Can the Twin Paradox be simplified?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed, postulates cannot be proven, they can only be falsified. By experiment. They can also be confirmed by experiment. As such, the cited experiments falsify your and RJBeery's misconceptions on the issue that was already discussed in two different threads.

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.
 
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.

I can also point at the post where I disproved the same exact misconceptions earlier.
 
I can also point at the post where I disproved the same exact misconceptions earlier.

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.
 
Indeed, postulates cannot be proven, they can only be falsified. By experiment. They can also be confirmed by experiment. As such, the cited experiments falsify your and RJBeery's misconceptions on the issue that was already discussed in two different threads.
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.
 
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.

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.



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.

This is false, see any good textbook on the subject (or see the above rebuttal).
 
If the Clock Postulate had been CONFIRMED it would hardly be a postulate.

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?


I'm only offering reasons why I don't find the Clock Postulate as convincing as you apparently do.

That's too bad, mainstream science disagrees with you and your views.
 
Last edited:
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.

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...

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

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.
 
Prove it,

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.


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...

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.


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.

What do you mean "it did not involve twins"? Have you forgotten the textbook scenario on the three twins?
 
Last edited:
What do you mean "it did not involve twins"? Have you forgotten the textbook scenario on the three twins?
The "textbook three twins" analysis is flawed, as I said. Here it is:
Textbook Three Twins said:
Twin Paradox Without Accelerations

In the above argument it is stated that Prime undergoes accelerations whereas Unprime does not, therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that the experience different things (in particular, a different duration for Prime's trip). Just in case the reader might decide that it must be the accelerations that cause the difference in duration for the twins, this section describes how it is possible to explain the paradox entirely without accelerations.
Instead of having Prime start at rest, next to Unprime, then accelerate to speed v, then stop at the distant station, then accelerate once again until moving at speed v back toward the initial station, etc., imagine the following demonstration. Unprime sits still at the original station. According to Unprime, Prime is moving along (and always has been) at the speed v, and passes Unprime at the moment that Unprime's and Prime's watches read t = t' = 0. Prime continues on, ultimately passing the distant station. At the moment he passes the distant station, Prime's watch reads t'=0.75 years (for reasons he understands, and were explained above). At that exact moment, Doubleprime (another person), passes the same distant station in another train heading back toward the original station at speed v. Both Prime and Doubleprime notice that the station clock reads t = 1.25 years. The also notice that both their watches display the time t' = t'' = 0.75 years (Doubleprime's watch is just coincidently equal to 0.75 years). According to Unprime (or his cohorts spread all over the place) Doubleprime has always been moving this way. Eventually Doubleprime passes the original station. As he passes, Doubleprime notices that his own watch reads 1.5 years, and that the watch on Unprime's wrist reads 2.5 years. Unprime notices the two watches also. Unprime's explanation is Time Dilation (just as in the above explanation). Doubleprime's explanation is that Unprime's clocks were running slowly and out of synchronization (again, just as in the above explanation).

The resulting difference between the reading on Unprime's watch and that on Doubleprime's watch is not the result of any accelerations experienced by anyone (nobody experienced any accelerations). But notice that the full duration measured by Unprime was, of course, measured in one reference frame; the duration for the full experiment recorded by Prime and Doubleprime required the combined results acquired in two different reference frames. That is the source of the asymmetry in the results. This explanation of the twin paradox (without accelerations) shows that it takes TWO different reference frames to keep track of the time duration experienced by the twin who actually takes the trip, while it take only one frame to keep track of the duration for the twin who stays at home. Their situations are fundamentally different, and the different time durations they experience are the result.
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

What do you mean "it did not involve twins"? Have you forgotten the textbook scenario on the three twins?

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.
 
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.

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


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

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

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

RJBeery said:
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!

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

Therefore, acceleration is necessary to establish absolute time dilation.

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.


A necessary component is a causal component. Conclusion: acceleration is a necessary, causal component of time dilation.

Mainstream scientists and experiment says the opposite.
 
Riiight, he's just a PhD in physics teaching at Virginia Tech.



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.
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?
 
WOW, that's the most pathetic appeal to authority that I've EVER SEEN.

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.



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?

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

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 are in no position to make demands, you need to study the references given to you.

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.
 
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.

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.




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

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.




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.

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.



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

Good, you have a lot of material to study in order to come up to speed on the subject.
 
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
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.
 
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,


...only because you didn't do any calculations. Do the calculations and you'll manage to prove yourself wrong.
 
...only because you didn't do any calculations. Do the calculations and you'll manage to prove yourself wrong.
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top