the qualitative description is not enough, I told you yesterday that if you insist, I will do the quantitative calculation for you (you insist? Shabbat, Metosha, Amayat....).
Is everything clear to me too? not exactly. At the time I asked here without an answer, the following question:
It is said that the Mars conjunction passes by Mars at high speed in the direction of the Earth. We are filming the moment of the suit from Israel.
Now, according to Lorenz, the distance shortens only in the direction of movement. Therefore, we will get in the image that the diameter of the compatible is the same as that of Mars, but its distance is much shorter.
What do you see in the picture? Is it because of the perspective that the compatible will look much bigger than Mars? Will he hide it because of its enormous size?
I did not receive an answer. Maybe on this occasion that Michael dropped by for a visit, we'll hear his opinion.
By the way - if you've noticed, we all say M*kal, or Michael, or Mekel Hovlim. Just not the explicit name. It's so they don't keep us waiting.
And regarding your discussion with Michael - I understand and sympathize with you. I too have often wondered why the integral, a mathematical object built on an infinitesimal that aspires to 0, must also work on physical objects that do not aspire to 0 but are essentially quantum and not smaller than a certain limit of the Planck size (time is a good example).
David - of course your answer is correct. The problem is: what is meant by "everyone sees the other's watches as slower". If you don't agree that this is extremely confusing, see the answer of Nissim - and many other good ones - who believe that this means simply: photographs taken at the same point and at the same moment of the same event, will show different things.
Michael - which patents are we talking about?
Israel,
With your permission I will join the discussion. In response to your question about the earth and Mars. You asked:
When the spacecraft passes over Mars, what will the photographs of the two clocks in the cameras from Mars and the spacecraft show?
My answer is that first of all the two photographs will be identical, and the photographs will show the spacecraft clock lagging behind the Mars clock. The Mars clock shows two hours and the spacecraft clock will show a shorter time. There is no contradiction because, from the point of view of the spacecraft, the clocks of Earth and Mars are not synchronized.
Michael Rothschild
I said that the solution of a mathematical exercise is a limit. I don't think there are "boundaries" in the real world.
Just so you know - in the field of philosophy, the paradox about Achilles and the tortoise is not considered to be solved. I suggest you read in SEP and learn that the situation is not exactly as you write.
And I'm not avoiding your wish. Read the book…….
Miracles:
I agree not to agree.
I usually don't agree with mistakes, so it's easy for me.
To say that the solution is a limit is to say nothing, but if this statement satisfies you as a solution to the mathematical problem, then why does the same solution to the same problem - with the only difference being that t is time and the two functions are the positions of Achilles and the tortoise - not satisfy you?
I repeat: I do not claim that time is not discrete. We currently have no information on the subject and the "paradox" in question does not add any information to us on the subject, so the example of electricity erupts into an open door in another building. The question here is whether there is a paradox in the physical model according to which time is continuous and the answer is no - even if time is continuous there is no paradox here. There is simply an attempt here - logically wrong - to draw a conclusion about the entire timeline based only on events that all take place before 10:00.
I can point you to someone who wrote that the world will be destroyed in 2012, so pointing to someone who wrote something is really not an argument (by the way - there is someB makes a similar claim about tonight🇧🇷
I would appreciate it if you would not avoid my questions and explain to me how the same Harty describes the orbit of the earth around the sun and how he proposes to determine when and exactly where two bodies moving towards each other will collide.
Michael Rothschild
So let's agree to disagree...
Your example is a math exercise. The solution is the limit of course. The difference between the 2 functions tends to 0.
Here is another example - from the field of electricity. Current is the derivative of the charge per unit time. Today we know that time is discrete. They never knew that...
Oops...Hartree Field. He wrote a book called Science without Numbers.
By the way, I looked for Harty Field on Wikipedia and couldn't find it.
I don't know who he is and I don't understand what he did.
How could he indicate what the Earth's orbit around the Sun is without using the mathematical term "ellipse"?
How did he propose to determine the time when two objects moving towards each other will collide without mathematics?
The whole story seems very strange to me.
Miracles:
First of all - if you think it is possible to refer to the physical world without mathematics, then you are more or less the only one in the world who thinks so.
The real situation is so far from what you describe that there are even people who think that the world nothing but Mathematics and you are welcome to read about it here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ground-problem-of-metaphysics-part-2-0704103/
The funny thing is that the model you propose is also a mathematical model like all models. Simple - you don't understand the solution in the model they are talking about, so you say - we will move to another model.
Did we say dodging?
I will try to clarify the absurdity of your train of thought by an example that is purely mathematical.
It only has parametric functions and the similarity in letters is not accidental.
In the mathematical parable - t is just a number that is used as a parameter.
The function (T(t) is just a function in the same continuous mathematical space and so is the function (A(t) these are just two functions.
Suppose that T(t)=10+t
Suppose that A(t)=10t
The "paradox" will be presented in the following way:
It is not possible for (A(t) to be greater than (T(t) because if we start with t=0 then T(t)=10 and A(t)=0
If we increase t to 1 then (A(t) will be equal to 10 but (T(t) will already increase to 11
And so on - like in Achilles and the tortoise - only not in Achilles and not in the tortoise and not in the world but only in a completely imaginary continuous space.
Your conclusion here will be: well, well, you talked about a continuous space, but you lied.
You should have talked about a discrete space because that's where I understand the solution and it seems much more interesting to me.
Michael Rothschild
I think it is possible to talk about the physical world without mathematics. Achilles and the tortoise is a simple example of this. Several years ago Hartie Field developed Newtonian mechanics without mathematics.
And I personally have a problem with an endless series of "events". I understand that using the word "event" here is problematic, because it is not clear that a movement is even a group of events.
In short - the discrete solution seems more interesting to me...
Miracles:
This is not a physical problem but a problem with a model of physics.
A model is mathematical (always! After all, you have no possibility to talk directly about the world. You always talk about models).
The question is whether the problem in the model has a solution (and it does) and not whether reality has other models.
Sometimes - when a problem has no solution in an existing model, this is an indication that the model does not represent reality and should be replaced. That is not the case with this question.
In the mathematical model I do assume continuous time (as the problem's formulators assumed) and it just works.
I am not canceling the idea of discrete time and you are welcome to advance it and bring evidence to your heart's content, but do not do so at the expense of understanding the current problem and its solution.
Israel Shapira
Again - you're not answering me 🙂 When the spaceships pass, what will each see on the other's watch?
Michael Rothschild
In my opinion, a mathematical "solution" to a physical problem is evasion. In the mathematical solution you assume that time is continuous, and that just doesn't work, in my opinion. You still have to go through infinite events.
On the other hand, I don't understand why you see a problem with the concept of discrete time. It doesn't contradict observations and it does solve at least one problem. Why cancel the idea for no reason?
Israel:
I grew up in a religious (but not fanatical) home.
Michael
I went through your blog a bit.
Question: Did you have a religious or traditional background in the past?
Well, I have to go to work. My parents' well-being is indeed guaranteed in the kibbutz for the time being, but we mortals without patents must make a living.
Israel:
Fortunately, I'm always free.
In fact - I have always lived in freedom, but for the past few years I have also been on vacation after I sold a number of patents that freed me from the burden of making a living.
The problem is that other issues bothered my rest (and some of them continue to bother her to this day).
It started by investing a lot of time in trying to bring the country back to sanity as part of the activities in the Or party and it continued by investing a lot of time that I had to invest in the well-being of my elderly father following the death of my mother.
It is also a matter of priorities. One of the things I did recently was to write a few things on the blog I started on the "One Against All Religion" website.
The name of the blog is "From the wheel of a secular” and I recommend everyone to look at it.
Miracles
We must distinguish between two issues: the issue of the discussion, that is, whether two observers passing each other will agree on a single situation, and the issue of calculating time according to relativity.
On the first issue, I believe I managed to show you that there is no argument between them. The link I provided is excellent in the interpretation that they both agree that Jill's time lags behind Jack's time.
The second issue - the calculation itself - is a technical matter. If you insist, I will try to make all the relevant calculations, but I believe, and you also believe, that we will not get any contradiction with relativity.
Michael
Leave nonsense now, relationships, sponsorships, sponsorship fees. Tell me how you were on vacation.
Miracles:
And maybe it's not possible at all? I repeat - this is nothing but evasion of the problem. It's like answering a traffic problem that deals with a person leaving city A towards city B with the answer that there are no cities with these names at all.
There is nothing wrong with a mathematical description of a world where time is continuous.
I repeat - this question has nothing to do with the nature of time in our world.
Michael Rothschild
I know the calculations in depth 🙂 I didn't claim anything different for a moment. What I argued is that these phenomena are observed. These are not calculations without the ability to confirm, as Israel Shapira claims (as I understand his words).
Michael Rothschild
Maybe a world where time is continuous is not possible at all? I don't think the idea is that stupid. We know that it is impossible to simultaneously determine both speed and position with high accuracy. So - when Achilles is very close to the tortoise we are no longer in the classical world.
Miracles:
Although the speed slows down the course of time in the satellite clocks by 7 microseconds, the low gravity actually accelerates time much more (45 microseconds per day) and therefore time in the satellites actually advances faster (by 38 microseconds per day).
You can find the calculations here:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA516975
Israel:
I have argued with you about the subject more than enough so I will not return to these arguments again.
Israel Shapira
But note…. Let's now assume 2 spaceships. One leaves the Earth and the other leaves the star at a distance of 40 light minutes. Each speed - let's say 0.8c. They set off together and meet after 25 minutes (according to the clocks of the stars). What time does a spaceship viewer see? He is halfway there, so 15 minutes have passed for him.
But what will the viewer see in the second spacecraft? The relative speed is about 0.97c. Let's assume that it is c - a small error. The distance - 12 light minutes, that is - the clock in the second spaceship will be behind by 3 minutes.
This is of course true for both sides.
Do you see a mistake here?
Miracles:
Your answer is incorrect because it refers to a different reality than the question assumes.
This is nothing but evading the reality discussed in the question.
Even if time consists of discrete units (and at the moment we have no evidence of this), then the question can be asked as a hypothetical question about a world in which time is continuous and a real reference to the question should, therefore, be able to deal with such a world as well (what is more, again, as mentioned, there is currently no an indication that our world is not like that).
Israel Shapira
Again - this is not the situation we described. This situation, in the drawing, is exactly like the example I described at the beginning. The example was of a flight to a star 40 light minutes away, at a speed of 0.8c - for observers on Earth and the planet, 50 minutes would pass, but for a passenger in a spaceship, only 30 minutes would pass.
I mean - we say the same thing - in this case
Miracles
Not even for one second did I doubt that you would say what you said.
I heard that according to Spinoza, a negative is a positive, a circle is a square and the contour is a plane.
Note: we were talking about photographs. Look under the second picture and read what it says (translation below):
When Jill walks past Jack, they both see that his watch shows 10 and that the time is 8 seconds.
The explanation why this is not so comes later, and is mathematical. But there is no doubt that both of them see - or take pictures - that Shauna lags behind his own.
parable.
Israel Shapira
The example you refer to talks about something completely different - 2 viewers looking at the same watch. As far as I understand, we talked about each viewer looking at the other's watch.
Let's read the first paragraph together:
The object of this exercise is to show explicitly how it is possible for two observers in inertial frames moving relative to each other at a relativistic speed to each see the other's clocks as running slow and as being unsynchronized, and yet if they both look at the same clock at the same time from the same place (which may be far from the clock), they will agree on what time it shows!
The article says exactly what I say.
Israel Shapira
No. That is not my claim. My claim is that at any speed there is a time lag, but such a lag is extremely small at 20 km/h, and large at 200,000 km/s. In everyday life it may be true, depending on our interest.
It's not the only place this happens. In everyday life the speed of rotation of the earth is meaningless. When playing baseball, there is nothing wrong with that. When a plane throws a bomb to a range of several kilometers it has a small but not negligible effect and needs to be corrected for this rotation. And when we talk about weather, then it has a decisive effect - it is what causes hurricanes and also the change in wind speed depending on the altitude (the wind turns to the right when a plane climbs).
