The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Math]
|
Prev: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
Next: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty
From: colp on 16 Jun 2010 19:30 On Jun 17, 5:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote: > On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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> > > Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic > clocks, say.. > The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving > at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's > theory. References?
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:38 On Jun 16, 5:56 am, Dave Doe <h...(a)work.ok> wrote: > koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com says... > > 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... You are confusing gravitation as acceleration. Remember that in GR, there is no such thing as acceleration but curvature of spacetime. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment This one-way trip does not prove the symmetry. In fact, it supports Larmors transform not the Lorentz transform. The link below will help you understand the differences are. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS#Special_and_general_relativity GPS will function without any GR effect applied if indeed exists. You can google the previous few posts by yours truly to understand how GPS works. <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 16 Jun 2010 19:49 On Jun 16, 10:12 am, hagman <goo...(a)von-eitzen.de> wrote: > On 16 Jun., 09:21, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > 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> > > Of course, such experiments have been made with fast-moving atomic > clocks, say.. No experiments can support the existence of a paradox. In fact, there are not a single experiment that shows so. <shrug> > The time differences were more subtle than with a twin moving > at almost c for a long time, but fully consistent with Einstein's > theory. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit came up with nothing original and innovative. Under Larmors transform, it manifests no twins paradox. Only under Poincares work now called the Lorentz transform that it does. Below is a link explaining the differences. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c5a0a3c587fd4df4?hl=en > > That is true. Not to mention that twins with the same acceleration > > profile can also coast away without any acceleration for some random > > time. This will enter into the time dilation in which there is > > absolutely no mathematical remedy or resolution for that one. <shrug> > > > Don't expect the self-styled physicists to understand that one. They > > are indeed morons who cannot even understand or comprehend the most > > basic of logics. <shrug> > > In order to level out the effects of the intermediate period of > acceleration > each twin will be better off, calculation-wise, to resort to some > inertial > system. Why not the point they started from and meet again? Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non- zero speed. It should be very easy. In fact, intelligent ones would not even attempt to because the mutual time dilation can be built up fact depending on the time of coasting (with no acceleration applied). <shrug>
From: cwldoc on 16 Jun 2010 15:43 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). > > 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. More specifically, the explanation for the classic twin "paradox" is that it falsely assumes that both twins are inertial observers throughout the entire experiment. Without this false assumption, there is no longer symmetry, and thus no expectation of a symmetrical outcome. > 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. In fact what happens is the following: Suppose twins A and B are 20 years old at the beginning of the trip. Say twin A stays on earth, while twin B travels to planet X, located 3 lightyears from earth, at 0.6 c, a speed such that each sees the other's clock run at 0.8 rate of his own. A sees B reach X when A is 25. B is 24 years old when reaching X. Just before and after reaching X, B receives a continuous signal from earth, which is a video of A; that signal must have been emitted from earth when A was 22 years old. Since B sees the distance from earth to X as 2.4 lightyears, and B sees the earth moving away at 0.6 c, B interprets this to mean that the signal was emitted 2.5 years after the trip began, and thus that A aged (22 - 20)/2.5 = 0.8 of what B aged from beginning to emitting of signal. Since B sees A's clocks running slow, B also concludes that A is 23.2 years old when B reaches X. Just after B reaches X (and lands), the signal he is receiving from earth is still a video of 22 year old twin A. However, B's interpretation changes. Now B sees the distance to earth as 3 lightyears, and the earth is no longer moving away; earth's clocks now appear to B to run at 100%. B concludes that the signal was emitted 3 years in the past. B revises his opinion of twin A's age: A must be 25 years old, not 23.2 as he thought before landing on X! Now B begins the trip back to earth at 0.6 c. As soon as B starts the trip, B must again revise his opinion of A's age. He sees A's clocks running slow, sees the earth moving toward B and sees the earth to X distance as 2.4 lightyears. B now concludes that the signal was emitted 6 years previously, so that A must be 22 + (0.8)(6) = 26.8 years old! The rest of the trip lasts 4 years from B's standpoint, so B expects A to be 26.8 + (0.8)(4) = 30 years old when B gets back to earth. So it all works out! > The symmetric twin paradox is described more fully > in the following > paper: > > 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."
From: spudnik on 16 Jun 2010 20:13
doc Atlas, there is no paradox, if you accept that there is no phenomenon, including sub-atomic angular momenta, that"goes" faster than light. see, it was only a "twin paradox" til explained via Einstein et al's extension of Galilean relativity -- a strawman, really. are you going to argue Ole Roemner's dyscovery of the "retardation" of light, way back, when ever? your proposed "balancing" is almost cute, but iff they accelerate at the same average rate, there clocks'll be in synch at the rendezvous; so, you've described a Twins Miming Each Other "experiment" of no account. just get rid of the useless notion of Minkowski's phase-space, and you won't have to think too hard about it. > Go ahead and start the calculation then for the time where each twin > coast away or towards each other without any acceleration and with non- > zero speed. It should be very easy. In fact, intelligent ones would > not even attempt to because the mutual time dilation can be built up > fact depending on the time of coasting (with no acceleration > applied). --Stop BP's Waxman's arbitrageurs' CAP&TRADE Last Bail-out of Wall Street, the City of London and George Soros et al ad vomitorium! --Fermat's next theorem! http://wlym.com |