# Can the Twin Paradox be simplified?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by timewarp, Nov 20, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
You realize that you spent half a post attacking me and not answering the challenge to your errors.

Who's not reading for comprehension now? What I said was textually that "But you are applying a DIFFERENCE IN SPEED IN ADDITION to the acceleration. Therefore, any person versed in physics will immediately point out that your problem statement is violated in the very experiment you are attempting to set up."

That is, not only that you have acceleration (EQUAL, for both twins, it is clear that I quoted you correctly) in your scenario but you ALSO have SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. Because of that , any person versed in experimental physics (obviously , not you) will grasp that your setup CANNOT eliminate acceleration as the cause of age difference, it can ONLY confirm difference in speed as ONE of the causes.
To fully eliminate acceleration as a cause of aging differential you would need to impart different accelerations to the twins. Alternatively, you can do what I did in another of my calculations, impart VARIABLE acceleration to ONE twin. Since the result shows that the aging is not a function of EVEN VARIABLE acceleration, a person versed in the field can reliably conclude that acceleration plays no role in the twins aging.

I can see you getting a B in an exam (most likely math or physics) and arguing with the TA. After the TA refused to change your grade, you escalated the case to the prof. After the prof refused your pleads for changing the grade, the situation repeats multiple times with your grades varying between B's and C's while the prof swearing that he'll never accept you in any of the other courses he's teaching. This happens with several profs and they all pass the message along : "avoid this guy, he'll never admit to being wrong and he'll pester you to death". While all along your average grade slides towards B....

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011

3. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
I'm trying very hard to remember where I was going with that.

Consider the three twin scenario.

Let's go with 0.9c.

The stationary brother measures the travelling brothers to be travelling at 0.9c towards, and away from him.
The travelling brothers each measure the stationary twin to be moving at 0.9c towards or away from them, and the other travelling brother to be travelling at 0.99c towards them.

So, for example, each travelling twin expects the other travelling twins clock to be ticking slower than the stationary twin. The surprise they get is to find out that their own clock was ticking slower, but, that's not surprising to anyone else.

5. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
If calling it that makes you feel more comfortable, sure, whatever - I haven't said anything that makes admitting an error more difficult for me.

7. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Actually, to no one person's versed in physics surprise, the clocks of the three twins all tick at the SAME exact rate, 1 second per second. The reason for the fact that the elapsed time shown on the clock of twin C when he meets twin A is less than twin A has absolutely nothing to do with clock rates. It has to do with something else.

8. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
There you go again, proving my point, investing emotional currency in being right.

So close, and yet so far.

Here's what I said 100 posts ago:

The whole point of the experiment is to provide a scenario where we apply a speed differential without applying an acceleration differential, because if we can do that a variable becomes a constant.

We have three variables Speed, Acceleration, and Proper Time. We know that Proper Time is the dependent variable, and we're trying to determine if it's the causal mechanism or not.

We're doing this by holding the acceleration constant, varying the velocity, and seeing if there is a change in proper time. We've established that acceleration results in changes in proper time, that's accepted by all involved in the conversation. The difference is that on one side we have the argument that this is because it's the sum of the changes in proper time cause by the instantaneous velocity, on the other side we have the argument that acceleration is the cause, period.

What I'm doing is leaning on the EEP to make the point that two frames with the same gravitational field travelling at two different velocities will experience different amounts of elapsed time.

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
9. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
:roll eyes:

Are you saying that one second in the travelling siblings frame lasts one second in the stationary sibling frame?

In the frame of one of the travelling twins, when 1 second elapses for him, he sees 0.4s elapse in the stationary twins frame, and 0.14s elapse in the other travelling twins frame.

This is what I meant by tick rates.