The same goes for time. The only place I got to mess with it, is in atomic clocks in satellites, especially GPS satellites. These satellites move around 4 km per second, which gives about 7 microseconds per day. Not negligible at all.
Miracles
So according to you at a speed of 20 km/h the photographs will be the same in terms of the times on the clocks but at a speed of 200,000 km/s they will be reversed?
This divides the velocities into two domains: the domain of low velocities where the shots are identical, and the domain of high velocities where they are reversed.
Can you, Einstein, or anyone of your stature, point to a point or demarcation area, below which we can say: from this speed and below the photographs are the same, above it they are reversed?
Submit miracles. This is not the answer. It is given in the following example:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Note that in this example, identical to mine, there is no debate about the state of the clocks between the two parties, both agree that one clock is behind. The claim that each system is backward relative to the other is made through calculation, not observation or photography. The photo will always look the same. This is exactly your claim about the difference between the real, physical speed and the mathematical speed.
Michael, welcome back. Or may not have caused greatness and confusion, but Lapid seems to apply her teachings religiously. So maybe it's time to get back to the real things: endless philosophical debates about the essence of movement and the Creator?
And we all also miss puzzles, preferably in physics.
another one
You are right that the number of points is infinite which is not divisible (the strength of the sequence). But - the repeated halving of the distance creates a group that is indeed a member. After all, we know how to calculate the position of each point.
What I propose as a solution (I assume it's not in my source but I don't know such a claim) is that the set is simply finite...
Michael
This can explain the difference...so I understand from your words that it is indeed possible to define a list of infinite events and go through them all. I think the solution is different - the list is simply final. I don't see why it's wrong to think like that...
Miracles:
Your solution is different from mine because your solution is wrong.
Among other things - the claim that "there is no end" means "we will never reach the end" is wrong. This is a mistake because "infinity" is talking about the number of moments and not their sum and that is exactly what I explained.
another one:
The matter has nothing to do with the issue of the strength of the group of events (partner or not). Read what I wrote.
Miracles - the way I understand it - Achilles has to go through an indivisible infinity of points in space - but he has an indivisible infinity of points in time to do it. That's why Achilles gets the tortoise.
It is the paradox that does a mathematical exercise and divides something completely finite into an infinite convergent series.
Machel
I read your comment and I absolutely agree about the way to solve a paradox. This is exactly my claim - you have to find the error in the arguments. My solution is different.
ב
Or, maybe in reality there are no infinite points? Maybe the space is made of discrete points? Why do you think space is continuous?
I popped in for a moment to visit.
Those who want to understand the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise and other paradoxes are invited to read my response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/toward-infinity-0703081/comment-page-1/#comment-40965
Miracles:
There is no problem with Achilles having to go through infinite points.
Even without this paradox every step of every person passes through an infinite number of points.
I agree with what you write. But, in my opinion, this does not solve the paradox. Leave the issue of steps. If time and space are continuous, then there is a series of infinite points that Achilles must pass through.
Do you want to set the distance from the border? I want to cross the border …..
You are right that it doesn't matter which leg. This only exacerbates the problem.
It is not entirely clear to me what the argument is about here
But speed is always relative. (Also the speed of light, only that here it gets complicated and relativity comes in)
Regarding acceleration - basically you can say that if someone is in a spaceship and feels a gravitational force of 10 meters per second squared
He has no way of knowing from the force acting on him alone if he is being acted upon by a gravitational force of 10 meters per second squared or if the spacecraft is accelerating.
Momentum and energy are conserved in their system, they are not conserved in all systems - the same object will have different momentum and energy in each frame of reference.
Miracles:
You are not wrong. If Achilles does run in the steps you described he will not catch the tortoise. He can only get close to the turtle to some arbitrarily determined degree.
Here are some common errors:
1) It is customary to say that Achilles will "never" catch the tortoise. This is a statement that includes a wrong assumption related to time. There is a time when Achilles will catch the tortoise. But under the conditions of the described problem. Achilles and the Tortoise will not reach this point in time.
To correct the error it must be said: Achilles will not reach the tortoise in any finite number of steps. This correction does not refer to time but to the number of Achilles steps.
2) The paradox is about "Achilles" who is not a man. Achilles in the mathematical description does not exist in nature. It is not possible to perform such a task because the number of steps per second is limited in biological beings.
3) There is no meaning to the question of which foot the mathematical Achilles will reach the limit. This is because the mathematical Achilles will not reach the limit. There is only a certain area of the boundary that the mathematical Achilles will reach after a certain number of steps.
Only after the distance from the border is defined will it be possible to calculate the number of steps. According to this it can be said that Achilles will reach the tortoise with both legs. Because at any distance we define, however small, Achilles will step there with both feet. In other words, the distance between the two legs tends to zero.
Yuval Chaikin
I still don't see my mistake in the Achilles and the tortoise paradox. The moment of Achilles' arrival at the tortoise comes after an endless series of moments. The sum of the moments is indeed finite, but still something doesn't add up in my head. Unless you do quantization for time, or mix uncertainties here....
Israel Shapira
I don't understand what's the matter with trains at 20 km/h. Here is another example: in order to build a house on a plot of one dunam, the earth will be considered flat. In order to build a long bridge, you have to take into account that the earth is round. In order to navigate distances of many kilometers, the earth is already an ellipsoid. To calculate the position of a GPS satellite the Earth is a geoid.
It's the same for relative velocities.
Your point that speeds can only be treated by mathematics is incorrect, in my opinion. Mathematics is a tool that humans invented. Willard Quain argued, and Hilary Putnam argues, that mathematics is indeed essential to understanding the observable world. Harty Field, for example, claims the opposite, and so do I.
Israel - you correctly described my approach. It seems to me that you are right that relative velocity is indeed a real concept, and it is also different from momentum: relative velocity affects observations (and only observations) and momentum is conserved, even at relativistic speeds. And notice something interesting: the speed that is constant in any reference system is not exactly the speed of light, but the speed of information transmission, i.e. the speed of observations....and don't forget that not only light moves at the speed of light ……
but!!! It has nothing to do with math.
Indeed it is - momentum is what is preserved.
Speed is a property of the arrow just as position is a property of the arrow - the fact that there is a mathematical relationship between them that one is a derivative of the other and the other is an integral of the first - this is very essential for understanding and calculation - but that is not what defines it - a derivative defines instantaneous speed while you can also define speed As an average speed - it is derived only as a way to measure the speed -
It is possible to increase the instantaneous speed as the distance the object will travel in one second if at that exact moment all the forces acting on the object cease to act.
This iPhone Dracom will not work, let's go back to a normal computer, where you can also see what you write before you send.
Both sits down and is thoughtful.
If I understood correctly, Nissim is trying to show that our attempt to treat speed - a physical essence - through mathematics leads to paradoxes, because of the problematic definition of speed at zero point.
This is a known issue with Infi. The whole idea of a derivative is that you define it as division by an infinitesimal that tends to zero - while division by zero is forbidden by mathematics.
Nissim asks (this is how I understood it): What is the relevance of that shaky mathematical treatment - speed, which is derived from distance/time according to mathematics, but stands on its own in the world of physics?
And to that I replied: In the world of physics there is no speed, only relative speed. This has nothing to do with si units. In fact, you can define speed as a basic quantity, and time as distance divided by speed.
And therefore, we should not trouble our busy little minds with the physical nature of the velocity or inertial motion at the zero point. She just doesn't exist.
Relative speed, on the other hand, also exists, and mathematics is the right tool to handle it.
The speed of light, on the other hand, is not a relative quantity, nor is acceleration. Both are absolute.
If you don't believe it, get in the car and step on the gas. Try to convince your aching back that relative to the car accelerating just like you you are actually at rest. A.E. Shatanz Cars.
Israel, some order:
I copied and pasted from Wikipedia:
In the SI system there are seven basic physical quantities, which are measured in one of the seven basic units (in parentheses): length (meter), mass (kilogram), time (second), electric current (ampere), temperature (Kelvin), amount of substance (mol) and luminous intensity (candela).
There are many physical quantities, which are not basic: area, acceleration, capacitance and more, these quantities are derived from the basic quantities. For example, measuring areas is multiplying length by length and is therefore not basic. Accordingly, the units of measure for measuring areas are not basic units and are derived from the units of length.
If the above is acceptable to you, how does it fit with the content of your last comment?
And regarding my novel with Nissim: it ended before it began 🙁 but not bad. I don't take to ♥
Nissim, for your response this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-crew-aboard-station-after-express-flight-010413/comment-page-7/#comment-406932
A: There are two theories of relativity, the particular and the general. Please don't mix them up. We are dealing here only with the private T.H.I. The examples you gave are from the general Bible.
B: By the term "conservatism" I meant the approach of Parmenides. To me, Zenon is the one who represents a revolutionary approach whose results are calculations of limits and convergences, the "invention" of numbers that our intuition does not recognize and other modern developments.
C: The respect of philosophical claims is in its place. But for the sake of good order, they must also be brought coherently and without waving hands.
Chutsamza, without intending to offend, I no longer ask you to write to me.
Miracles
In physics there is no such thing as speed - there is only relative speed, the speed of light and acceleration.
Any body that is not accelerating is at 0 speed as far as it is concerned. Therefore the only way to handle speeds is through mathematics, hence the convergent series.
the same thing? I thought you were claiming that each would see the other's watches as slower.
Because if it's the same thing, then they both agree that Haifa lags behind Tel Aviv, right?
Israel Shapira
I answered you about this two days ago. All shots will look the same.
Yuval Chaikin
I described a bit the topic of GPS satellites. I also mentioned the subject of current carrying wire pairs attraction. These are two examples from the field of engineering that confirm the theories of relativity - both in terms of time lag and in terms of contraction in length. Completely empirical 🙂
I don't quite understand why you say my view is conservative. Every kid in high school learns the classic solution to the Achilles and the Tortoise paradox - the sum of an infinite series converges to a final result, and this sum is also easy to calculate.
I made a philosophical claim: basic assumptions and a conclusion. If the conclusion does not make sense then where is the error? In the premises or in the way of drawing the conclusion? There are possible solutions to the paradox, but throwing out "it's the sum of a geometric column" doesn't work.
Miracles
You often talk about symmetry, but notice the lack of symmetry between us: I answer all your questions, you only philosophize and do not answer clearly.
So here I will present the question to you one more time. If you answer clearly, there is merit in the discussion. If not, maybe we'd better finish.
Let's take the example of the train to Haifa that passes the train to Tel Aviv. The relative speed between them is 20 km/h. As soon as the locomotive passes the collector, the time on the train clocks to Haifa is 1442. On the train clocks to Tel Aviv - 1753.
The time is displayed on the window of the car and the locomotive as a digital LED display, so there is no problem taking pictures of the time on both trains together from one camera on each train.
a question:
Also in this case, which can happen every day and has nothing to do with relationships, will the photographs show different times on the clocks? Will the photo from the Haifa train show: Haifa 1442 Tel Aviv 1753, while the photo from the Tel Aviv train will show: Haifa 1753 Tel Aviv 1442?
If your answer is positive, see your warning: there is no problem to perform such a simple experiment with cars, watches and cameras. I am willing to bet with anyone interested for any amount that they would like the photos to show the same times on the clocks, no matter where the photo was taken.
Anyone want to get involved?
another one
There is a problem of setting speed at a point. If we look at the speed as a derivative, then the speed is a limit and is defined only for a period of time that is different from zero.
Mathematics is a wonderful tool to describe nature. But she is only a tool. The laws of mathematics are not the laws of nature.
And when I studied physics, what was really basic was actually momentum. There are no speed limits, right?
Israel Shapira
You wrote that the two passing observers will agree on the time... Then you wrote that one watch is behind. Which of the clocks will lag? You completely confused me, I thought the situation was symmetrical...
I will ask you another question: every viewer should see the second train as shorter. Do you see no problem here?
Another time iPhone. According to Einstein and relativity, the two observers passing each other will agree on the observed times, and that one clock is behind.
Good luck with Yuval.
