The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 05:12 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:73d658f3-33f4-4af7-96a8-cded08f179c2(a)v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 1:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:8848af8d-c47c-4d28-b572-cfd072537de9(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > >> > Even if the twins both show the same age after te symmetric travel, I >> > made the point earlier that twin A has moved relative to twin B and >> > twin B has moved relative to twin A. >> >> Of course they have >> >> > When realtive motion occurs, time >> > dilation occurs. >> >> Yeup >> >> > The additional paradox is >> >> > how can both twins show the same age when relative movement between >> > them has occurred? >> >> Same way as one twin can be younger than the other in the usual twins >> paradox. > > So the usual (assymetric) twin paradox is also a real paradox. No >> >> > Acceleration? >> >> Yes. . or more exactly .. chagne of rest inertial frame > > Acceleration does not cause the time compression which is necessary to > compensate for the time dilation predicted by SR. Yes.. it does .. or rather it causes a change in time sync You don't know what SR predict .. you have failed to show your math to support your claims against SR >> > put a value a for the time dilation during acceleration, >> > and by symmetry in cancels out. >> >> Yes .. the symmetrical change in frame cancels out the time dilation > > Not from the point of view of a single twin in the symmetric case it > doesn't Wrong .. it does.
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 05:13 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2ec5e817-9bb9-43f7-b407-57a440ababdb(a)a9g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:8848af8d-c47c-4d28-b572-cfd072537de9(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 1:11 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. Your LACK of reasoning. You say the truth of SR is determined >> >> by >> >> what SR does NOT say. SR does NOT say the twins are less than each >> >> other >> >> over the whole experiment .. it says they have the same ages. >> >> > Even if the twins both show the same age after te symmetric travel, I >> > made the point earlier that twin A has moved relative to twin B and >> > twin B has moved relative to twin A. >> >> Of course they have >> >> > When realtive motion occurs, time >> > dilation occurs. >> >> Yeup >> >> > The additional paradox is >> >> > how can both twins show the same age when relative movement between >> > them has occurred? >> >> Same way as one twin can be younger than the other in the usual twins >> paradox. > > > My point is that the assertion that the twins show the same age is in > contradiction with the fact that the twins have moved relative to each > other. I cannot make it more simple than that Wrong > The moving clock runs slow Yes it does .. as measured by the 'stationary' clock > The stay at home twin ages faster means that all stay at home twins > age faster than the all traveling twins that follow the exact same > flight profile. > > But a particular traveling twin`s clock is always in motion with > respect to another traveling twins clock if they move in paths 90 > degrees to each other for example. > > Is this not true? Only half the story. > oh maybe as AE said we have to give up common sense. And reason? Nope. Only intuition
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 05:14 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:b9e80a0d-039d-449f-8e2e-aacace74acf1(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > Would not a true believer in relativity deny the truth of any argument > which showed such a paradox? > >> You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says. > > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric twin > thought experiment? You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly to show the math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you cannot be taken seriously
From: train on 20 Jun 2010 06:09 On Jun 20, 9:54 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:11 am, Tom Roberts 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. > > One thumbs up. > > > > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to > > > age more quickly. > > Two thumbs up. > > > > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at > > > the end of the experiment. > Well that may be true but not the "theory" - SR predicts that the there will be no paradox. In case of a paradox reword or rework the system until no paradox occurs. You can use mathematics, words or a combination. See the theory cannot be incorrect, otherwise it would not be a theory. For those who accept it. Those who do not accept it are er... outside the mainstream scientific community ... that the polite way they put it. T > Applaud. > > > All three of those are wrong. > > Huh! > > > You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says. > > <shaking my head> > > > That > > requires STUDY, not wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. > > Self-styled physicists knows very little about the subjects in which > they are supposed to be experts in. <shrug> > > Hint: You will become an Einstein Dingleberry if you continue to read > books smeared with fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the > plagiarist, and the liar. In another words, accepting books written > by Einstein Dingleberries will make you ever more mystified as if the > academics are not mystified enough. <shrug> > > Truly unbelievable.
From: train on 20 Jun 2010 06:11
On Jun 20, 11:33 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. > > Would not a true believer in relativity deny the truth of any argument > which showed such a paradox? would not a true beleiver indeed! Assume that SR is true. Then work backwards. > > > You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says. > > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric twin > thought experiment? |