John, Unfortunately, upon further reflection these two thought experiments aren't paradoxical, because they involve sending a signal over a non-zero distance. Whenever such signaling is present a putative paradox vanishes when analysed according to the principles of relativity theory . Therefore, any thought experiment which produces a stable paradox cannot involve such communication. One such though experiment is the trip paradox which we already discussed. A variant of this thought experiment is discussed extensively on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox One strategy to make the paradox vanish involves altering the terms of the thought experiment by introducing a layer of signaling that was not present on any level in the original thought experiment. (This is analogous to changing the terms of a cold fusion experiment to make the excess heat vanish). Another strategy is to include acceleration which makes the total aging asymmetrical, but it does not address the paradox of who is aging more during the period uniform of velocity. (This is analogous to uncovering some chemical effect which does not account for all the excess heat and then to discount the remaining excess heat). In my next post I will present what I think is a stable paradox involving length contraction. It resembles the ladder-in-barn or the train-in-tunnel paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox Of course these aren't stable paradoxes because under closer scrutiny they involve signaling over a distance. Harry On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, here is the way to really hit this one home, but it it a little more > complex. > > So hopefully you can follow that in a large way there is a similarity > between the Wikipedia argument and mine. > > Let's setup a hybrid for fun, we will place mirrors either side of the of > the sensors in my experiment and move them closer together. > > Let's have a periodic light source release red photons (it must repeat > since the red photons will be lost out the side every so many bounces) from > the moving frame and the stationary frame will launch blue photons. > > Now we have a rotating and non-rotating censor that can each count each > colour of photon that passes though it. > > So from the rotating frame the red light has a more direct path and the > rotating sensor must detect more red photon passes. > From the lab frame the blue photons have bounced more times since they > have the more direct route and must register higher on the stationary > sensor. > > If you watched the data coming in from the 2 sensors which might be a > fraction of a mm apart, they obviously could not agree on when a photon is > present or which colour! > > But even this doesn't work since how can the mirrors reflect light from a > frame they aren't in???? > Since the mirrors are biased to their frame (whatever that is) then um > well, er.. > > Well how can you describe reality with a theory of unreality. > > John > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Reading the wiki page, essentially wiki and I are saying the same thing >> about the same essential experiment, expect the Wiki pages views the clock >> as the light and observes the light clock from the moving frame ASSUMING >> constancy from the speed of light and saying the moving frame sees the >> other frame dilated. >> >> My experiment sees the moving frame from the stationary lab/track frame >> and sees the clock on the train or the rotating form to be accelerated in >> time. >> >> So the observations up to this point match, except that SR says that you >> can't make a clock go faster like this. >> And if you reverse which frame the light comes from, this effects which >> frame must see time which way, or again do both which requires both results >> again. >> >> The point I guess is that this is either an experiment that makes mince >> meat of the speed of light or makes observations of clocks insanely >> paradoxical since they aren't receding at high speed so we cam observe the >> time dilation that is meant to be happening in real time so to speak. >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:33 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> If you increase the size of the disk in the non-linear example until it >>> is almost linear (or the same size as the planet), then it is the same >>> minus the possibility of General Relativities experimentally disproven time >>> dilation (with muons), but the experiment works without time dilation, and >>> would still experience the SR style of time dilation... >>> >>> Actually that is an interesting point, since that is the same as an >>> argument here: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity >>> >>> The difference is that here light is assumed to be C, and if we saw the >>> clock on the rotating frame from the lab, or looked at the clock on the >>> train from the ground it would only make sense if *time was seen to >>> speed up in these rotating frames or train frames*! >>> >>> But even IF this time acceleration of the moving clock can be massaged >>> into SR somehow, then we can complicate matters further by adding a second >>> light source on the rotating frame that reverses the relationship... >>> >>> BUT now the speed of light can not possibly be C for the rotating frame >>> as the clock would need to simultaneously be seen to tick faster and slower! >>> >>> And that is an easy conclusion to come to but I recommend not trying to >>> imagine this as it will do your head in :) >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>>>>>>