Miracles
Maybe we should really leave. If you continue to insist that each camera will take a different picture, then the basis for a physical discussion between us has been lost.
Just one request - don't try to appropriate Einstein. That's not what he claims. According to Einstein and relativity
Miracles Speed is not only a derivative of the place - it is also a real property of the arrow.
This is something that is basic to anyone who studies physics.
And how is it defined at a point in time.
An integral is also a limit - so if we say that a position is an integral of the speed - is it reasonable to say that a position is a limit and not defined at a point in time?
Nissim, have you lost your patience? Instead of getting angry and just saying "Einstein was wrong" try to understand Israel's argument in depth. I, by the way, am not participating, and that is because I decided to demonstrate an empiricist position and have not yet received the results of a practical experiment in the field.
And your claim that it is impossible to add an infinite number of numbers is not relevant, and this is because it is possible to reach desired results with the help of other operations besides addition. For example, the gathering you show conservative distaste for. Your statement that speed is not defined at a point in time also demonstrates your misplaced conservatism. Zeno pointed out the problematic nature of Parmenides' assertions, while his teacher's anger did not fall on him because the infinitesimal calculus would not have waited for Newton and Leibniz, but had already been founded over two thousand years ago.
Yuval Chaikin.
It is impossible to add infinite numbers. The formula of an engineering column is a limit!!!! The column strives for a formula - it is not equal to a formula. You yourself wrote "columns converging to a finite size" - have you already forgotten what the word "converging" means? 🙂
By the way - in my opinion, this is the solution to Zenon's arrow paradox: speed is a limit, that is, speed is not defined at a point in time.
Israel Shapira
The calculations take into account that the system is accelerated
The calculations take into account the distance between the stations and the satellite.
Let's leave it at that. You're right. Einstein was wrong. The observations are wrong.
You probably already understood that I have nothing to add until Ohio. And in the case of Zeno, the wording is misleading: indeed Achilles advances in infinite sections, and "infinity" is associated in the minds of many with "never". But this association is not relevant to the case in question. For this purpose, by the way, there is no need to mobilize heavy artillery and a basic numerical analysis is enough: the sum of the lengths of the sections and the sum of the time periods are series that converge to a finite size, and it is enough to get complicated.
Miracles! Zeno challenged Parmenides' assertions, but the latter's authority prevailed and today Zeno is remembered mainly as a joke, unjustly. I believe Parmenides was wrong and wrong, and that's why I have a great interest in Zeno. The beautiful development you brought (and also the article you referred to) presents an adaptation of Zeno to the Parmenidean reality, but since I think Parmenides was wrong, this adaptation is unnecessary in my view and I am trying to develop an orderly world picture based on Zeno. Any donation would be appreciated.
Miracles
First, satellites move in an accelerated system. Our subject is an inertial system.
Second, the clock reading you presented is from a long distance, so you will get a two-way suspension due to the limited speed of light. It's different in close-up photography.
Regarding Zenon - in the original paradox there are no steps and Achilles never manages to pass the tortoise.
Nissim, please write me details: ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
I have a deep interest in metaphysics in general and Zenon in particular
And now to our friends Zeno Malea, a student of Parmenides
in brief …. Achilles has to go through endless steps. The meaning of the term "endless" - that we will never reach the end. Is it conceivable that in one of the steps Achilles will reach the tortoise?
There is a difference between performing mathematical manipulation to calculate a column and performing the schema itself.
Now - to solve a paradox - you have to find an error in one of the basic assumptions or the way of inference. A formula gives us the time Achilles reaches the turtle but it does not solve the paradox.
Israel Shapira
So here I think you are wrong.
For example: each GPS satellite orbits the Earth after 12 hours. If I ask the satellite for the time every 24 hours (and then it is at the same point in the sky) - I see a lag of 7 micros every day. If the satellite asks me for the time every 24 hours - the satellite also sees an error of 7 microns. It's more complicated than that, because of the gravitational field, the speed of the earth's rotation and more....
But - this error is measured and must be addressed.
It's not a theory - that's how it works.
Ohio?? Maybe we'll meet there……
jubilee
I haven't forgotten you, I'm on my way. See you in Ohio.
Miracles
The article does describe, but it is not an experiment or testimony.
In my opinion, at any speed photographs from two bodies passing each other will show the same time on the clocks.
To your question: all the photographs will show the same time on the clocks of the 2 trains calculated by the relevant Lorentz transformation.
Please explain the problematic of Zeno's paradox.
Israel
The same article I brought describes exactly the shortening of the length. Although I learned this 35 years ago (unpleasant....) but I distinctly remember that the calculations of the attraction of a pair of current-carrying conductors show that the distance between the electrons must be shortened. After all, there is no such thing as "magnetic force".
So I guess I didn't understand the wording of your problem. I wrote that in my opinion, at low speeds, all the photographs of the same event will look the same.
I want to understand something about your understanding (I understand) of the theory of relativity: let's assume two trains leave at 10:00, one in the other direction. The distance between the departure points is 40 light minutes and the speed of each train, in the stationary reference system, is 0.8c. We will place a photographer in the middle of the road - and ask all 3 parties to photograph all the clocks during the meeting. Without being precise - what do we see in the 3 photos?
And regarding Zenon's paradox - please read the article. He explains better than me. And I will say again - the fact that there is a mathematical explanation for a physical phenomenon does not mean that we have solved the paradox. If you think so, then you are missing something very fundamental. I'll try to explain if it's interesting.
Miracles
You are entering the realm of the occult here - you pretend to know what I strive for, what I understand, what I do... things that only I am supposed to know.
The article you referred me to deals with the electrodynamics of moving bodies - the same subject for which Einstein came up with relativity. What does it have to do with our subject, a photograph of times on a clock by two bodies passing each other?
Your claim about what a paradox is may be of interest to those interested in philosophy. Zenon's paradox was considered a real physical paradox, until Hadoua solved it and it stopped being a paradox. You brought the solution to the twin paradox within the framework of special relativity.
The question I brought here - how is it that "every observer sees the other's clock as slower" was not resolved by your and B's answers, which are physically impossible answers. There is a solution, and if you want I will bring it, but it is not what you said.
No one claimed that you have a mistake about the GPS - read what I said.
And contrary to your claim, there is no simple experiment or evidence that confirms the shortening of the length.
Israel Shapira
I don't see much point in referring you to the articles, you don't try to understand what I write anyway, and don't refer at all to the articles I link to, even though, and maybe because, they strengthen my claims.
But because I'm a good guy - please read http://skepticsplay.blogspot.co.il/2011/03/electricity-magnetism-space-and-time.html
I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant. The point is that my claim about what a paradox is is fundamental to me. Zenon's paradoxes, including the one I have described, are not resolved in Hadvaa. The arrow of time, as pointed out by Yuval Chaikin, is also not resolved in Hdvaa. I have a solution in mind, but I don't intend to waste your time on it.
And on the subject of the GPS - I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a source that would show me my mistake. I'm serious.
Miracles, miracles, what will be the end?
You constantly preach to everyone to be modest and humble, but use condescending and pretentious language.
The Hadoua does resolve the original Zenon paradox. The philosophical problem you raised simply does not interest me.
And the answer you gave regarding the cameras is incorrect. I have shown you this in several examples. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that there is no time dilation, I'm just saying that two observers passing each other will not see the other's time as earlier. There is a solution according to relativity, but it is not the one you and B insist on, a non-physical solution.
Surely there is a contradiction in that each observer sees the other's clock lagging behind his own. If you can't see that, you'd better stay in the realm of philosophy.
I don't understand what a paradox is? Strip yourself first. Most of what you say here is not true in physical terms. If you happen to mess with GPS satellites and still haven't figured it out, then the situation is worse than I thought.
And finally - can you link us to those simple experiments that prove the shortening of the length?
Good Day.
And about the trains...
Experimentation of high-speed clocks has been carried out continuously for 30 years. The experiment proves the theory.
The theory of relativity also predicts a shortening of the longitudinal axis. This is also proven by simple experiments.
And again - Israel, you don't understand what a paradox is. There is no contradiction that any observer sees someone else's watch lagging behind his own.
I really don't understand what you are arguing about. The theories of relativity match the evidence very nicely and have even moved from the field of science to the field of engineering. I happened to mess with GPS satellites and their clocks...
Israel Shapira and Yuval Chaikin
An exercise in Hadva does not solve a problem in metaphysics. I suggested you learn what nominalism is and you didn't do it. So I will refer you to a simple article that explains better than I can:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2304/1/zeno_maths_review_metaphysics_alba_papa_grimaldi.pdf
Without you understanding this article, there is no point in continuing the conversation about Zenon.
Israel! There was a short poker. It is good or bad?
"The lengthening of time takes hold even at slow speeds, you just have to drive a lot", so go ahead! Start driving and I will drive towards you. What is 2500 miles between you and me?
Israel! Please, be serious. We go round and round around the unborn egg. to say "what is the problem to do?" Without really doing, this is exactly the horrendous waste of time from which my soul was torn apart. On the importance of the practical experiment see, for example, the Michaelson Morley experiment. Before this was carried out, the world did not know about the phenomenon that earned all the names, explanations and paradoxes. If we succeed in actually carrying out an experiment in which two vehicles traveling at a speed of half c will participate (I'm willing to settle for a hundredth or even a thousandth), maybe we will have an answer, and maybe even phenomena that we didn't know about will be discovered. But as long as we don't have such an experiment we are wasting time in vain.
Miracles! I take my hat off to you for your brilliant development of the Zenon problem. Can you get one for his other issues as well? For example, is the bulb arrow from a bow in motion or is it in a large collection of stationary states?
Miracles, once again an education series?!
All of us here are known for our great modesty and humility. We asked a question. You are not allowed to ask questions on this site anymore??
Your paradox is not the good old Zenon paradox, but an improved one. The old paradox was resolved by means of the Hado'a.
Your answer about the trains does not pass the test of logic. If it is clear that at slow speeds both photographs will look the same, then this is what will happen at relative speeds as well. Otherwise we would have to set an upper limit for the speed at which the shots are identical, and above which they alternate.
What's more: the lengthening of time takes hold even at slow speeds, you just have to drive a lot. Therefore if you say that at a relative speed of 20 km/h the photographs on both sides are the same, who will guarantee you that the train from Haifa, for example, did not arrive directly from Andromeda on the new highway that was built a long time ago, and because of the long duration of the journey that is lagging behind compared to the Tel Aviv train?
Except that this is not the accepted explanation of relativity. When it is said that each system sees the other as slower, it is not meant that photographs of two vehicles passing each other will show a different state in the clocks, otherwise we would encounter paradoxes more strange than Zenon's. In the case of twins, for example, when an elderly twin with a long white beard passes his younger brother, his image will also be of a young, smiling twin, because his time as seen from the opposite car is much earlier, isn't it?
So how is this paradox explained anyway? How is it that each system sees the other as slower?
And now about Zenon's paradox - and I ask everyone who thinks they understand but doesn't - a little modesty!!
For those who don't know - Achilles and Tortoise decide to have a race between them. Achilles gives a fur to the tortoise and goes after him. Let's say a fur of 100 meters. After Achilles advanced 100 meters the tortoise advanced 10 meters. Achilles runs another 10 meters and the tortoise advances another meter. Achilles advances another meter, but the tortoise advanced 10 cm.
It is clear to everyone that this is a converging column and it is easy to calculate when Achilles will reach the turtle.
The column is infinite - meaning 100 plus 10 plus 1 plus 0.1 plus 0.01 - adds up to 111.1111111
meter.
So where is the problem? Well, Achilles is not a mathematical entity - and he must progress step by step after step. He cannot "calculate" the geometric column in the well-known formula - he must summarize term by term.
I will explain the problem in a slightly different way. Let's assume that Achilles takes each such step in one step. First step 100 meters and so on. And let's assume that as soon as he reaches the turtle he takes another step of 100 meters to finish the route which is 211.1111111 meters long.
My question is - on which leg will he finish the race?
We know that in reality there is no problem. The question is - where is the mistake? In one of the basic premises or by way of deduction?