Messages:
10,890
11. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
No, what I am saying it that your earlier statement was wrong, the clocks of all twins tick at the same exact rate (as per the definition of proper time) and that the reason for the difference in the elapsed time, contrary to your claim, has absolutely nothing to do with, using your exact words, "The surprise they get is to find out that their own clock was ticking slower, but, that's not surprising to anyone else. ", i.e. it has nothing to do with clock ticking rate.
You definitely do not understand the mechanics of the paradox. And this is the simpler version, that involves no acceleration. Now , earlier in this thread I explained the reason for the time differential in detail, using math rather than handwaving. May i suggest that you try finding the post?

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
12. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
I am pretty sure that I understand what you have been attempting to construct, well enought to say that, I believe once a conclusion has been established, it would be good to write it up. Perhaps with a little less detail in how the constant and uniform acceleration is maintained and more focus on what the hypothetical can reveal..., the conclusions.

This has raised several issues that once a resolution to this construction is established, I would present as questions or perhaps some further discussion. To raise them now would be more of a diversion than constructive.

13. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Correct.

"We"? Who is "we"? the mainstream view (google "The Clock Hypothesis") is exactly the opposite, acceleration does NOT result in changes in proper time.

Certainly this has been RJBeery's position, now we find with great surprise that it is yours as well. Either way, count me out on this anti-mainstream view.

The differences turn up to be even more fundamental than before given that you added a bigger error to your previous misconceptions.

Word salad aside (the redlined section is downright hilarious, like lifted from one of OnlyMe's posts), I can tell you this one more time, the conclusions that you are trying to get from your thought experiment do not follow logically, i.e. you are failing to eliminate acceleration as a cause of difference in elapsed proper time (NOR does it establish relative speed as the SOLE reason for the time differential). Which now comes as no surprise , given your earlier statement that:

In other words, you thought experiment is not good enough since it does not establish what you are trying to prove to RJ. I understand that you tried and your intentions were good but you failed.

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
14. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Tach, it would be far more constructive to either, present your own solution in a coherent manner or contribute constructively to the hypothetical as it is. If it is flawed as you claim, that would become apparent, when analyising and drawing conclusions. Just continuing to toss claims like, "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!", is not constructive and serve no purpose.

If everything we know today could be found in any one of the many versions that have been presented, none of the others would ever be discussed.

Trippy has raised some very good and interesting issues and I for one would like to see where it actually leads..., and what might be learned in the process.

15. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
I already did, interestingly enough in a post addressed to you, in this thread . I know, it contained math and you don't accept mathematical proofs as valid. My bad. Do you think you could find the proof all by yourself?

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
16. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
And once again, you fail to understand what is being presented to you.

17. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Tach, what contribution do you think a post like that has to anything? What was your intent?

And do you really believe that if you make baseless claims as above they will be true? You don't know anything about me, except that you can't get to me with crap like that!

Try looking up discussion and see if half of what you throw at wall fits within the deffinition.

18. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Tach, back in Post #602 I asked you a question in the last part of the post. You never answered it.

If you would rather not. That is O.K.

But it is a question I was clarifying, at your request, that had apparently been unclear in an earlier post.

19. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
And still, amazingly, no-one has picked up on the point that I was initially concerned about - not even Tach.

20. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
LOL O.K. I give what was it?

21. ### TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
The mid point of the trip.

This goes back to the ball analogy I raised with Tach.

If you consider the trip between the first and second turn around points, the ship is effectively behaving like a ball that has been thrown in the air. If it had a little lateral momentum it would describe a parabolic arc.

This however, implies that at a specific moment at the peak of the arc - the moment of the turn around in the original paradox, there is a moment where everything is at rest with regards to the stay at home twin - a moment of weightlesness which introduces a discontinuity in amongst all of this (even though the acceleration is equal in magnitude and direction on either side of this point).

22. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
To tell you that I have already answered the question in detail and to get you go find the respective post.

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
23. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
You posted a bunch of new errors (see current page) in an attempt at covering older, already exposed errors. So, I pointed them out to you.

Last edited: Dec 17, 2011