Time paradox in Special Relativity Theory.

It isn't. To consider two separate bodies which are co-located twice, at least one of them MUST experience acceleration; the fact that you are simply choosing to ignore this acceleration from each body's perspective is why you're always going to get symmetric answers...because without acceleration each body could legitimately say that the other guy is the one moving. Acceleration is absolute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See here. SR can handle accelerating objects but it cannot do so from an accelerating reference point. (Actually someone is going to say that you could but it's called RELATIVITY for a reason: inertial motion is relative and accelerating objects are not inertial)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is incorrect, SR can handle the motion of accelerated objects from the POV of an inertial frame AND the motion of an inertial object from the POV of an accelerated frame. BOTH are handled by SR.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...:facepalm:

Anyway, Emil's analysis is all about analyzing A from B's frame and B from A's frame. When he does so he is treating each respective frame as inertial which is of course incorrect.

 

It is already stated that in Relativity Theory there is no such thing as absolute frame of reference or absolute space distance or speed with respect to any absolute space or spacetime. If this is correct view then calculations using an absolute space or spacetime term for travel history are invalid. So if Emil's study is canceling or symmetrizing all the known GR effects of "constant" acceleration around identical circular orbits as shown which coincide only at one comoving instant, then no other effects or theory is involved from SR view between a and b. By using any other view or calculations based on constant circular accelerations, or using any other reference frames except apparent relative motion to and fro from a and b reference frames, is mixing SR and GR without GR canceling out as Emil's illustration.

What justifies using GR accelerations which in Emil's illustration is constant and cancels and is ignored by design? What justifies using absolute space or spacetime reference frame to introduce any "paths they take through spacetime" which in the SR view as stated will involve only the relative apparent separation and closing distances and times between a and b which is with respect only to a and b frames of reference?

 

We have shown Emil several solutions, none using any "GR acceleration".

What do you mean? The above sentence makes no sense.

None of the presented solutions uses any "absolute space".

The above is pure gibberish, you sound very much like Reiku.

You know, it always takes me only a few minutes to figure out that you came back, Reiku.

 

Why is incorrect? Because you can not apply SR?
If there is no time dilation according to SR, please state clearly and say why.

Agreed.

 

Hm ....it is more complicated and we hijacked the discussion. But think about, how do you differentiate between constant speed (relative to something) in space "no acceleration" and free fall to the ground.

 

Tach. The rpenner explanation referred to "paths they take through spacetime". That is not valid if SR relativity is all that Emil's OP requires for analyzing it without any GR or other frames of references like "through spacetime" path histories of a or b. All a or b have is SR relative motion to observe. Nothing else is valid to introduce in explanations if GR effects are symmetric and ignored as here so "spacetime" paths not material to the analysis according to SR which is purpose of deducing any paradox in it or not. Keep your gibberish and your "Reiku" whatever that is to yourself, silly troll.

 

Reiku,

There is NO "GR" in the scenario. This was explained to several of you, multiple times.

This is total gibberish.

Nope, they both read the time on their respective watches, THIS is how they tell the time. This was also explained multiple times.

One last time, Reiku, there is NO "GR".

 

Tach. You really are a stupid troll. I said that GR effects were not involved, didn't I? I just said that rpenner used "paths through spacetime" argument which is invalid in SR only apparent relative movement between a and b, didn't I? You seem to want to argue with yourself. That's ok, just keep your silly troll games and "Reiku" speaking in tongues gibberish to yourself. Is everyone at home as boorish and immature as you are? Keep your bad habits in the family and don't take them into the public arena like this. You come across as thick as two planks. Stay away from me, fool kid.

 

Don't get all twisted in your knickers, Reiku.

 

Tach. Does your daddy own this site? Is that why you are allowed to keep trolling here while being ignorant of physics and not understanding what you read so you then echo what I just said and say it like noone said it to you already? I said no GR and no "paths through spacetime" allowed in the analysis. Are you taking meds or something like that? Are you tripping on other stuff? And why do you keep saying "Reiku" at everyone like that? Is it because of your religious beliefs or something? Is "Reiku" some sort of daily ritual thing? No matter, not interested. Just keep away from me, troll dummy.

 

What do you mean? The whole exercise is about comparing the twins' paths through spacetime. This is precisely the way proper time is evaluated.

I explained to you that based on the nonsense you post, you are a sockpuppet of the user named "Reiku". Your style is unmistakable.

 

Tach. And I told you how and why that is not necessary nor indeed valid. Are you that stupid offline as online? And there you go again with that "Reiku" mantra. Don't bring your religious delusions into the thread. Get help kid.

 

Really?
Let's try a simple exercise: Observers A and B start together from the point where two circles of radius \(R_A=2R_B\) touch. They move with the same angular speed. What are their respective ages when the meet again in the same point?

 

You must be the dumbest troll ever. Where does "angular" come from. I just told you that in SR view, a and b just see the to and fro straight line relative motions and distances. I just told you that rpenner's "paths through spacetime" is an invalid approach when all GR as well as any "space path" history (whether "angular" or "linear") is excluded from analysis strictly under SR view as stated. Can someone please call the dumb troll catcher?

 

From rotation motion, Reiku.
So, you have no clue how to solve this simple exercise.

 

There is no rotation in Emil's SR only exercise or analysis as I explained to you, so no "angular" speeds need be invoked. Are you really that stupid a troll? And who the hell's "Reiku", your Nemesis or something? He really has you rattled, hasn't he (or she?). LOL.

 

Mod note: Mars Rover is a sockpuppet for RealityCheck, and has been banned permanently from sciforums. RealityCheck's ban has been extended. Kudos goes to Tach for spotting Mars Rover was a sockpuppet (and correctly identifying him as a sockpuppet of RC in a report I received)