And please - a little modesty. There is a concept in philosophy called "nominalism". The idea that in the physical world there are no numbers, they are just an abstract concept. It is not true that you can throw out a formula and think that we have solved the problem.
Successfully
Miracles
If possible, just answer in simple words the question I asked in simple words: what will the photo show from the oncoming train traveling at a speed of 20 km/h relative to it.
Well, Tuesday, going to poker.
explain again? 🙂 🙂
In the classic case, all 2 photographs taken at the same time will look the same.
In the relativistic case the time in the system in motion will lag behind the time in the propulsion system. This is a physical phenomenon, which is observed in GPS satellites. For example - if locomotive A shows the time 10:00 and the passing train shows 9:50, then locomotive B will also see that they are passing and the time is 10:00, while the time on the second train is 9:50. And I will say again - this is a phenomenon observed in experiments and there is no paradox here.
Does anyone disagree with anything I said?
jubilee
He wasn't wrong, he cursed.
What is the problem with taking the photos at any speed if we have a sharp resolution camera?
Except that the extension of times of a few seconds will happen even at low speeds. You just have to travel a lot.
ב
You are not giving a simple answer to my question, which was formulated simply and clearly. I guess you don't have an answer, or the answer doesn't fit your thesis.
There is no point in continuing before you answer the question.
Israel:
In the car, the distance between the ends of the car is at most ten meters and it travels at low speed.
In a train that is a light hour long and travels at a very high speed, the measurements are different.
OK. Done. Now please propose a feasible experiment for vehicles moving at speeds that according to the theory of relativity are not negligible.
And why would you take care of my little mistakes. Where were you when Yair Lapid made a mistake with seven billion shekels?
jubilee
This is the easiest taxation to do. Drive with mom's car next to a parked car where a large clock and a broken small clock show four o'clock. Set the big and small clock in Mother's Trenta so that they see seven. When you pass by the parked car, take a picture of the small clock at your place and the big one in the park. Ask Yossi who is sitting in the parking lot to take a picture of the small clock in his place and the big one in yours.
Do you have any doubt that the two photographs will show: mother seven hours, Yossi four hours?
Because according to B and Misim, one photograph will show: mother four, Yossi seven.
Israel! We will not be able to know for sure everything that will happen and what will not happen if we do not perform an experiment. Until then, it's all talk. Please suggest a workable experiment
ב
It is about this response. Note: This has nothing to do with relationships.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-crew-aboard-station-after-express-flight-010413/comment-page-5/#comment-404639
Don't take a picture? The locomotive passes the collector, yes or no? The relative speed between them is 20 km/h, so what's the problem with them taking pictures of each other?
If the cameras are located in the locomotives and they shoot the same thing, then in the measurement system of locomotive A, the camera of locomotive B does not shoot at the same time as the self-camera.
jubilee
What will not happen is that a picture from train A will show the time on the opposite clock as lagging behind its own, and vice versa.
Both photos will show the same situation in the clocks: if A is behind, then he will be behind in both photos.
Regarding taxes and miracles - still waiting for his explanation of Zenon's "paradox".
Regarding the taxation of M-M - the wonders of God's ways.
ב
Symmetry - I asked a simple question about trains whose relative speed is 20 km/h. Can you give a simple answer to my simple question?
B! To "translate", as you say, is to standardize the results so that the calculated clock reading is the same. acceptable to me
jubilee:
Indeed yes in different systems things are different. The length is different and the time is different. It is still possible to "translate" from system to system.
Israel:
In case the two cameras are located in one train: there is no symmetry between the trains.
In case the cameras are located in the locomotives of the trains: there is symmetry between the cameras, but the symmetry is only in relation to some central point which is exactly in the middle between the cameras. (point on the platform). This point does not move with the camera. This point is a third frame of reference.
Taxation = experiment 😛
Israel! As the one who knows the truth, please enlighten our eyes. What just isn't happening?
Until then, maybe it's better for us to check other options, for example interpretations of the Michaelson Morley taxation results that have not yet been discussed?
And regarding miracles: the fact that his education in Greek philosophy is not perfect does not necessarily indicate his education in other fields. But it seems to me that his great confidence in his own righteousness requires precautions on our part.
jubilee
There is another possibility, which also happens to be the real possibility: it just doesn't happen.
There is no such thing as "everyone sees the other's clock moving slower" in the example I gave. The trains that pass each other are normal, everyday trains, and it is not possible for each to see an opposite image in the other. who knows? Maybe they have been traveling for many years at the same slow speed, and therefore according to relativity, the same time gap that I brought was created. Still the images on both sides will be the same.
Miracles - what is the problem of Achilles and the tortoise? I thought the paradox was resolved with the invention of the Hadoua and convergent series. Isn't the endless series of half plus quarter plus eighth... converging into one?
Miracles! It's not a matter of intuition. This is a new math invention where the order relation is not valid. If one is greater than two and two is greater than one then this is a contradiction.
B! The only thing that can be concluded from your words (section 2) without reaching a contradiction is that it is impossible to compare processes that occur in two different systems.
jubilee
B answered you correctly. Each will see the other's watch as lagging. Let's say 2 trains synchronize time while standing and then drive towards each other. At the moment of the switch, everyone will see the second watch as lagging behind.
As Shab said - there is no paradox here. This is of course not self-evident and counter-intuitive. When we say paradox we mean an argument that leads to a contradiction. This argument means basic assumptions and rules of inference. Usually we find an error in the basic assumptions and that's how the paradox is resolved.
There are real paradoxes that we do not know how to solve. For example, Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the tortoise.
Miracles
You didn't answer my question. I described a situation and presented a question. It will be very difficult to move forward if I don't get an answer to the question.
B. The locomotives of the two trains pass the massifs of the two trains. Otherwise, if for example the meeting is in Hadera, the trains will not arrive in Haifa and Tel Aviv respectively.
I'm not talking here about the situation in which collector A is against generator B and vice versa. That's later. At the moment the question is simple: when clocks are photographed from two points passing each other, will the photographs show different times on the clocks. Answer the question I presented in the previous response and I will prove to you that I believe they always photograph the same situation.
jubilee
According to relativity, there is no twin paradox and miracles, explain this nicely in the previous response. We try to see if we encounter a contradiction in this example of inertial systems.
jubilee:
1) The clock is not ahead. Only the time intervals are different. It is possible to coordinate a time that will be zero hour in both systems.
2) Everyone sees their own clock in their own measuring system and the other's clock in a system that moves relative to the self-measuring system. Therefore there is no paradox.
Miracles
You explained what happens in the relative situation, as opposed to the classical one: everyone will see their watch ahead of the other's.
And after this explanation, are you still of the opinion that relativity does not create a paradox?
If both cameras are on train A, A's locomotive will photograph itself and B's collector, but A's collector will not photograph itself and B's locomotive. B's locomotive will not arrive in time for the photo. If the cameras are on both locomotives, then from the perspective of locomotive A, camera B is not shooting at the same time as his camera.
We all know what will happen in classical mechanics.
And I explained what happens in the relative situation: the situation is symmetrical and everyone will see their watch ahead of the other's.
Anonymous and
Let's take the example of the train to Haifa that passes the train to Tel Aviv. The relative speed between them is 20 km/h. As soon as the locomotive passes the collector, the time on the train clocks to Haifa is 1442. On the train clocks to Tel Aviv - 1753.
The time is displayed on the window of the car and the locomotive as a digital LED display, so there is no problem taking pictures of the time on both trains together from one camera on each train.
a question:
Also in this case, which can happen every day and has nothing to do with relationships, will the photographs show different times on the clocks? Will the photo from the Haifa train show: Haifa 1442 Tel Aviv 1753, while the photo from the Tel Aviv train will show: Haifa 1753 Tel Aviv 1442?
If your answer is positive, see your warning: there is no problem to perform such a simple experiment with cars, watches and cameras. I am willing to bet with anyone interested for any amount that they would like the photos to show the same times on the clocks, no matter where the photo was taken.
Anyone want to get involved?
I am the anonymous user promoted.
Did you understand the subject of photography?? Everything is symmetrical and therefore the photos are "identical" - the time for the photographer is 1000 and for the photographed it is 800. It even makes sense...
ב
The very existence of the phenomenon called the "twin paradox" is verified in many experiments.
And for the millionth time - there is no symmetry here!!!! C does not change his reference system while A and B do.
Where did you get that the age of C is between the age of A and the age of B??
Regarding the "twin paradox":
Suppose A B C are a triplet. They are at a common point in space.
A and B separate from C and begin to circle it at high speed.
Because of the symmetry:
A and B age at the same rate relative to C which remains in its place.
The age of C is always between the age of A and the age of B.
If they return and meet with C at the starting point they must all be the same age.
And that's only because of symmetry considerations.
If we ignore for a moment the fact that they are triplets and look only at twin A who went on the journey compared to twin C who stayed in his place it will appear that after returning to the starting point twin A and twin C are the same age. Therefore the twin paradox does not exist.
From what point is the photo taken? From what point is the measurement made?
Regarding a pair of cameras located in the locomotive of A and in the assembly of B. When measuring from within the diameter of A, the cameras will operate simultaneously.
Regarding a pair of cameras located in A's array and B's camera. When measuring from within the radius of A, the cameras will not operate simultaneously. Photo A will be at a different time than Photo B.
A system of axles that refers to the locomotive of the train as the head of the axles cannot refer to the assembly of the train as the head of the axles.
These are two separate reference systems separated by distance. This is expressed in the fact that at one end of the train, the measurement of the shooting time of a camera located in the A array yields the same shooting time as a camera located in the array B. But a measurement made from the same end of the train with respect to the other end of the train of A's photo time yields a different result than B's photo time.
If the cameras are located on the platform then it is a third reference system which is the platform system and there it is true that the photography is simultaneous.
In any case, because of the symmetry between the assemblies, the images will be symmetrical. In other words, the camera of Qatar A will photograph Collector B and the camera of Collector B will photograph Qatar A. And also the camera of Kater B will photograph Masaf A and the camera of Masaf A will photograph Masaf B.
Please note: the pair of cameras Kater A and Masaf B is located in one reference system, while the cameras Kater B and Masaf A are located in another reference system. The distance between the reference systems causes the time differences to be measured between the cameras that are far from the measurement point, which is the starting point of the axes.
Israel Shapira
B is right. If you are photographing different trains then you are photographing from different reference systems. As I have already written a lot - in every shot the photographer will see the clock on the second train lagging behind his own.
It's not something theoretical. GPS satellites have atomic clocks and there are also atomic clocks in the ground segment - those stations that tell the satellites what their locations are. The calculations there are based on the fact that the clock on the other side is behind. The truth - it's more complicated than that because of 2 other phenomena. The first is the Sanyak phenomenon and the second is a direct result of general relativity.
Again - the situation is completely symmetrical - the clock at the photographer will show 1000 and the clock on the other train will show 800. There is no contradiction here.
ב
If a train traveling south to Tel Aviv passes a train traveling north to Haifa, what's the problem with photographing the clocks on both trains with a wide lens, and it doesn't matter which train you're photographing from?
A good trip.
Israel Shapira:
In describing your trains when the clocks are reset and the locomotives and multiplexes are facing each other.
You describe a measurement that is not carried out from within any of the trains.
Such measurement results are only possible from a third system located exactly in the middle between the two trains.
Miracles
The cameras pass each other, and at the same moment when they "touch" each other, each camera captures the two clocks: in the locomotive and in Masaf.
It is said that the photo from the locomotive shows: locomotive clock 1000 seconds, collector clock 800 seconds.
What will the photo from the array show?
Regarding your question - according to relativity you are not at all wrong, and this is indeed the solution to the twins paradox within the framework of special relativity.
But also according to your words, there is no symmetry here. In my example the symmetry is absolute(?) so how come we got that the clocks of train A or B will fall behind? Where is the symmetry?
Israel Shapira
Suppose the spaceship flies to a star 4 light years away and at a speed of 0.8c. Regarding the ground twin - the journey time is 5 years in one direction, a total of 10 years. For the flying twin - the distance is shortened to 2.4 light years (easy to calculate). Therefore - 3 years towards and 6 years until the twins meet. That is, the twin Tess is 4 years younger than his brother.
