The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 18:46 On Nov 29, 10:46 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. It clearly is. > That formula only works for a very specific case, It applies when delta t and delta t0 are from intertial frames of reference, as you have said. > and you are applying in a *different* circumstance. No I'm not.
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 18:48 On Nov 29, 10:46 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. A paradoxical theory is not a mystery. It is simply a theory in which one or more of the assumptions (or postulates) are false.
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 19:32 colp says... > >On Nov 29, 10:46 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> >Wrong. delta t = gamma delta t0 is relativistic mathematics. >> >> No, it's not. > >It clearly is. > >> That formula only works for a very specific case, > >It applies when delta t and delta t0 are from intertial frames of >reference, as you have said. > >> and you are applying in a *different* circumstance. > >No I'm not. If you want to show that that formula is applicable, then *derive* it from the postulates of Special Relativity. If you actually did that, you would *see* why what you are doing is nonsense. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Nov 2007 19:36 colp says... > >On Nov 29, 10:44 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> 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. If you calculate elapsed times using only *inertial* coordinates, then you don't get any contradictions. So you are completely wrong. >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. I don't care what they expect. The question is: what does Special Relativity predict? It predicts that in the symmetric case, the number of signals each twin receives from the other is the same. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 28 Nov 2007 21:04
On Nov 29, 1:32 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > > > >On Nov 29, 10:46 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> >Wrong. delta t = gamma delta t0 is relativistic mathematics. > > >> No, it's not. > > >It clearly is. > > >> That formula only works for a very specific case, > > >It applies when delta t and delta t0 are from intertial frames of > >reference, as you have said. > > >> and you are applying in a *different* circumstance. > > >No I'm not. > > If you want to show that that formula is applicable, > then *derive* it from the postulates of Special Relativity. You are making the claim. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. |