The Traveler's Perspective in the Twin "Paradox"

With regards to your OP, SR specifically states that all FoR's are as relevant as any other, "c" is fixed in all FoR's and space and time are not absolute as was thought in Newtonian mechanics.
That I think is the only valid mainstream interpretation, but as I mentioned, that's only from a layman perspective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I'll place myself in the open then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's NO paradox and not even the slightest hint of mystery. If each of the two people - the one at "home" and the one traveling - are each given an atomic clock, when the traveler returns the clocks could be compared and it will quickly show that that the traveler experienced a shorter amount of time. End of story, case closed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

brucep, can we talk with no "bias"? I have read your Posts and you do seem to fully understand the "sciences" that you Post. Not only that but you can express those views in "Layman's Terms" if you choose to.

I may not have as much "schooling" as your self - but I am not "just a basic Layman" either.

Honestly now, between two men of our "generation" - when/what did I ever Post about any of these science subjects that I should "admit to being wrong about"?

This all seemed to me to start with my Post #19 in the "The Big Bang and Magnetic fields" Thread, in that Post I commented on the "conduct" of a few of the Posters - I did not state anything about the validity of any of the Posts in that Thread :

...other than that the answer to the OP should have been :

From everything I know of the BB theory - that would be the correct answer.

Was I wrong?

When you stated : "...the site will catch wind of your 'stalking and trolling' members...", would it be wrong of me to point out that in this particular Thread, my Post #3 was followed, in Post #4, by an example of "Poor Netiquette"?

Honestly, brucep, who is "stalking and trolling members" - who is Posting that other Posters are "Wrong"?

Did I ever state in any of my Posts that you were wrong about any "science"?

I would honestly like some Honesty!

I am able to communicate without bias and prejudice and name-calling - as Men of "Our Generation" should - I do my best to answer any question or criticism proffered to/at me - as with this Post.

You surely understand the concept : You Get what You Give?

If you would be so kind as to actually Quote any of my Statements in any of my Posts where you believe that I was wrong - if I was indeed wrong, I will have no problem admitting to it.

brucep, is it "wrong" of me to ask that?

I would really appreciate an unbiased, unprejudiced and more importantly, a truly honest reply to this Post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll agree and expand:
1. The "Twins Paradox" is only an apparent paradox, existing only if you don't apply Relativity to the situation.
2. There is no scientific controversy over Relativity's accuracy or the resolution to/nonexistence of the Twins Paradox.

So this whole thread is just one big jumble of wrong.

 

Didn't the "paradox" arise simply from the fact that sometimes it is presumed both twins are inertial at all times and each sees the other as younger [time dilation] ?
The acceleration/deceleration phases of the traveller were not considered?

 

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity (because the twins are not equivalent; the space twin experienced additional, asymmetrical acceleration when switching direction to return home), and therefore is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction.
WIKI:



Bingo!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The paradox can either be the mere fact that one twin is younger or the idea that either can view the other as "moving" (and therefore either can be expected to be younger). The second version arises from ignoring acceleration, which isn't allowed.

[edit] Historically, apparently, the second is the "Twins Paradox" but the first is often considered a "paradox" by people who don't understand or want to ignore Relativity.

 

Exactly. Since it causes so much confusion amongst the masses it's good to point out all the solutions involve a different choice of coordinates. If taken seriously it can be a learning experience. For the most part I think it's leads to lots of nonsense threads on the internet. Just an opinion.

 

It certainly seems that way, but in general most lay people accept the more difficult fine print of SR/GR, and the realisation that many smart men since 1905 have worked on it and tested its predictions.
I have discussed it with mates of mine, and they are quite acceptable of it, especially when illustrating the many tests and proofs of those predictions, such as the two synchronised atomic clocks with one being taken around the world on a jet plane.

The Internet is a great invention, where those wanting to learn, have the world of knowledge at their finger tips, but it also leaves itself open to abuse from the whockos, anti mainstreamers, and pseudoscience turkeys to promote their own form of garbage.
As with science forums such as this, they really have no other outlet. It's just up to some that do know to refute such nonsense.

It's just a pity that all the crackpottery can not easily be confined to pseudoscience and alternative theory stuff.

On another forum I was on, they were given a month to show convincing evidence as to the validity of any anti mainstream claims.
If it was not forthcoming in that month, the thread was closed.
Maybe that should be considered here?

 

That sounds like a real kiss of death for nonsense claims.

 

You are both right, of course.

But how about being given a month to show evidence as to the validity of any claims?

And again, just to be clear, you are both right, of course.

 

That would be silly, since most mainstream claims like the BB/Inflationary theory, Evolution of life, SR and GR do have mountains of evidence.

Google is your friend.

 

And just the sort of comment one would expect from an anti mainstream/conspiracy theorist sympathiser.

 

You are right, of course.

However I did not state anything about "most mainstream claims like the BB/Inflationary theory, Evolution of life, SR and GR".

I stated :

Like how about if you had a month to show evidence as to the validity of the following claim :

Google is not my friend.

Oh, and once again, you are right, of course.

 

"Any" claims includes mainstream claims, which then progress to scientific theories.....

I'll spell it out in simpler language for you.....
Anyone who comes to the forum, sprouting nonsense about SR/GR being incorrect, must state a case for it, and offer real evidence falsifying the mainstream product, and/or validating his alternative.
They have a month to do this and then the thread is closed if it isn't forthcoming......
Sort of like the scientific methodology in action.
I may just contact James and others and get this considered for here....
It will certainly short circuit some of the nonsense that has passed for science in recent times...eg the chinglu inspired anti SR/GR threads.



Oh, and of course google is your friend. You use it just as I do and when necessary.....No need to be all shy and bashful about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are right, of course.

You are right, of course.

How about your claim that I am an "anti mainstream/conspiracy theorist sympathiser"? You could not prove that in a month or even at all.

Another claim that you could never hope to prove.
Of course Google is not my friend, as I told you before.
Regardless of what and when you do anything, if I need to do a web search and it is not on the University server, I use : http://www.dogpile.com/

I am not shy or bashful.

Actually, it does not matter one iota what I state to you...you will take it to mean what you want it to mean. Because...

Once again, you are right, of course.

 

Proving you are an anti mainstream sympathiser is quite easy actually...Check out your posts, it's there for all to see if they wish, but really not that important as your record speaks for itself.


On the other issue, I had to have a laugh....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

,I mean are you fair dinkum?
You get info from the net, same thing.....usual pedant rubbish.


The third issue you are spot on. I mean I come here to learn, first and foremost, and help out if I can. Obviously, yours and similar rubbish posts in the main are ignored for what they are.

 

You are right, of course.

 

You are exactly right. But the issue I've raised is that there is still (100+ years after the birth of SR) disagreement (even among some professional physicists) about exactly WHAT the current age of the home twin is, according to the traveler, at each instant of the traveler's life. There is even disagreement about whether that current age (according to the traveler) has a DEFINITE value or not, or whether such a value is meaningful or not, or whether the accelerating twin is even entitled to have his own perspective.

I'm still not yet allowed to give an internet link on this forum (not enough posts yet), but if you do an internet search on "CADO equation" (with the quotes), you can probably find my webpage that elaborates on all these issues.