The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 02:54 On Jun 19, 12:55 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > >On Jun 18, 4:18=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> There is no paradox here! > > >The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will be younger than > >the other at the completion of the experiment. > > No, it doesn't. Actually, it does, as shown: 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. 2. In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to age more quickly. 3. Points 1 &2 mean that SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at the end of the experiment.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 02:56 On Jun 19, 2:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 jun, 17:11, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 12:56 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 17 jun, 22:33, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 18, 2:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > Please reproduce your working, and I'll point out the errors. I don't have > > > > > access to the article, only your comments on it. > > > > > Here's the relevant text from the article. The previous version being > > > > discussed was the classic twin paradox (Taurai and Tauwi are the names > > > > of the twins). > > > > > B. Twin Paradox (Symmetric) > > > > We shall set forth a new version of the twin paradox which is > > > > truly symmetric and this will introduce a true paradox and we > > > > shall provide a solution. Suppose Taurai unlike in the previous > > > > version, decided to be adventurous too. He decides to rocket > > > > into space and travels not with his twin brother but all by himself > > > > and instead of Alpha-Centauri he travels at the same constant > > > > relativistic speed as Taurwi [this speed is measured by > > > > the Earth bound observers] to an imaginary constellation (call > > > > it Constellation Alpha-Christina) which is equidistant and directly > > > > opposite to Alpha Centauri along the line of sight joining > > > > the Earth and Alpha Centauri. > > > > > On their day of departure, their family and friends bid them > > > > farewell and wish thema safe travel. Withoutmuch say, on the > > > > day of reunion, the family and friends [who all have studied > > > > physics at university and understand very well the STR] have > > > > no doubt that they [the Twins] will all have aged the same. > > > > The big question is, will the twins agree with their family and > > > > friends that they have aged the same? The truth is that, each > > > > of the twins will see the other as having aged less than they so > > > > they would not agree with their family and friends that they > > > > must be the same age. Herein we have a paradox! Who is > > > > older than who here? > > > > First typical mistake of students. > > > ... is believing that they have been told without proving it for > > themselves. > > So you are guilty as charged!!! How do you do you figure that? > You have been defending these young > south african students who do not understand a bit about SRT, What are you talking about?
From: Koobee Wublee on 19 Jun 2010 03:29 On Jun 18, 5:55 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > colp says... > >The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will be younger than > >the other at the completion of the experiment. > > No, it doesn't. The prediction of relativity is that > for a clock traveling at speed v for a time t, the > elapsed time on that clock is given by: > > T = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) t Wrong! The correct equation is ** dT = dt / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) Where ** v = the speed of t relative to T or vice versa As an example, if ** v^2 / c^2 == 3/4, then ** dT = dt / 0.5 If time has elapsed by 0.5 sec in t frame, it has elapsed by 1 sec. Thus, the t frame is observed to be slower by the T frame. Similarly due to the symmetry of the Lorentz transform which satisfies the principle of relativity, the following is also true. ** dt = dT / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) In doing so, the T frame is observed also to be slower by the t frame. Thus, the is the nature of the twins' paradox. Calling it gedanken and brush it under the rug is not dong science. It is interesting to witness the desperate attempts by these two men to nullify the deadly nature of the twins' paradox to SR. ** Mr. McCullough chooses to blindly throwing mathematics around and hopes it would work. ** Professor Roberts knows it is hopeless in the mathematics to support SR. In doing so, he is looking for specialty words to add to his piles of word salad in hoping the mysticism will continue to proliferate. Both approaches are not scientific in nature. Both approaches are just plainly stupid and embracing mysticism. <shrug>
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:31 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:ac2dcf58-a9be-491f-8b59-b30fcf0285b7(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 6:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:e9264a25-c903-41a1-9995-2ab4a781a956(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 18, 11:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:bd7d4a85-d7b3-40e3-884c-720b9255f608(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 18, 8:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 16, 1:25 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The classic twin paradox is asymmetric in that one twin remains >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > Earth while the other leaves (i.e. only one of them accelerates >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > deaccelerates). In the symmetric twin paradox both twins leave >> >> >> > Earth, >> >> >> > setting out in opposite directions and returning to Earth at the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > time. The conventional explanation for the classic twin paradox >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > since only one twin accelerates, the ages of the twins will be >> >> >> > different. In the symmetric case this argument cannot be applied. >> >> >> >> > The paradox of the symmetric twins is that according to special >> >> >> > relativity (SR) each twin observes the other twin to age more >> >> >> > slowly >> >> >> > both on the outgoing leg >> >> >> > and the return leg, so SR paradoxically predicts that each twin >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > be younger than >> >> >> > the other when they return to Earth. >> >> >> >> No. This is a basic misunderstanding due to oversimplification, and >> >> >> it >> >> >> is exactly the kind of thing that the original puzzle was intended >> >> >> to >> >> >> highlight for learners of relativity. >> >> >> > It is true that I haven't discussed what happens at turnaround, but >> >> > only for the reason that turnaround cannot possibly compensate for >> >> > the >> >> > SR time dilation. >> >> >> So you just don't bother doing the math and just ASSUME that it isn't >> >> important and then wonder why you get stupid results >> >> > Maths is consistent with logic. >> >> You have used neither > > Here are the relevant logical elements that I have used in this > thread: > > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. Yeup > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to > age more quickly. Nope. You could say the same in the usual twins paradox .. yes differences in synch make that happen and so the net effect is the one does age more quickly than the other. In the symmetric twin case the net effect is that the age the same as each other. > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at > the end of the experiment. Wrong
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 03:32
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:3f27a5b2-6fe9-4f52-9d45-033de8e4f473(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for you to >> > identify the errors in the article. >> >> The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math of SR. > > That isn't necessarily an error. BAHAHAH .. Of course it is. How cam they show a contradiction in SR if they didn't USE SR. |