The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 14:34 On Nov 29, 3:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > >> And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http:// > >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same > >> wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail > >> the twin paradox > > >You are supporting my original argument by quoting that page. The > >specific example on that page uses the same formula and methodology as > >I used when I showed Dirk's error in the OP. > > That page explains in many different ways why the twin paradox > is *not* a paradox, why it's perfectly consistent. Only in terms of asymmetry due to accleration. The point is that if I am using delta t = gamma delta t0 incorrectly (in my example in the OP) then the Wiki example is also using it incorrectly.
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 16:44 colp says... > >On Nov 29, 3:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >> And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http:// >> >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same >> >> wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail >> >> the twin paradox >> >> >You are supporting my original argument by quoting that page. The >> >specific example on that page uses the same formula and methodology as >> >I used when I showed Dirk's error in the OP. >> >> That page explains in many different ways why the twin paradox >> is *not* a paradox, why it's perfectly consistent. > >Only in terms of asymmetry due to accleration. When there is no asymmetry, the proper times for both twins are the *same*. >The point is that if I am using delta t = gamma delta t0 incorrectly You are using it incorrectly. >(in my example in the OP) then the Wiki example is also using it >incorrectly. No, they aren't. The Wiki example, as you noticed, is about a case in which one of the twins remains *inertial*. In that case, you can talk about time dilation for that twin's inertial coordinate system. If *both* twins are accelerating, then you *can't* use the simple time dilation formula. As I have explained before, time dilation is a relationship between *one* clock and an *inertial* coordinate system. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 16:46 colp says... > >On Nov 29, 3:56 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >> >> >On Nov 28, 8:40 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> >wrote: >> >> Do you know the difference between a mathematical *derivation* >> >> and a pop science description? >> >> >A mathemaitcal derivation is an abstract symbolic represenatation of >> >the relationships which are the essence of the idea, while a pop >> >science desciption is an interpretation of the idea in common >> >language. >> >> Well, you are basing your arguments about Special Relativity >> on pop science, not the actual mathematics of relativity. > >Wrong. delta t = gamma delta t0 is relativistic mathematics. No, it's not. That formula only works for a very specific case, and you are applying in a *different* circumstance. And getting nonsense. That's your fault, not Einstein's. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 16:46 colp says... > >On Nov 29, 4:02 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >> It's as if you tried to solve some mystery about the life of >> >> Julius Caesar by studying a picture book about him written >> >> for eight-year olds. >> >> >Straw man. >> >> No, it's not. > >It is a straw man because the theory of relativity is not a mystery It's a mystery to you, apparently. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 18:42
On Nov 29, 10:44 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > > > >On Nov 29, 3:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> colp says... > > >> >> And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http:// > >> >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same > >> >> wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail > >> >> the twin paradox > > >> >You are supporting my original argument by quoting that page. The > >> >specific example on that page uses the same formula and methodology as > >> >I used when I showed Dirk's error in the OP. > > >> That page explains in many different ways why the twin paradox > >> is *not* a paradox, why it's perfectly consistent. > > >Only in terms of asymmetry due to accleration. > > When there is no asymmetry, the proper times for both > twins are the *same*. Yes, but the paradox is that the proper times are different to the observed times, not that the proper times are the same. > > >The point is that if I am using delta t = gamma delta t0 incorrectly > > You are using it incorrectly. No I'm not. Your argument (below) is a straw man. > > >(in my example in the OP) then the Wiki example is also using it > >incorrectly. > > No, they aren't. The Wiki example, as you noticed, is about > a case in which one of the twins remains *inertial*. In that > case, you can talk about time dilation for that twin's inertial > coordinate system. If *both* twins are accelerating, then you > *can't* use the simple time dilation formula. The paradox does not rely on observations that are made from accelerating frames. The essential part of the paradox is that when the two twins are travelling away from each other in inertial frames they expect to receive fewer clock ticks than they send. > > As I have explained before, time dilation is a relationship > between *one* clock and an *inertial* coordinate system. That is how time dilation is being examined in the examples. |