Now notice - regarding the ground observer - the spaceship's clock runs slower, therefore, there is no contradiction here.
There is no need for general relativity here - special relativity is certainly sufficient.
There is no symmetry here - the ground twin is constantly in a fixed inertial axis system - but the flying twin changes its inertial axis system.
Am I wrong and where?
Israel
From the side of train A - when the locomotive of A passes the collector of B, the locomotive of B still will not pass the collector of A.
The photos will be the same - the photographer's clock will be ahead of the photographed's clock.
Miracles
So where is Masaf A - before or after Kater B?
According to you the pictures are not the same but opposite. Do you mean that the cameras passing each other will take pictures in which a certain clock shows different times?
There are about five of your comments about Mars - could you copy the specific comment for which you would like an answer?
Thanks.
Israel Shapira
I mean that when locomotive A is near collector B (from the perspective of locomotive A) then collector A is not near locomotive B (from the same reference system).
The photos are "identical" - in that each photographer sees his watch ahead of the other locomotive's.
I gave an example of a flight to Mars - maybe you will read what I wrote???
Miracles
When you say "they don't merge" what do you mean? Do you have any doubt that Qatar A will move in front of Masaf B and vice versa?
If the pictures are the same, then how do they show different things, i.e. different times on the clocks?
And what is your question?
Israel Shapira
The trains do not "merge" - each train sees the other as shorter.
Each train sees the clock of the other train behind its own time. It happens all the time in traffic.
1 – The pictures are the same
2 - Each train will see that the other train's clock is behind.
Now - you didn't answer my question...
Miracles
I'll try trains this time, as you and Einstein like.
Train A passes by Train B. The length of each train in its reference system is a light hour. Each train has a locomotive and a collection car, whose clocks are synchronized with each other.
When their ends merge, locomotive A is in front of collector B and locomotive B is in front of collector A. High-resolution cameras from both trains record the event. The times in the photos: 0 on all clocks.
When collector A arrives in front of locomotive B, the situation is photographed a second time from the cameras in the locomotive and the collector.
Questions:
1. Will the images from array A and vector B be the same? Or each photo will show a different time on the clocks.
2. Will the time on the clocks be the same? If not, which clock will be ahead?
Successfully.
Israel Shapira
I re-read what you wrote above - it's really unclear. I will give a simpler example - and you didn't tell me your opinion about it.
Israel
ask again please Just do it in a simple way that I can understand too.
Miracles
It seems to me that you deserve a few more awards, which also for some reason end in .
Since no one has talked about Einstein's train here, and since you insist on not answering what you are being asked but answering in general about other issues, I am forced to sadly conclude that either you do not understand my question, or you do not know the answer.
So I'll try one last time: are you going to answer what I asked and only that? I have no desire to go through an educational series or hear about all kinds of examples that are not related to the matter. If you need clarification regarding my question, ask and I will clarify. But please don't start from the assumption that you are necessarily right, but go over the question in detail.
Good Day.
Israel Shapira
I deserve an award for patience…….
I gave a simple example in 2 points. If my 2 points are correct then I am right. If I'm wrong then at least one point is wrong.
Show me in my example where I am wrong.
Your example is, as I already said, an example of Einstein's train. In this case - as long as the traffic is limited, then everyone sees the other's clock running slower. He also sees the other contracted in the longitudinal axis (the 2 things are equivalent).
In the example I'm talking to, the situation is different!!! (And this is exactly the twin paradox). The movement distance in 2 different reference systems. Therefore - the situation is not symmetrical.
Listen - this is an experiment they have already done and the results confirm what I am saying.
Please - where do you think I am wrong?
Miracles
You don't understand my "mistake" - perhaps for the simple reason that there is no mistake here.
It will make it easier for you to see this if, instead of the Earth and Mars, we place spaceships H and M.
Now: the structure of spaceships A and B passes by the structure of spaceships H and M.
The distance between spaceships A and B is a light hour.
The distance between the spaceships is XNUMX m - a light hour.
The clocks of spaceships A and B are synchronized with each other and the clocks of spaceships H and M are synchronized with each other.
As soon as A passes by E, the time on their clocks is 0.
In the second past, at the moment B passes M, the time on their clocks is 0.
The situation now is the same as the one we presented before, only instead of Mars there is spacecraft M, instead of Earth there is spacecraft H, and there is another spacecraft B which does not change anything.
According to your words - when A reaches M the clocks show: A 24, B 40.
But note: these are spaceships, not planets. We can say that A is actually Mars and M is actually a spaceship. Then it turned out that the clocks were showing: Mars 24, Spacecraft 40.
Israel Shapira
So I understand where your mistake comes from:
1. The spacecraft leaves Earth towards Mars and sees Mars at a distance of 24 light minutes.
2. But - from Mars, the image is that the spaceship leaves the Earth, which is a point 40 light minutes away.
Do you understand my 2 points? The relative speed in both cases is really the same - 0.8c, but the distances are different.
Dear Yuval.
What you are saying is something like this (if I understood correctly):
Both in the spacecraft and on Mars, cameras are installed that record both clocks, in the spacecraft and on Mars, as soon as the spacecraft passes by Mars. Since there is a gap of say 20 minutes between the clocks, the photo from Mars will show the opposite of the photo from the spacecraft. Mars whispers sweetly to the spaceship: you're retarded again dear. She sonatas back: You yourself are retarded. Indeed, relativity at its best!
A paradox from the land of paradoxes.
But that is not the case. In practice, both photos will look the same.
Miracles.
I will also try again, for the seventh or seventieth time. ;(
First, I believe you are wrong in your answer to Yuval. Yuval claims that every camera shows the opposite of what it is looking for. That is not the case. Both show the same thing: the spacecraft lags behind Mars.
But note the problematic nature of the situation: Mars moves in the direction of the spacecraft just as the spacecraft moves in its direction. You can switch between them, and then it turns out that the distance from Mars moving in the direction of the spacecraft is shortened, and Mars will reach the spacecraft at an earlier time.
If you don't see the symmetry, think of another spaceship passing by Mars at time 0, and its speed and direction as the speed of the first spaceship. Now we have received absolute symmetry: the two spacecraft are completely equal to the Earth-Mars system. As they pass by the planets, the cameras record 0 on all four clocks: on both spacecraft, on Earth and on Mars.
If according to you, when spacecraft A arrives at Mars, the timed photograph will show that it lags relative to it, then because of the symmetry, when Mars arrives at spacecraft A, the photograph will show that its time lags relative to it. But this is the exact same photo. So how will he see things upside down?
If you have a detailed explanation, bless you. Only if possible, without too much pedagogy. Just explain what's going on.
Israel Shapira
I will explain again, for the seventh time I think 🙂
Let's assume that the distance to Mars is 40 light minutes and the speed of the spacecraft is 0.8c
For an observer on the ground as well as an observer on Mars - the flight time is 50 minutes.
For an observer in the spaceship, the distance is only 24 light minutes (need to explain why?). Therefore the flight time is 30 minutes.
The situation is not symmetrical. Mars is at rest with respect to an earthly observer but moves with respect to an observer in a spacecraft.
that's it. Special relativity solves this nicely.
What Yuval Chaikin describes in a complicated way is Einstein's thought experiment from 100 years ago - the train experiment. The result is as Yuval says - and it is very unintuitive. But this is not a paradox.
Dear Israel, before we fight and fight in vain, please come and simplify the problem.
Since both planets are stationary, the speed of the spacecraft relative to one is the same as its speed relative to the other. More than that, we can even treat the two planets as one body and therefore their two cameras are considered as one camera (or, if you like, two cameras connected by a super relay). Therefore, the image of the spacecraft clock hands will be the same in each of the planetary cameras and the image that the spacecraft camera will produce from the clock hands of one planet will be the same as the image it will produce from the clock hands of the other planet.
In order to complete the experiment, we will install another camera next to each camera that will photograph the watch itself exactly when the first one is photographing the watch in the other system. And see it's a miracle: while the spacecraft cameras will show that the clocks of the planets lag behind the clock of the spacecraft, the image received by the planetary cameras will show that the clock of the spacecraft lags behind the clocks of the planets. And if this is not a paradox, then what is?
Ejected before time. iPhone, continued: on her face, the time in the spaceship later. So where is the symmetry? Why wouldn't Mars have a later time?
Miracles
Sorry you didn't understand the question. Note: You have two inertial systems here - a spacecraft and Mars - each of which is at rest, and the other is the one that is moving. And despite that, according to your words, when the spacecraft passes by Mars - or when it passes by. –
Israel Shapira
I did not understand your question. In any case - there is no symmetry. The spacecraft changes its frame of reference, while the stationary observer remains in the same frame of reference.
I really don't understand why you don't understand what I'm saying. Look again at the example I gave - and show me where you think I'm wrong. Stop using passwords and refer to what I wrote. I gave a numerical example and you did not find a mistake in it.
Be more humble and try to learn something, okay?
Meanwhile, no one has yet answered my question (my last response from two weeks ago).
B - This is especially for you. Unaccelerated movement. Miracles - actually for you too. Breaking the symmetry. Yuval - all the more so for you. You brought up the beaten topic again, you will pay.
Yuval Chaikin
Thank you indeed. You are of course right. But what is my interest in this? Gornish.
Yuval Chaikin
Their relative speed is irrelevant. I have explained several times and will explain again. And please - listen 🙂
Suppose the spaceship flies to a star 4 light years away and at a speed of 0.8c. Regarding the land twin - the journey time is 5 years in one direction, a total of 10 years. For the flying twin - the distance is shortened to 2.4 light years (easy to calculate). Therefore - 3 years towards and 6 years until the twins meet.
Now notice - regarding the ground observer - the spaceship's clock runs slower, therefore, there is no contradiction here.
There is no symmetry here - the ground twin is constantly in a fixed inertial axis system - but the flying twin changes its inertial axis system.
You don't need general relativity. No need to get upset. The phenomenon has been observed in a large number of experiments. Did you understand???
Shimon and Falafel: You are right, but your responses are spiteful and not helpful. Please contribute your knowledge to us and help Nissim understand where he is wrong
Nissim, you are not serious or you simply do not understand the claim. When one twin stays on the ground and the other flies in the spaceship, both are moving at the same speed relative to each other. Therefore, what applies to the first twin in relation to the second is exactly what applies to the second in relation to the first.
And what was proven in these experiments are claims of general relativity, not special, and these are not what we are talking about here.
Falafel
Instead of showing off - please show me what I'm doing wrong.
Most of the things you write are not correct and you also make a salad of the concepts.
If you studied more and talked less, you would be able to understand why. Successfully
ב
There are accelerations in special relativity. It's more complicated, but it exists. In principle, the twin paradox has nothing to do with general relativity. Moreover, the explanation for the paradox has nothing to do with accelerations/decelerations.
Shimon Tahval - What is wrong with what I am saying?
The two of you alternately confuse each other. Zen comes from the fact that you lack knowledge of the subject you are blabbing about. enough and enough
Spacecraft A and Spacecraft B leave from point number one to point number two.
If spacecraft A is faster, it will arrive at point number two before spacecraft B.
Therefore if the spaceships are moving in a steady motion it is not possible for them to meet again at point number two.
What I'm trying to say is that special relativity talks about constant motion.
If there is no fixed traffic then everything is different.
Regarding the twin paradox:
Twins who have separated and move in steady motion relative to each other cannot meet again!
Therefore the twin paradox does not exist!
ב
what are you trying to say You always come up with a new story. You have no idea what you are talking about. What I said is a theoretically correct and experimentally proven explanation for the "twin paradox". What you said is a combination of facts, some of them true, that have nothing to do with the problem we were talking about.
I really don't see any point in trying to explain it to you again. Too bad about the power...
You are wrong and it is a shame that you express yourself that way.
The symmetry between the two spaceships is not expressed in the distance each traveled.
