The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Dono. on 16 Jun 2010 17:03 On Jun 16, 1:23 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dono. wrote: > > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > >> The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility of > >> Detecting Absolute Motion > >> Authors: G. G. Nyambuya, M. D. Ngobeni > > >>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > > > So, two idiots wrote a paper and uploaded it on arxiv. BFD. > > The first two references are precious: > > > [2] Cahill T. R., 2007, Dynamical 3-Space: A Review; > > arXiv:0705.4146 > > [2] Cahill T. R., 2008, Unravelling Lorentz Covariance and the > > Spacetime Formalism;arXiv:0807.1767 > > Oh, that's cute. I didn't see /that/. Yes, the Cahill idiot has followers :-)
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 17:07 On Jun 17, 12:56 am, Dave Doe <h...(a)work.ok> wrote: > In article <fff81c16-7451-420a-a943-fa07db675ae8 > @h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > On Jun 15, 11:25 pm, 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). > > > Let me chime in. There have been no experiments showing that > > accelerating does indeed exhibit any time dilation. So, the classical > > resolution as proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > liar is totally bullshit in the first place. <shrug> > > Don't be silly! - this is routinely proven - and used everyday in the > GPS system... In Einstein's paradigm an orbiting satellite does not accelerate - it travels in a straight line through curved space. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment The Hafele-Keating experiment considers inertial frames and the effect of different gravitational potentials, not acceleration.
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 17:14 On Jun 17, 6:30 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 2:25 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. > > > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully in the following > > paper: > > > The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility of > > Detecting Absolute Motion > > Authors: G. G. Nyambuya, M. D. Ngobeni > > >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > > > "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found > > within the currently accepted provinces of the STR if one adopts the > > currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible > > for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion." > > There is NO paradox. The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will see time dilation for the other, resulting in the two predictions contradicting each other when the twins return to Earth. > The length of each twin's path through spacetime > is identical and both are shorter than those of anyone sitting back on > Earth. So they both agree that they are the same age when they come > back, but have aged less than the ones remaining behind. You have ignored the basis of the paradox, which is the issue of the each twin observing time dilation of the other twin.
From: Peter K on 16 Jun 2010 17:24 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:267c724a-a11c-4cfe-ae6d-b5b9395cf382(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully in the following > paper: > > The Twin Paradox Revisited and Reformulated -- On the Possibility of > Detecting Absolute Motion > Authors: G. G. Nyambuya, M. D. Ngobeni > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0804.2008N > > "We introduce a symmetric twin paradox whose solution can not be found > within the currently accepted provinces of the STR if one adopts the > currently accepted philosophy of the STR namely that it is impossible > for an inertial observer to determine their state of motion." The only way to check this, is to send a couple of watches out on a journey - say one to paris and back, and one to New York and back. Then when they get back to NZ we can check the time on each of them! Sheesh, how hard was that?
From: Dono. on 16 Jun 2010 17:46
On Jun 16, 2:14 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 17, 6:30 am, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > The paradox is that SR predicts that each twin will see time dilation > for the other, resulting in the two predictions contradicting each > other when the twins return to Earth. > No, imbecile You are rehashing Dingle's 20 years of imbecilities. Yes, each observer will detect time dilation. This does not constitute a paradox. Besides, the reciprocal time dilation in Dingle's "paradox" has nothing to do with the measurement of elapsed time in the twins' "paradox". > You have ignored the basis of the paradox, which is the issue of the > each twin observing time dilation of the other twin. You are co-mingling Dingle's "paradox" with the twins' "paradox". BTW, neither of them is a paradox. |