The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 17:59 On Jun 19, 8:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:07f2de62-4ba9-4b1b-99cd-dd05c284d2fa(a)b3g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(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. > > > It depends on the context of the question. > > Nope If the context is where they did use SR, you get one answer. If the context is where they didn't use SR, you get a different one.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 18:02 On Jun 19, 8:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:81c945d7-ef5d-4905-bc17-ff691d4025fd(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(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. Can you show how their math resulted > >> > in coming to an incorrect conclusion? > > >> >> Instead > >> >> they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run > >> >> slow" -- SR > >> >> does NOT say that; > > >> > The truth is not determined by what SR says > > >> The truth about what SR says IS determinets by what SR says > > > Circular reasoning. > > Nope. It is circular reasoning because you conclude the truth based on nothing more than a theory. If I had a theory that the moon was made of green cheese, I couldn't derive the truth of the the nature of the moon based on that theory alone.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 18:04 On Jun 19, 8:12 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 19, 9:59 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > > >news:ac2dcf58-a9be-491f-8b59-b30fcf0285b7(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com.... > > > > 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. > > > Then what do you think the circumstances are in which SR predicts that > > a twin observes the other to age more quickly, and what mathematical > > relationship quantifies this? > > > > 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. > > > In reality the twins age the same as each other, but SR does not > > predict that result if you examine the experiment from the point of > > view of either twin. > > SR does predict that result; Only if you base your observations on what an observer on Earth sees. Relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference, but you are clearly favouring one frame of reference over the frames in which the twins move.
From: colp on 19 Jun 2010 18:09 On Jun 20, 1:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > colp wrote: > > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to > > age more quickly. > > > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at > > the end of the experiment. > > All three of those are wrong. So you are saying that SR does not predict that each twin observes the other twin to age more slowly on each leg? What, then, does SR say about that situation, and how does your explanation differ from mine?
From: Daryl McCullough on 19 Jun 2010 18:11
colp says... >You can hack my statement anyway you like, but the fact is that SR >predicts that an observer observing a non-local clock moving in a >inertial frame at a relativistic velocity will observe that clock to >be running slow. No, it doesn't. It depends on what you mean by "observe", but if what you mean is the *image* of the moving clock, then the prediction of SR is that a clock moving towards you will appear to run *fast*, and a clock moving away from you will appear to run slow. >This observation applies both on the outgoing and return legs, and it >applies for both twins. No, that's not correct. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |