Can the Twin Paradox be simplified?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tach said:
No, unlike you, they understood. Big difference. One day, you might as well. Or maybe not.
Click to expand...

But did YOU understand your own 'suggestion' implications? That is the question before us now.

I will post what I have when you admit that you cannot guess what it might be that you have missed (and so misled others' "understanding" of same).

Give up?

.
 
Tach said:
Yes, and so did the others, by contrast to you. Some people get it, some never do. Life is unfair.
Click to expand...

You are evading. I will post what I have as soon as you admit you can't guess what it is you may have missed in your 'suggestion' (and also in your 'understanding' of it based on your 'assumptions' which omit the obvious thing I want to point out to you once you comply). Thanks.

.
 
.

Oh, Tach. Don't think I've forgotten your 'second-per-second' claim.

I explained why your claim there was invalid.

Have you "understood" the MAINSTREAM explanation I pointed out to you which says your 'corrections' to others were wrong there too?

.
 
Tach said:
So, you don't know how clocks measure time, either. Thanks for proving it.
Click to expand...

A totally hollow statement devoid of fact and denying the mainstream view I used to point out your wrong assumptions there too.

How about defending your claim against the mainstream view I explained to you there.

You can't defend it? Is that why you make hollow statements and cast aspersions willy-nilly?

PS: To the MODERATORS: How long is Tach to be allowed to evade and obfuscate before giving a straight answer to the questions/points put to him in good faith? Is he getting a 'special dispensation' from 'on high' here at sciforums?
.
 
RealityCheck said:
A totally hollow statement devoid of fact and denying the mainstream view I used to point out your wrong assumptions there too.
Click to expand...

They teach you how clocks work in introductory classes for relativity, thank you for pointing out that you didn't know something as elementary. When do you plan to take this class?
 
Tach said:
They teach you how clocks work in introductory classes for relativity, thank you for pointing out that you didn't know something as elementary. When do you plan to take this class?
Click to expand...

You still don't respond in good faith and answer the questions/points put to you. So your statements are worthless.

You haven't defended your "second-per-second" claim.

You haven't yet admitted you don't have any idea what you might have missed in your differing acceleration 'suggestion'.

About time you faced up to your grown-up responsibilities, isn't it mate? Or are you actually a child after all? Please advise which.

Gotta go for the day.

When you grow up I will be happy to show you what you missed. G'night all....see ya tomorrow. Logging out....now.

.
 
RealityCheck said:
You haven't defended your "second-per-second" claim.
Click to expand...

There is no need to defend a basic mainstream concept about how clocks measure time. On the other hand, you will need to correct your anti-mainstream ideas by taking the introductory class that teaches this subject. When do you plan to take the class?
 
Tach said:
There is no need to defend a basic mainstream concept about how clocks measure time. On the other hand, you will need to correct your anti-mainstream ideas by taking the introductory class that teaches this subject. When do you plan to take the class?
Click to expand...

But your 'second-per-second' concept is NOT mainstream. That is your problem to explain away, and not just keep adding your 'mainstream' tag to your non-mainstream claim. :)

See y'all tomorrow.

.
 
Tach said:
Sadly for you, it is. That introductory class is really necessary, don't miss it.
Click to expand...

Let's get this straight...

You REALLY and TRULY do NOT see the CIRCUITOUS logic in your in-frame 'second-per-second' claim????

And you REALLY and TRULY have convinced yourself that your CIRCUITOUS LOGIC concept/claim there is 'mainstream'??????

Amazing.

.
 
RealityCheck said:
Let's get this straight...

You REALLY and TRULY do NOT see the CIRCUITOUS logic in your in-frame 'second-per-second' claim????
Click to expand...

All I can see is your lack of basic knowledge on this fundamental concept. It is taught in the "How clocks work" chapter for introductory classes. You should check your local junior college, they may allow people to audit the class.
 
Tach said:
All I can see is your lack of basic knowledge on this fundamental concept. It is taught in the "How clocks work" chapter for introductory classes. You should check your local junior college, they may allow people to audit the class.
Click to expand...


Is that where you 'learned' to apply your "second-per-second" CIRCUITOUS LOGIC to arrive at your "understanding"?

Tach, log out and go for a walk. Then get some sleep and come back tomorrow with a clearer (and hopefully HONEST) mind...and then respond to the questions/points posed rather than invoking your imaginary "mainstream" misunderstandings as gospel.

G'night. :)

.
 