The symmetry is:
If A sees B moving at a certain speed then B sees A moving at the same speed in the opposite direction.
so:
If A claims that B's time is getting longer, then B claims that A's time is getting longer.
All the way from the parting to the joint meeting, each one measures in the other the sign of the lengthening of time.
But please note:
This only happens if both systems are in constant motion. But two systems that are in constant motion cannot meet twice. They can meet at a common point in time and space once and for all. In order to meet one more time, they have to change direction, so it is not called steady movement.
ב
Your example is simply wrong and you draw a wrong conclusion. The situation is not symmetrical between the spacecraft. Both fly to the same point in space at different speeds, so they will feel different time, for the reason I described (the faster spacecraft will fly a shorter distance).
I'm sorry, but you have no idea about relativity. Special relativity deals very well with accelerated systems. The explanation I gave is the exact explanation and as long as you don't understand it don't waste time writing here.
1) The twins will be the same age because there is symmetry regarding spaceships that move relative to each other.
2) The error in your description is that you are trying to analyze a situation that does not belong to special relativity.
The theory of special relativity is only true for systems that move relative to each other in constant motion (inertial systems).
This is not true for a spacecraft that leaves a certain point and returns to that point. If it returns to the starting point, this means that its movement is not steady.
ב
Here is the simple case:
Suppose a spaceship goes in a straight line from Earth to the nearest planet and back at a very high but constant speed.
For us - the distance the spacecraft travels is to the sun and back and the elapsed time is this distance divided by speed.
Regarding the spacecraft, the situation is different - because of the speed, the distance to the sun is smaller and therefore less time will pass, and the same for the return.
Note that both twins attribute the same speed to the spaceship!!! That is, the distance has changed but the speed is constant, hence the difference in times.
Now - without complicated examples - tell me what is wrong with my description. If you wish, a simple numerical example is also possible.
ב
The fact that you write nonsense many times does not make it true 🙂
Regarding your first comment:
Why do you assume the twins will be the same age?
Regarding the second response:
You proceed from your wrong assumption from the first response, therefore the conclusion is also wrong
Regarding the third response:
Try to understand the simple case before you complicate yourself in more complex cases.
for demonstration:
Suppose a spaceship moves away for a year a distance of a light hour and then returns half a light hour. And so on.
From Earth, the position of the spaceship is measured and its speed is deduced.
After a year and a half, the spacecraft is half a light hour away from Earth. After three years the spacecraft is one light hour away from Earth. That is, its speed away from the Earth is half a light hour per year and a half. And this when the actual speed of the spacecraft is one light hour per year.
In such a case the speed of the slow spacecraft is one light hour per year but the average speed of the spacecraft is half a light hour per year and a half.
On Earth, we don't know anything about the instantaneous speed of the spacecraft. The measurement is only of the average speed. The time differences in the clocks are only according to the average speed.
The inevitable conclusion is that after the return of those leaving to the point from which they left, all time differences are canceled.
Returning to the starting point eliminates the time differences in different measurement systems.
how does it happen?
This happens because of the speed change. (acceleration).
If in the equations of the special theory of relativity we replace the concept of "velocity" with the concept of "average speed" it appears that the average speed of the spaceship is zero because it returned to the starting point, meaning it traveled a distance of zero meters in the given time period.
Suppose that relative to the Earth, one of the spaceships flies at a very high speed and the other at a very low speed.
Nevertheless, the two brothers in the spaceships will be the same age when they return together to Earth.
This means that the age does not depend on the speed relative to the Earth.
ב
I mean - you say that they reach a point in space at the same time and we will meet again at the same time on Earth. If the 2 passengers are the same age at the meeting point in space then, because of symmetry, they are also the same age at the meeting point on Earth.
Again - I don't understand what the problem is. They are the same age, but younger than their brother who remains on Earth. Where is the paradox?
When two spaceships move relative to each other, one is not faster than the other. There is mutual movement and nothing else.
Faster than the second relates exclusively to some third point.
Regarding the trio...
At the meeting point they are not the same age.
I don't understand how you determined that the situation is symmetrical - one spacecraft is faster than the other.
Yuval Chaikin
What I (and everyone who is interested in the matter) is saying is that the experiment of the twins is not a paradox - we have an explanation for what is happening there, a simple explanation that relies on special relativity. There is no logical contradiction here - the twin who went away returns younger. This is true in theory and it is proven in experiments.
If you don't understand the explanation, I'll be happy to explain it again...
Twins and triplets:
Suppose one of the trio remains on Earth. Two twins take off from Earth into space. They fly at different speeds from each other. After a spin in space they meet and return together to Earth.
At their meeting point in space they are the same age because of the symmetry between them. (Between the two that went into space there is no priority of one spacecraft over the other). They return to Earth together.
What will be the age of each of them in relation to those who remain on earth? Is it possible on earth to measure the difference between their ages when they themselves testify that they are the same age?
Miracles (and anyone who says the twin paradox doesn't exist):
If Rashi's interpretation is needed, then we are not dealing with physics, but rather with the Holy Scriptures.
When twin A ages relative to twin B and twin B ages relative to twin A, it creates a paradox. A court will not help and no reasonable person will rule otherwise.
Miracles, according to your claim, time in the space system moves slower than in the Earth-Mars system.
But what happens if you look from the direction of the opposite system? After all, for her, time moves slower in the Mars system, so why the unequivocal statement (perpetuated in photos, both from the spacecraft and from Mars) that the spacecraft's clock moves slower? Where is the symmetry?
This is not the twin paradox where the symmetry is broken because the younger twin turns around and comes back. Here the two systems are inertial, at a constant speed, and in fact both are at rest all the time. So why discrimination?
This is me…
Israel Shapira
The flight time to Mars, in the star axis system, is two hours. In the spacecraft system, the flight time is 0.87 hours. Therefore the clock in the spacecraft will show 0.87 hours and the clock on Mars will show one hour.
It sounds strange, but pay attention: from the side of the spacecraft - the range is 0.87 light hours, but from the side of a Mars observer, the distance is one light hour.
This is exactly the explanation for the twin paradox...
Miracles.
Here is the second puzzle in detail:
It is said that the distance between Mars and Earth is exactly one light hour, and there is no relative motion between them. We synchronized the clocks with each other in the way suggested by Einstein, namely by means of light rays or radio waves.
A long time after the synchronization was performed, a spacecraft passes over the Earth on its way to Mars. The speed of the spacecraft relative to the Earth-Mars system is half C, and it remains constant all the way to Mars.
When the spaceship passes over the country, a high-resolution camera in the country takes pictures of both clocks, in the country and on the spaceship. An identical camera in the spacecraft also takes pictures of both watches.
The photos from the two cameras show: 0 on the earth clock and 0 on the spacecraft clock.
the question:
When the spacecraft passes over Mars, what will the photographs of the two clocks in the cameras from Mars and the spacecraft show?
Exact details are not necessary. Just early, late, or the same.
The dilemma:
According to relativity, each system sees the other's clocks as being slower. Therefore, the options before us are:
1. All photographs from both cameras will show the same time in Israel and on the spacecraft.
2. All the photographs from the two cameras will show the spacecraft lagging behind relative to Mars.
3. All the photographs from the two cameras will show Mars lagging relative to Earth.
4. The photograph from the spaceship will show it as retarded, and the photograph from Mars will show it as retarded.
5. On the contrary.
6. Additional variations.
what's the answer?
Yuval, the hater of wasting time: there is no blessing here for idleness. Nissim and I are really planning a jump to Mars, and want to make sure that we don't accidentally end up right in the hands of Mars, with Mars on the side of Mars, with the horns that Venus has grown. Hence the issue of synchronization.
Israel!
If you want, I can quote Einstein with my eyes closed on one leg, although I have no idea how to eat. But if you don't ask how will you know?
Israel Shapira
I didn't fully understand your riddle, because I don't understand when and how the clocks were synchronized.
But let's look at it with the help of the twin "paradox" (there really isn't a paradox of course). Suppose there is a spaceship on Earth. We set up a watch with her and launch her to Mars and back. Let's say it moves close to the speed of light and we launch it to Mars a light minute away. On our clock, it will be almost 2 minutes until it returns to Earth. But - the spacecraft sees Mars closer, and when it turns back, the Earth also looks closer. Therefore - the time that will pass, in the spaceship, will be much shorter than two minutes. The clock (of the spacecraft) on landing will show, let's say, that only 40 seconds have passed.
This is a direct consequence of special relativity and is not related to accelerations.
I rest my case...
jubilee
What paradox? Why barren? Saul I asked a question. Are you not allowed to ask questions on this site anymore?
And there is no better way to understand an issue than litigation.
So what is the answer to my question? Will the spacecraft accelerate/lag/stay relative to Mars?
Israel! I didn't come to add to his name. All I wanted to do in the last intervention was just to emphasize how fruitless this discussion is. We have no observations to confirm any of the claims that you, in your wisdom, make here. What you are doing is raising hypotheses, and without waiting for their correctness to be confirmed, you build additional hypotheses on top of them and God forbid. At most you repeatedly come to the conclusion that it is a paradox. Isn't it a waste of time?
Israel Shapira
it's not me ….
Miracles! That's not what I'm saying. This is Einstein
jubilee.
The bonus question (if you referred to it) only talks about the time on the clock that can be viewed directly, not about a calculated time.
The reason: everyone and their calculations with them. But with viewing - and preferably backed up by some sharp and clear image - you can't argue.
So what will the clocks of the spacecraft and Mars look like in a photo according to relativity?
Anonymous (You again, Nissim?)
I agree with you except for 3. The reason: you can indeed synchronize the clocks of the two spacecraft as you said, but then you will not be able to synchronize the distance between the 2 spacecraft in the spacecraft system so that it is the same as the distance between Earth and Mars.
What came out is that if a structure of two spaceships whose distance between them is a light hour and their clocks are synchronized passes by the identical structure, Earth - Mars, whose clocks are also synchronized and a light hour separates them, then if a joint photograph of spacecraft A and DHA shows time 0 in both, then On the other side on Mars, the photo will show time 0 Mars clock and empty space. Spacecraft B has not yet reached Mars.
The reason is that due to the Lorentz contraction, the distance between them has shrunk in the Earth-Mars system.
Or at least that's how I understood the issue.
But if you don't accept the claim, and you claim that at time 0 Mars will pass by spacecraft B and that the clock will also show 0 and that is what a joint photograph will show - I believe I can prove that there is a problem with Einstein's entire premise as it appears in his articles and books.
So isn't it better to accept the claim and close the matter?
Israel Shapira:
1) Even if a transmitter from the spacecraft would reach Mars within a minute according to the spacecraft's clock. An hour was still measured according to the earth's clock. Therefore, it is not possible to speed up the transmitter by sending it to the spacecraft and from the spacecraft to Mars.
2) In a system where the spaceship and Mars are referred to, there is no need to refer to the Earth. The lack of symmetry between the beam launched from the spacecraft to Mars and between the beam returning from Mars to the spacecraft does not depend at all on the existence of the Earth.
For the purpose of illustration: suppose that after the beam is launched from the spacecraft towards Mars, the Earth suddenly receives a tremendous acceleration and moves away from its place at a speed exceeding half the speed of light. This will not affect the speed of the beam sent from the spacecraft to Mars and the speed of the beam returning from Mars to the spacecraft.
3) If we assume that instead of Mars there will be a spaceship there that moves at the same speed and in the same direction as the spaceship passing by the Earth, we can still reset all the clocks so that they show zero time as soon as one spaceship is a light hour away from the Earth and the other is right next to the Earth. How do we do this? We will synchronize the clocks of the two spaceships ahead of time and then when one of them will pass by the Earth we will synchronize the Earth's clock with its season. This exercise is the same as the exercise in which the Earth clock is first synchronized with the Martian clock and then when the spacecraft passes by the Earth, the Earth clock is synchronized with the spacecraft clock.
This is me …
Yuval Chaikin
What you say is absolutely not true. First of all - no observer sees a light approaching him. For the spacecraft approaching Mars - the distance to Mars is shorter and therefore the time from transmission of the signal to reception in the spacecraft will be shorter than the time from transmission to reception on Earth. From the observer's side on Earth, the light reaches the spacecraft earlier because of the approach of the spacecraft to Mars.
