How does mutual time dilation work with one twin aging faster?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
Next: Why relativity and other theories do not work in small scale?
From: PD on 9 Aug 2010 14:02 On Aug 9, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 6:53 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if you are > > > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you > > > but ticking slower than you at the same time? > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in > > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it > > comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just when > > the acceleration does. > > > > If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age any different than > > > the other. But one does. > > > Notice that in SR only inertial coordinates are equivalent. > > > > Please prove that time only appears slower. I say to you that you will > > > see the station's clock always running faster and mutual is an excuse; > > > If you are the one that accelerated as the station did not. The > > > difference is you felt weight at acceleration that the station doesn't > > > know about. > > > Yes, like I said you see the station`s clock go slower, until you get > > out from inertial coordinates. > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was the first, > perhaps persuaded by others, to claim the acceleration thing would > lead to no paradox. However, there was and has been no mathematics > showing how acceleration breaks the symmetry that manifests the twins > paradox. <shrug> Don't be silly. The mathematics is the integration of the proper time along the world lines of the two twins. Then it is OBVIOUS they are different. This directly attributable to one of the world lines being less straight than the other. Your being oblivious to the mathematics doesn't mean that this is not a straightforward demonstration shown in many books. Penrose's Road to Reality does this in a half-page, for example. > > On top of that, you can always design an experiment where both twins > do travel with the same acceleration profile. And in this case there is no clock difference upon reunion. This has been pointed out to you many times before. > Leave a period where > both would be coasting with no acceleration to allow for the build-up > of mutual time dilation. Better yet, make this coasting period > variable. When the twins reunite any bullshit claims to the > acceleration part will be nullified. The time dilation from the > coasting period should very clearly spell that the twins paradox is > indeed a manifestation of the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
From: RichD on 9 Aug 2010 15:13 On Aug 8, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if you are > > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you > > but ticking slower than you at the same time? > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin > in the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point > if it comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens > just when the acceleration does. What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the universe is closed), without turning around, hence no acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then? -- Rich
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Aug 2010 16:19 On 8/9/10 2:13 PM, RichD wrote: > What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a > straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the > same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the > universe is closed), without turning around, hence no > acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then? The universe is flat. No twins are going to leave each other and return without accelerations involved. Don't fool yourself.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Aug 2010 16:24 On 8/9/10 2:04 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Aug 8, 2:52 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> In the sense that the physics is the same in all inertial >> reference frames. > > So what does that mean??? > >> But the observations aren't identical in >> all frames. > > So the physics is not the same in all frames....right? > You get confused so easily, Seto. The physics (laws of physics) are the same in all inertial reference frames, but that does not mean observations are the same, those depend on relative (NOTE I SAY RELATIVE) positions and velocities with respect (NOTE I SAY WITH RESPECT) to what is being observed.
From: Peter Webb on 9 Aug 2010 18:21
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9bd0cd7c-deeb-4d09-bfa9-90edec5d97eb(a)f6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 8, 10:26 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> It's not so mysterious. Think about traveling along the x-axis. >> If you travel at a constant speed for 1 hour elapsed time, you'll >> end up a certain distance from your starting point. If you travel >> twice as fast, you'll end up twice as far from your starting >> point. There's nothing mysterious about that. >> >> Now, people are always traveling at a nonzero velocity in the >> t-direction. >> If you travel for one hour, you'll end up at a different time then when >> you started. If you travel for one hour at twice at twice the velocity >> in the t-direction, you'll end up twice as far along the t-axis. >> >> The 4-D view of SR is that every object has a velocity in the >> x-direction, >> the y-direction, the z-direction and the t-direction. Different travelers >> have different velocities in the t-direction, so they travel different >> distances along the t-axis. >> >> Rather than thinking one twin ages 1 hour while the other ages 1/2 hour, >> instead you think that one twin takes a full hour to go from 12:00 to >> 1:00, >> while the other twin only takes 1/2 hour to go the same distance along >> the t-axis. > > Einstein Dingleberries are getting sillier and sillier defending their > piles of nonsense. Ahahahaha... > > Is there a single experimental prediction of Special Relativity that you disagree with, or do you believe that its predictions exactly match reality? |