|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 27, 12:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 5/27/11 5/27/11 - 12:37 PM, Ron Aikas wrote: Geometry is not an explanation for different ages or different times on clocks. Using conventional meanings of words, it most definitely is an explanation for different path lengths Path length does not define elapsed time. shrug The twin paradox is the same: the traveling twin traveled less distance through spacetime than did the homebound twin. For such (timelike) paths, clocks measure the path length traveled, just like the odometers in the previous paragraph. Of course there are differences, and the analogy is not perfect, but they are in the details, not the principle. On May 27, 12:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: On 5/27/11 5/27/11 - 12:37 PM, Ron Aikas wrote: Geometry is not an explanation for different ages or different times on clocks. Using conventional meanings of words, it most definitely is an explanation for different path lengths Path length does not define elapsed time. shrug The twin paradox is the same: the traveling twin traveled less distance through spacetime than did the homebound twin. For such (timelike) paths, clocks measure the path length traveled, just like the odometers in the previous paragraph. Of course there are differences, and the analogy is not perfect, but they are in the details, not the principle. The issue is about the elapsed time. You don’t understand the issue. In doing so, you are just throwing all sorts of garbage out hoping to continue your mysticism in SR. shrug There are none so blind as those who refuse to look. Like Tom refuses to acknowledge the issue of the twins’ paradox is the elapsed time. No spacetime, no path length, etc. shrug There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen. Like Tom refuses to listen and continue to embrace mysticism. shrug There are none so stupid as those who refuse to think. Just how difficult is it to understand the issue at hand under the twins’ paradox is about elapsed time? Stupidity definitely is the culprit. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
Lets say there are two twins.
One twin makes a round trip to a distant sun for 20 years at 0.9c. One stays at home. SR predicts that when they are re-united, the travelling twin will have aged less than the stay-at-home twin. But you say SR is wrong about this. What would be the relative ages of the twins when re-united? Same age, travelling twin younger, or travelling twin older? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On 5/27/11 5:38 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 27, 12:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: On 5/27/11 5/27/11 - 12:37 PM, Ron Aikas wrote: Geometry is not an explanation for different ages or different times on clocks. Using conventional meanings of words, it most definitely is an explanation for different path lengths Path length does not define elapsed time.shrug The twin paradox is the same: the traveling twin traveled less distance through spacetime than did the homebound twin. For such (timelike) paths, clocks measure the path length traveled, just like the odometers in the previous paragraph. Of course there are differences, and the analogy is not perfect, but they are in the details, not the principle. On May 27, 12:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: On 5/27/11 5/27/11 - 12:37 PM, Ron Aikas wrote: Geometry is not an explanation for different ages or different times on clocks. Using conventional meanings of words, it most definitely is an explanation for different path lengths Path length does not define elapsed time.shrug The twin paradox is the same: the traveling twin traveled less distance through spacetime than did the homebound twin. For such (timelike) paths, clocks measure the path length traveled, just like the odometers in the previous paragraph. Of course there are differences, and the analogy is not perfect, but they are in the details, not the principle. The issue is about the elapsed time. You don’t understand the issue. In doing so, you are just throwing all sorts of garbage out hoping to continue your mysticism in SR.shrug There are none so blind as those who refuse to look. Like Tom refuses to acknowledge the issue of the twins’ paradox is the elapsed time. No spacetime, no path length, etc.shrug There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen. Like Tom refuses to listen and continue to embrace mysticism.shrug There are none so stupid as those who refuse to think. Just how difficult is it to understand the issue at hand under the twins’ paradox is about elapsed time? Stupidity definitely is the culprit.shrug The Twin Paradox for Koobee http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...section15.html http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/rel...notes/twin.gif |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
"Peter Webb" wrote in message u... | Lets say there are two twins. Nah, let's say there are one twin or three twins, and they move at 0.9% of the speed of gravity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 66 | June 5th 11 01:15 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 68 | May 26th 11 07:33 PM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 25th 11 12:35 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 24th 11 07:25 PM |
HELP! - simple question! | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | May 2nd 05 06:59 AM |