Second point - simultaneity is well defined for 2 events occurring at the same point. These events will be seen simultaneously from every observation system.
There is no paradox here!! Maybe you're talking about the twin paradox, but it's not a paradox either because we know how to explain it simply. And it's not a complicated explanation at all. Paradox is a very specific thing - the "twin paradox" does not fit this definition at all.
An observer from Israel sees the spaceship and the light wave moving towards each other at record speed (one and a half centimetres). But the observer in the spaceship sees the light wave approaching him at speed C only, Einstein's speech. Under such conditions, clock synchronization is not possible, and even the good-hearted David Israel will not be able to follow the said path on time.
The observer from the country sees the light meet the spacecraft after 40 minutes (after adjustment calculations). The spaceship driver sees the light only at the end of an hour. Hoh says that forty terrestrial minutes equal sixty space minutes.
On the other hand, the spacecraft is also watching the earth and it sees the light wave colliding with it after an hour. ZA he sees the light colliding with him and the earth in a bozmanite ("What is a bozmanite?" Good question). That is, in his eyes, his sixty minutes are sixty earthly minutes. This is what the greats meant when they said "paradox". And if a paradox, then a solution is requested. But this must be sought not within the system in which it was created - neither from within the spaceship nor from within the earth, and certainly not within the theory of relativity.
Both of you are wrong.
If you were right, then when the spaceship passes over the Earth, it would be possible to send a transmitter to it which in turn would transmit to Mars. If, as you claimed, it would take a transmitter less than a minute to reach Mars, then we were able to send information to a distance of one minute of light in a time of less than a minute, therefore faster than light. which is not possible.
Miracles - disappointed disappointed disappointed. When I was proud of you I thought you meant something else:
Our premise that if spacecraft A sends a pulse to Mars and the pulse reaches it within an hour (Ofer's answer), then if Mars sends a pulse to the spacecraft it will also reach it within an hour due to symmetry, is not necessarily true according to classical relativity. The systems are not symmetrical. The spacecraft passes through the KdHA system - Mars, which are at rest relative to each other, and their clocks are synchronized. The spacecraft however is not synchronized with them. If there was another spaceship flying at the same speed and direction and distance from the original spaceship in a light hour and its clocks were synchronized with it, then we could talk about symmetry. The trouble is that according to relativity, the distance changes with the speed, so we cannot say that when the time is 0 on the clocks of the two spacecraft, they are necessarily facing the Earth and Mars respectively. Therefore, when Mars sends a pulse at time 0 according to its clock, it is not time 0 in the spacecraft system and the pulse will not reach the spacecraft at the time of a round hour.
And now a bonus question:
According to relativity, each system sees the other as submissive more slowly. So if our spacecraft reaches Mars, will it lag behind/speed up/remain the same relative to it?
Of course.
I wanted to expose Israel's error. He claims that there is symmetry when there is no symmetry.
There is no symmetry because one side transmits and receives the return while the other side receives a transmitter and returns a signal.
ב
Let's assume that the Earth and Mars are not moving and the distance between them is a light minute. Suppose the spacecraft sends a signal in the Earth suit. From Mars - it is visible at a distance of one light minute, so the signal will arrive one minute later. But - from the spacecraft - Mars looks closer - therefore, according to the spacecraft's clock, the signal will arrive faster.
Now is that understandable?
Where is the symmetry lost?
According to the spacecraft's measurement system:
The spacecraft is stationary and Mars is moving.
The horn went out and back. The outbound distance is equal to the return distance. And the outgoing time is also equal to the return time. That is, the outgoing and the return journey are symmetrical.
According to the measurement system of Mars:
Mars is stationary and the spacecraft is moving.
The path that the beam takes to Mars is from the point of exit of the pulse to Mars. The path the beam makes back to the ship is longer because the ship has moved away in the meantime. There is no symmetry between the outbound length and the return length, nor in the outbound and return time.
therefore:
Although in terms of mutual motion the spacecraft and Mars are symmetrical. Still, because it is the spaceship that launches the beam and receives it back. There is no symmetry.
The outward time according to the Mars clock is different from the return time according to the spacecraft clock!!!
Israel Shapira
If I understood your intention - the observer on Mars will see the signals together after an hour - then yes.
Sagnac invented 100 years ago a type of gyro that is used for inertial navigation systems in fighter planes in recent years. Until 20 years ago, the gyros were from here, like a children's merry-go-round. Today it is built from a laser that rotates between mirrors in two directions. The path difference created by rotation causes a phase difference, which is measured for the purpose of calculating the position of the aircraft in the sky.
So Sanyak is actually a positive guy 🙂
🙁 🙁 🙂 🙂 😛
Miracles.
The truth is, you pretty much convinced me, although I'm not sure about the exact 30 minutes. I'm proud of you. To be safe, I will present the question to Ofer.
But we agree that the signals from Earth and the spacecraft to Mars arrive together within an hour, right?
And this maniac sounds like quite a maniac at all.
There is another effect in GPS called the Snyak phenomenon and it is indeed due to the rotational movement - but it is small (less than a microsecond) compared to the other 2.
certainly. Mars appears closer and the speed of light is constant, so time is shortened.
And regarding GPS - the effect of the rotation is negligible. The big effect is a change in gravity, the second effect is the speed of movement. There are other effects but they are significantly smaller.
And the exact same transformations, extend the time twice, so that everything is offset.
Are you claiming that if the spaceship moves at the speed you said, the signal will reach it in 30 minutes according to the season?
Israel Shapira
Let's assume that the spacecraft is moving at such a speed that the Lorentz transform is halved (I assume the speed is 0.8-0.9c). So the time will also be cut in half.
agree.
So when will the signal from Mars reach the spacecraft according to the spacecraft's clock?
Israel
I think we don't understand each other.
Let's look at the event that the spacecraft passes by the Earth.
From Mars, both the Earth and the spacecraft are at the same distance - the static distance to the Earth's radius. In this situation, a signal coming from Earth and a signal coming from the spacecraft will reach Mars together.
From the point of view of an observer on Earth and a spacecraft observer, the situation is different. At the moment of the suit - the spacecraft will see Mars at a smaller distance than an observer from Earth.
do you agree?
ב
You are right about the KDA clock - but it is quite far away. The spacecraft can only know the pulse strike time by its clock.
But do not fear - David Israel took care of everything. Scattered along the entire length of the spacecraft's orbit are clocks synchronized with the Earth and stationary relative to it. Therefore, at the time of the pulse, you can look out and see the current time as it appears on a passing clock.
This time will differ according to relativity from the time of the spacecraft.
And regarding section B - fine, 2 photons. One for DHA and the other for the spacecraft.
Miracles.
Where is the asymmetry? As for the spacecraft, it is the one at rest and Mars is the one in motion. Therefore if we said (and we said!) that the beam arrives from the spacecraft to Mars at an hour according to its time, then this is also the time it will take for the beam from Mars to reach the spacecraft according to its time.
No?
And regarding GPS satellites - everything is true, but don't forget that it is an accelerated (rotary) movement. Not that it means anything to those who are not familiar with the beaten subject.
Israel Shapira
The situation is not symmetrical at all!
From Mars - the signal is broadcast from the same place and at the same time. That is, it is the same event. That means Martians will see the 2 signals at the same time. This is true, by the way, for any form of information transfer. Information cannot travel faster than speed c, and light also travels at speed b.
In the other direction - as soon as the spacecraft passes by the Earth - the spacecraft sees Mars closer than the observer on Earth. Therefore, the signal from Mars will reach the spacecraft (at the time of the spacecraft) in a shorter time than it will reach Earth. In any case - this is the prediction of the theory of special relativity, and also fits observations.
For an observer on Earth, the clock in the spaceship runs slower. This is easily seen in the GPS satellites. If we ignore the force of gravity the clocks there run about 7 microseconds slower every day. The lack of gravity makes time run faster in satellites - and the spin is about 45 microseconds a day. The difference of 38 microseconds per day is corrected - otherwise we get a deviation of 10 km per day!!!
I did not understand the connection between the question and the fact that the photon is a particle or a wave.
In any case, it is not just one photon.
If it was only one photon, it would have been absorbed in one of the measurement systems and not known in the other measurement system!
It is clear that in order to perform such measurements one must use a beam with a large amount of photons, only a part of which will be absorbed by the measuring devices.
If the spacecraft moves away from Mars:
According to Earth's clock:
The rays reach Mars within an hour.
The rays return from Mars to Earth within an hour.
Two hours have passed so far.
In the meantime, the spaceship moved away from Earth at a distance of one light hour.
from here on:
It can be treated as if a ray of light leaves the earth towards a spaceship that is one light hour away from the earth and moves away from the earth at a speed equal to half the speed of light.
After two hours the beam moves in the direction of the spacecraft it will travel a distance of two light hours.
Meanwhile the spacecraft will travel a distance of one light hour in addition to the initial distance of one light hour and will be two light hours away from Earth.
That means the beam will meet the spacecraft after two hours.
If we add the round trip time to Mars which is two hours we get a total of four hours.
All this according to Earth's clock, of course!
Miracles.
Understandable - but not agreed upon.
The signals from the earth and the spacecraft will reach Mars at the same moment: one hour according to Mars time.
The situation is completely symmetrical regarding light moving from Mars towards the Earth and the spacecraft. If he left at time 0 according to the Mars clock synchronized with Earth time, he would arrive at time 1.00:1.00 both in Israel (Earth time) and in the spacecraft (spacecraft clock). And this despite the fact that the spaceship approached a considerable distance to Israel. If, at the moment the pulse arrived at the spacecraft, it would have passed a stationary clock in the Earth-Mars system and synchronized with them, and a high-resolution camera would have photographed the spacecraft clock and the synchronized clock at the same time, the photograph would have shown: 52.2 on the spacecraft clock and XNUMX minutes on the synchronized clock.
The reason - the lengthening of the zamanin, the shortening of the orchin, and the stretching of the zebrabirin.
Or so relativity claims, I believe.
Yuval - why are you bursting out, the door is wide open. I asked to get qualified confirmation of what I already knew, but another factor challenged me. The approval has already been given by Aye Ofer Maged, see previous comment. You can also talk to him directly on his blog.
And who treats the photon incorrectly? A photon was and remains a galaxy. Half wave and half particle. And it is clear that he is in two places at the same time - the question is what is the definition of "at the same time".
Purposefulness - me.
Except your smileys get sadder and sadder in a linear fashion.
Yuval Chaikin.
This is not a correct explanation of the phenomenon - because it is not the phenomenon.
Listen - an observer on Mars will see the signal of a fast spacecraft passing by the stationary Earth at that moment. I explained why.
The observers in the spacecraft and on Earth will see a signal coming from Mars at a different time, even though the signal was transmitted at the moment of their suit. I also explained why.
What is not understood?
Still, you blew a fuse for me: the way you treat the photon is wrong. You see a photon as a particle and ignore its appearance as a wave. Yoav Litvak compares this duality to a wave in the sea which as long as it is far from the earth is a wave but when it breaks on the shore it expresses its particle nature. This parable does not explain all known phenomena. I believe that a photon (and an electron) is a particle and a wave at the same time at any given moment. I also have a model that illustrates how this is possible. Therefore the answer to your question "So if the beam is actually a single photon - then the same photon is in two places at the same time, right?" she Yes!" Comprehensive and absolute: a single photon, by virtue of being a wave, is simultaneously located in a large number of points.
Israel! Are you looking for a qualified answer to a scientific issue through a survey among two and a half casual hobbyists?! Wonder 😛
🙂 I'm happy that I finally found someone who understands the logic in my words, even if not for the right reason, but I'm still firm in my intention not to participate in fruitless discussions anymore 🙁
Israel Shapira
I think that's exactly why you're wrong. Because of the relative speed, when the spacecraft is near Earth, Mars will appear (from the spacecraft) closer, so the light will arrive sooner. The situation is not symmetrical
Girl, no need to convince me. The question was so that I could get a qualified answer in the discussion I have with another person.
