Can the Twin Paradox be simplified?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    You really like that link, but but all you ever really do is point to it.

    A clock's rate is affected by where in a gravitational field it is. (Satellites proves that one.) I don't think acceleration's effect, via the equivalence principle, has ever been tested. That remains just a bit beyond current technology, you know the rates and durations of acceleration not being significant compared to timing limitations.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I can also point at the post where I disproved the same exact misconceptions earlier.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Unless you throw out the equivalence principle or in some way disprove it, any time you involve acceleration in a hypothetical you also bring GR into discussion.

    You use a great deal of deflection and continue tired arguments without addressing, issues raised by others.

    The intent of both the clock and twin paradoxes is to address SR effects. This is true. There have been and continue to be many hypotheticals presented that cannot be limited to a SR approach, without specifically excluding the GR components of the hypothetical. One such situation involves hypotheticals involving acceleration and/or twins and clocks initially synchronized in a common frame of reference.

    Tach, just continually claiming someone is wrong is a bad argument.

    You have a habit of doing so while interpreting things in your own way.., and failing to share that limited interpretaion.

    Try explaining the limiting conditions and then explaining your position. Point to references as support not argument.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    If the Clock Postulate had been CONFIRMED it would hardly be a postulate. :shrug:

    Please list my misconceptions, OnlyMe's misconceptions, and finally how your link falsifies them..? I'm only offering reasons why I don't find the Clock Postulate as convincing as you apparently do. I've tried to be specific about my thoughts, please do the same.
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Wow, that belongs in a fortune cookie!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    This is , of course false. SR deals with accelerated motion just fine, no nead to "bring in GR". I am quite certain that I mentioned this to you before.



    This is false, see any good textbook on the subject (or see the above rebuttal).
     
  10. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Why? The other postulates of SR have been confirmed experimentally countless times. They are still postulates.
    I think you are showing another misconception, the experimental verification does not change the status of postulate, something else does. Do you know what that "something else" is?


    That's too bad, mainstream science disagrees with you and your views.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Prove it, for any case in which you don't exclude GR. and Tach the tired link to the Wiki reference doesn't cut it especially when you don't actually do anything but provide a link...

    When you actually quoted a "textbook" example it clearly limited the hypothetical to SR and did not involve twins or observers with clocks that had been initially synchronized in a common frame of reference.

    Anyone can keep claiming, "you're wrong". That's all you keep doing.
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Can be found in any textbook , see for example Rindler's book (pages 70-71). I am quite sure I pointed this out to you before.


    The link says the same things I tried to show you a few weeks ago, that the elapsed time depends on speed only and that it does NOT depend on acceleration. The text and formulas are really trivial, I don't see why you have so much trouble understanding them.


    What do you mean "it did not involve twins"? Have you forgotten the textbook scenario on the three twins?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
  13. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    The "textbook three twins" analysis is flawed, as I said. Here it is:
    The author implicitly draws absolute conclusions from this, which is wrong. I extend the analysis thusly:

    A fourth "twin", named Tripleprime, has also been moving inertially and eternally wrt his 3 brothers, in the same direction as Prime but twice his speed. His trajectory is such that he moves past Unprime when Unprime's watch reads 1.25 years (as does his own). When he eventually reaches Prime, what does he conclude? He concludes that Prime has aged more than himself or Unprime!

    Therefore, acceleration is necessary to establish absolute time dilation. A necessary component is a causal component. Conclusion: acceleration is a necessary, causal component of time dilation.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    All you are doing here is pointing somewhere. There are many books with many variations on the twin paradox. They do not all involve "twins" and acceleration.

    Present your argument not just a link to some reference. Or link a reference and present your interpretation.

    I am not sure which link you are referring to here. If you are referring to the link I was responding to in this post, respond to the post instead of ingnoring it and continuing the same tired argument.

    This is the same link I replied to in this post and in more detail in this one. That solution involves twins in title only. The hypothetical does not involve twins or triplets or clocks initially synchronized in a common frame of reference.

    You never responded directly to either one.
     
  15. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Precisely my point, acceleration is not a necessary ingredient in explaining the twin paradox. Multiple mainstream sources confirm that.


    You are in no position to make demands, you need to study the references given to you.
     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Riiight, he's just a PhD, full professor in physics teaching at Virginia Tech.

    You sure about this? Have you done any calculations to prove it? Can you post them, please?

    What calculations did you do in order to arrive to the above false conclusion?
    Especially since there is no mention of any acceleration in your scenario.


    Mainstream scientists and experiment says the opposite.
     
  17. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    WOW, that's the most pathetic appeal to authority that I've EVER SEEN. I'm not sure it could get any worse, actually. I actually read your link, analyzed it, and refuted it with logic. Your retort is that the author has a PHD? Did you even read what I wrote?
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Well, you won't listen to me so I was hoping that you would listen to what afull professor has to say on the subject.



    No, I retort with the fact that you are clearly wrong:

    -you didn't do any calculations
    -nothing in your scenario has anything to do with acceleration, yet, you conclude in the end that acceleration is involved
    -experiment says that your claims are false
     
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Tach, your claim was that a hypothetical that involved twins did not require acceleration.... As I argued earlier and you failed to respond to.., twins are special observers/clocks that are synchronized in a common frame of reference and thus at least one twin must undergo acceleration before he/she could be in an interial FoR with a relative velocity compared to the other twin.

    You provide links and no argument, to support your position. Each of your links have been responded to as they relate to this discussion.

    Either present your own position/opinion or bow out.

    One and two line responses claiming someone else doesn't understand and/or just pointing to an outside reference without explanation, does nothing to prove you understand.

    I think you are just so confused you can't actually respond, with any logical explanation of your own.

    Until you do present some reasonable and coherent post of your own there seems no further reason to discuss anything.
     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Actually, the three twin scenario as well as the experimental confirmation of the clock hypothesis prove your above claim to be wrong. So, you have a theoretical disproof and an experimental one.




    Correction: you have received a lot of different disproofs, the fact that you do not accept them because they do not conform to your preconceived ideas is none of my concern.




    Well, I have also shown you the simple two line math formal presentation I put together, you need to try following it, it is rather simple.



    Good, you have a lot of material to study in order to come up to speed on the subject.
     
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I intentionally excluded acceleration. I'm relying on the same logic that the author does, but I involve a 4th "twin". The conclusions drawn from the setup by Prime and Tripleprime contradict the conclusions drawn by Unprime and Doubleprime, therefore no absolute conclusions can be drawn, period. Point being, you gave the three-twin scenario as one in which absolute time dilation occurred without acceleration, and I have falsified it as such. Therefore, my statement that acceleration is a necessary causal component of absolute time dilation stands.
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265

    ...only because you didn't do any calculations. Do the calculations and you'll manage to prove yourself wrong.
     
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    So, if I provide my calculations you will admit that your Virginia Tech PHD authored paper does not provide proof that absolute time dilation can be established without acceleration?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page