RealityCheck said:
Is that where you 'learned' to apply CIRCUITOUS LOGIC to arrive at your "understanding"?
Click to expand...

No, I learned at an university, I thought that you needed a simpler class, this is why I recommended auditing the introductory class at the local junior college. Hopefully they will manage to un-teach your fringe ideas as to how clocks work. After you get that straightened out, you may progress to more complex subjects.



Then get some sleep
Click to expand...

I thought you were the one going to bed. Did you change your mind and are you rushing to go enroll in the beginner's class I recommended? Good for you, that's the attitude!
 
Tach said:
No, I learned at an university, I thought that you needed a simpler class, this is why I recommended auditing the introductory class at the local junior college. Hopefully they will manage to un-teach your fringe ideas as to how clocks work. After you get that straightened out, you may progress to more complex subjects.





I thought you were the one going to bed. Did you change your mind and are you rushing to go enroll in the beginner's class I recommended? Good for you, that's the attitude!
Click to expand...


Did your university specialise in CIRCUITOUS LOGIC to teach you your circuitous concept "understandings"?

Tell us which university that was, so we can all know who/what to thank for your problems here. :)

Your wishful thinking is showing again, mate. Learn to do less wishing and more critical (non-circuitous logic) thinking, hey? I was merely logging out to do other things, not going to sleep. G'night is a generic sign-off when late afternoon (here) and not intending returning till the morning (here). Don't read into things in an attempt to distract from your own responsibilities to respond honestly to the questions/points posed.

.

.
 
.

And let's get this straight before we part for the night....
RealityCheck said:
Tach said:
Sadly for you, it is. That introductory class is really necessary, don't miss it.
Click to expand...

Let's get this straight...

You REALLY and TRULY do NOT see the CIRCUITOUS logic in your in-frame 'second-per-second' claim????

And you REALLY and TRULY have convinced yourself that your CIRCUITOUS LOGIC concept/claim there is 'mainstream'??????

Amazing.
Click to expand...


You REALLY and TRULY do NOT see the circuitous aspect in your 'second-per-second' concept/claim?

.

.
 
RealityCheck said:
Did your university specialise in CIRCUITOUS LOGIC to teach you your circuitous concept "understandings"?
Click to expand...

No, my university specializes in mainstream teaching. I would recommend it for you but , based on your deeply rooted fringe ideas about how clocks work, I have to suggest just auditing an introductory class at your junior college. Try to learn the basics first, then we'll talk.
 
RJBeery said:
For some reason, gentlemen, this topic has lost interest to me. I've laid out my reasoning many times over for many readers which, if not irrefutable, at least has logical merit.

I'll put together a sloppy summary before I bid you adieu, make some breakfast for my kids, and unsubscribe from this thread. To recap, I continue to make the claim that acceleration (and not relative velocity) is a necessary, causal component to absolute, unambiguous time dilation. Observations:

1) The usual counter-examples given to this stance are the Third Twin scenario and the Orbiting Muon. The time dilation in the Third Twin was proven to be ambiguous despite the usual misinterpretation. The experiment in which a muon under "magnetic orbital acceleration" is actually a misapplication of the EEP because, as we know, an object in free-fall does not experience acceleration as one does while resting on the ground, for example. Therefore, we should expect such a muon to possess the same lifetime as one which has been accelerated to that same linear velocity and energy (which is exactly what we find).

2) Clock A in the nose and clock B in the tail of a perpetually-accelerating rocket ship, OR clock A on a large non-rotating mass with clock B in the dead of space are two scenarios which would display unambiguous time dilation. In both scenarios we have acceleration (either direct or via EEP), yet we have no change in displacement over time between the clocks, hence no relative velocity.

3) If displacement is changing over time between two clocks (as is required for relative velocity to exist), two co-location events must occur in order to establish unambiguous time dilation. Two co-location events require acceleration for at least one of the clocks. Strictly speaking, this is sufficient to prove the necessary nature of acceleration but seems to get written off as a "technicality".​

In summary, we have no scenario in which unambiguous time dilation exists devoid of acceleration; we do have scenarios in which unambiguous time dilation exists devoid of relative velocity; lastly, we have that "last line of defense", even if it's a technicality, that says acceleration is required for there to be differing world line lengths between two co-location events...given all of this, I believe I can be forgiven for questioning the mainstream view on this subject. :shrug: Thanks
Click to expand...

Nope. For once Tach is correct. LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top