But pay attention to his legitimate question: if at that moment rays from Mars went out to Earth and the spacecraft, they would reach them at the same time - even though the spacecraft is already very far from Earth.
So if the beam is actually a single photon - then the same photon is in two places at the same time, isn't it?
If the price is to switch to Explorer, we will probably stay blue.
Israel Shapira
Again - think that the spaceship touches the earth and at the moment a signal is sent. The observer from Mars must see the signals together. Otherwise - it is possible to reach a contradiction. I hope it is clear why there is a contradiction….
In Chrome I can't respond at all - but in Explorer it works...
From the point of view of the observer on Earth:
By the time the light beam reached Mars, the spacecraft had meanwhile progressed half way to Mars. Elapsed time is an hour.
By the time the beam returning from Mars hit the spacecraft, the spacecraft had meanwhile progressed a third of the remaining half of the distance to Mars. Elapsed time is a third of an hour.
In total, on the surface of the Earth, the time that passed until the beam hit the spacecraft is an hour and a third. That is one hour and twenty minutes.
As far as the spacecraft is concerned, there is no symmetry between the outgoing beam and the returning beam.
According to the Earth's clock and the Mars clock: the ray coming out of the meridian in the direction of Mars and the ray coming out of the spacecraft in the direction of Mars will reach Mars at the same time.
How long will it take the rays to reach Mars: If Mars is a light hour away from the point of exit of the rays then it will take them an hour to reach Mars.
The beam returning to Earth will return within two hours. An hour there and an hour back.
Regarding the time it will take for the beam to get back to the spacecraft: the spacecraft clock is not synchronized with the Mars clock and the Earth clock!
This is because the spacecraft is in motion with respect to the Earth and also with respect to Mars. To calculate the exact time you need to use the Lorentz transformation.
Miracles
Why is it obvious? From the point of view of the spacecraft it is at rest and Mars is approaching it, so if a signal is sent from Mars to the spacecraft, for reasons of symmetry it will take the same time to reach the spacecraft as from the spacecraft to it. But in the meantime the spaceship moved forward and now it doesn't.
Quit bullshit now, relationships that cover sponsorships. How do you manage to post comments without a link? Why are we all blue and you black?
This is my response….
Israel Shapira
Let me rephrase your question. (The wording itself is Mario Livio's.)
You are standing at the end of a runway. A plane comes to land in front of you and at the same time a car crosses the runway. Let's say the two tools trigger a flash of light at the moment of collision. Will we see both flashbacks together?
Obviously yes - the flashes were activated at the time of the collision - this event is one point in space-time. Therefore - every viewer, regardless of their speed or location, will see the 2 flashes together.
QED
I see the logic in your words - but not for the reason you expected.
Mach's principle - the connection between a state of absolute rest, or absolute rotation, and the stars of the Sabbath - applies only to the resting system of stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. Relative to other galaxies, the absolute rotation will probably be different (this is how I understood my situation).
So if there is a hidden factor that determines on which rotating plate centrifugal force will act and which will not, and it differs in size from galaxy to galaxy, then it must be assumed that different laws operate in the space between the galaxies than within the galaxies. Otherwise how did the centrifugal force know which galaxy to align with?
And if the laws of nature change their constants in relation to one factor (centrifugal force), what will prevent them from changing the size of another constant? (the speed of light in your example).
Apologies for recycling an old comment:
The problem with the discussion of time dilation (or Lorentz contraction or all the related names and terminology) is that the experiment on which it is based is performed in the micro and should not be naturally attributed to the macro. We need to understand the mechanism that causes the phenomenon observed at short distances and check if it is correct to project it on astronomical distances.
The paradox does not end with the clocks (or the twins) but continues with other phenomena whose analysis under the assumption that the speed of light is constant in any reference system leads to greater mysteries. The most prominent example from the last decade is the phenomenon that has been named "dark energy". If we accept that the speed of light is constant only in a limited space, for example in the area of the solar system or even the Milky Way, but in other places it is higher, this energy will no longer be dark. Although we cannot directly measure the speed of light in intergalactic space, another phenomenon, which causes galaxies to behave like lenses ("dark matter", "gravitational lenses") has a high probability of indicating that the speed of light inside galaxies is lower than outside them.
That's why I suggest that before we build towers based on this assumption, we try, first, to focus on the original experiment and look for additional possible assumptions - ones that also fit the new phenomena observed recently.
Please Aref, you wrote Shata Or and my question was about times.
But don't be afraid. In the meantime, Rabbi Shuel Ofer Maged engraves the ruling of my question - for mercy. A round hour for both signals (or both pulses, depending on the product of the species). See
http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html
Have you noticed that many physicists are deer and sheep?
And what does it have to do with mm? MM came to find out what the resting system of the site is. Our question is more about whether the speed of light adds up to the speed of the light source, what the company at the barn calls: EMISSION THEORY.
Because note: if the light reaches Mars from the spacecraft in an hour, then for reasons of symmetry, light from Mars also reaches the spacecraft in an hour. And also caught in the hour. But the spacecraft in the meantime has come a long way to Mars, so how is it that the light from Mars reaches both Earth and the spacecraft at the same time?
About this in the chapter: The lengthening of times.
A light hour is a distance. Did someone say otherwise?
If your questions thread started elsewhere, please post a link. On the face of it, it seems that the scenario in your questions closely mimics the MM experiment.
Haim sorry, the only curses I know are in Arabic. Is there even such a thing as swearing in Hebrew? Or Israeli food? Isn't it a bit of a shame that everything that has some taste we took from our parents or neighbors?
Except that in the kibbutz we grew up in an atmosphere of distaste for everything German, and admiration for everything Russian.
Hitler Capote! Stalin Gut!
Eli, do like me, add the link at the address above. It calms the reaction mechanism that has been a bit wild recently.
Shlomo, the question was about time. A light hour is a distance.
And maybe someone can seriously try to answer my questions? It is extremely important for the proper existence of the universe.
Thanks Skeptic, sounds interesting.
By the way, in my case (Internet Explorer 10, Windows 7) when I try to send a response without filling in the address field (with the house icon next to it), then the field is immediately highlighted in red and the cursor jumps there, and the message is not sent until I fill in some fictitious address there.
Eli
You do not need to fill in all the fields in the response form. It is advisable (or mandatory) to fill in only the Nick field (your ID on the website).
Regarding the lack of explanation about the shortness of the flight. Apparently there is no explanation in the article from which the article here was produced either, or the explanation there is too complicated. Haim Mazar here made some sort of comment on the matter and it is desirable that he give an overly detailed explanation.
I assume from Mazar's words that the Soyuz has a limited amount of fuel for the spacecraft's cruise, as a result there is a decrease in the spacecraft's ability to perform maneuvers in its movement. I am guessing (again according to Mazer's words) that in the previous orbit, which was in the form of a spiral of more rotations around the Earth (rotations while increasing the distance from the Earth) - the Soyuz spacecraft approaches the orbit of the space station "almost tangentially". This is compared to the new route which is also spiral but with fewer spiral turns. As a result of reducing the number of spiral turns, the approach of the Soyuz to the space station today is less tangential to the orbit of the space station. Due to the reduction of the tangent between the two aforementioned tracks (on the new track), the Soyuz needs to make a sharper turn in order to enter identical tracks at the time of the rendezvous. A sharper turn requires more fuel (and as mentioned the Soyuz is limited in the amount of fuel for cruising and maneuvering). It's hard for me to explain more what I mean without a sketch and I don't have time to sketch either. I hope I'm not wrong and misleading, in any case Chaim Mazar should give an accurate explanation (if he has one).
And why do I have to fill in the field of a web address while writing a comment? What exactly should I write there?
Father, why is there no explanation as to what made the shortening of time possible? When I read the news in Vint, I was angry that there was no detail, but I knew there wasn't too much to expect from them, but on the science website? It doesn't make sense to detail a little what is so special about the new track and why it hasn't been used until now? In the news in Vint, it was also mentioned that the new route requires very precise maneuvers (compared to the previous route). Why?
I would expect some minimal explanation.
Oh wow! As Zamir you are not serious!
A light hour in the forward direction and the same distance in the backward direction, because you forced the planets to be in a counterclockwise position. Don't you know how to do one and one more?
And by the way (and on the occasion of this holy day), a gender question: when you multiply a male with a female, what is the gender of the multiplication? For example, one times one is two or two?
To Israel Shapira I liked your addition. Such a joke can only be understood by those who know Yiddish and I assume that you are fluent in Yiddish. Go to the Yakum Tarbut website and there in the list of writers on the left, go to my name, start scrolling until you reach the subject of swearing in Yiddish, including the links. All the curses that appear there are the fruit of my invention.
In fact, what happened is that during the years that the converter was operating, more and more malfunctions occurred until finally it was taken out of orbit, put into the atmosphere and from there into the Pacific Ocean. The reason why the Russians kept the Mir for so long in space came from the goal of learning how to deal with malfunctions in space conditions. It is assumed that when a manned spacecraft is launched to Mars, with the technology that exists today such a flight to Mars will last several months, a stay of up to a month and a half on the ground and return to Israel again for several months. A flight between a year and a year and a half. It is likely that there will be malfunctions and it will be necessary to fix them. A spaceship that is tens of millions of kilometers away from Earth will not make a U-turn until it reaches the garage called Earth. These repairs will need to be made during the flight. Peace be upon her (by the way, neither Kaddish nor orphan Kaddish was said about her after she entered the waters of the Pacific Ocean). In its last years it was a kind of school for that matter.
Shlomo, it's enough to be smart. The question is clear: what will the clocks of Mars look like when the transmitters from the earth and the spacecraft reach it?
Haim, I heard that after Mir's failures, they changed her name to Wise Mir.
As part of the activities of the American space station skylab, 3 Apollo spacecraft were launched to it. The flight time from launch to docking at the space station was between 7 and 8 hours. What made this possible were the launch missiles of the USA, which are still unmatched in Russia. For comparison, the Saturn 5 launch rockets that launched the Apollo spacecraft to the moon could put payloads weighing 120 tons into orbit around the Earth. The Soyuz spacecraft weighs about 7 tons. To date, not a single Soyuz spacecraft has been launched with the full amount of fuel in the fuel tanks. The Soyuz launch vehicles cannot carry the Soyuz spacecraft at their full potential weight. To solve this problem, the Soyuz spacecraft would be put into orbit around the Earth immediately after launch. For two days, each flight carried out a series of small track corrections until they reached the space stations Mir, Soliot and the current space station. The Russians took the path of increasing the flight path in an additional way. Each time the flight height is slightly raised.
This time the Russians took a different path, they studied the time window in which the space station passes over Russia and then launch the Soyuz spacecraft. The Apollo spacecraft could be launched at any time. The spacecraft would fly directly to the space station. The Russians do save fuel, oxygen and food in the new way, but limit themselves to certain time windows.
1) The medium is the same medium, both for transmitting from the spacecraft and for transmitting from the ground. What is the question?
2) Here too it is the same medium, only in the opposite direction.
In New Jersey it is now 1:35 on the morning of April XNUMXst. How is California?
April Fool ??? 🙂
Zvi, Ehud, Adi, Ofer, and the rest of the old relativity foxes.
Here we have a fundamental debate about private relations that can be presented through the following questions:
1. If a spaceship with a speed of half c passes by KDA at time 0 according to the clocks of the spaceship and the Earth, and at the moment of their encounter together with the Earth sends a transmitter to Curiosity on Mars (which for the purpose of the demonstration is at a distance of one light hour from the Earth and is stationary relative to the Earth), what will the clock on Curiosity (which is synchronized with a clock) show Haaretz) as soon as the broadcasts arrived? Will they arrive together?
2. If Mars has a mirror (like the one on the Moon) and the spaceship and Earth send a laser beam at the moment of their encounter, what time will it be in Israel when the two pulses return from their round trip between the two planets?
Could you consider the question?
Thanks.
May I have more details about what made the cutting in times possible? And maybe an explanation why it actually hasn't been tried until today?