How does mutual time dilation work with one twin aging faster?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
Next: Why relativity and other theories do not work in small scale?
From: Gc on 8 Aug 2010 11:29 On 8 elo, 18:16, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The OP's one line proses no longer attract attention, so he is > elaborating a little more than usual. > Dont be fooled, he is just here to make reactions and tease his > willie. Never reply to him. > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in > > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it > > comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just when > > the acceleration does. > > No, this is not true. The aging difference happens too during the > inertal travels. > Moreover, there are variants of the twin paradox which do not involve > any accelerations > whatsoever yet still arrive at the same "twin paradox" conclusion. Age of a twin = twins proper time. During inertial motion proper time of a twin = the coordinate time. Show me those variants of the twin paradox you a referring to. I bet you can`t, because if both of the twins stay constantly on the inertial reference frame, it clearly leads to paradox. Notice that any change in velocity is acceleration, even if the speed stays the same.
From: rotchm on 8 Aug 2010 11:54 On Aug 8, 11:29 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 elo, 18:16, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The OP's one line proses no longer attract attention, so he is > > elaborating a little more than usual. > > Dont be fooled, he is just here to make reactions and tease his > > willie. Never reply to him. > > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in > > > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it > > > comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just when > > > the acceleration does. > > No, this is not true. The aging difference happens too during the > > inertal travels. > > Moreover, there are variants of the twin paradox which do not involve > > any accelerations > > whatsoever yet still arrive at the same "twin paradox" conclusion. > > Age of a twin = twins proper time. During inertial motion proper time > of a twin = the coordinate time. Correct. >Show me those variants of the twin > paradox you a referring to. Surely you can be so ill-informed? You cant come up with one yourself? Try... let your imagination work a little. Or, read alot. You will find such variant in the literature. >I bet you can`t, Yes I can. I will let you dwell on it first. Then if you still cant invent one on your own or faind any elsewhere, I will give you a few references. >because if both of the > twins stay constantly on the inertial reference frame, it clearly > leads to paradox. There are other variants of the TP. >Notice that any change in velocity is acceleration, Correct. Its the "definition" of acceleration.
From: Hayek on 8 Aug 2010 12:32 Gc wrote: > On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> If you watched a clock that you are passing at high >> speed; if you are the one aging slower how can you >> see that it is aging more than you but ticking >> slower than you at the same time? > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens > when the twin in the spacecraft feels acceleration > (it has to turn at some point if it comes back to > earth). The "aging difference effect" happens just > when the acceleration does. No, it does not. There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides it. There are three possibilies : 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute frame. 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns slower wrt the absolute frame to a 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns faster wrt absolute frame. first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on the outward voyage and slower than a's on the way back. second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower that a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's on the way back, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the first case. Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on the outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on the way back, and again, in total, because the gamma factor has a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as in the first case and in the second case. So no matter what case you choose : because there is acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt to absolute frame changes, and because of the quadratic gamma factor, two way voyages always make the returning twin age more, if not on the outward track, then it is on the inbound track, or on both tracks. The instantaneous clock rate is decided by the speed wrt to the absolute frame, the average mass distribution of the universe. SR-ians can make funny claims, and so can I, because there is no way of verifying this, without Faster Than Light transmission, which SR-ians exclude from their theory, mainly because this would destroy SR, and secondly because they do not know what proper time exactly is. They think it is "speed of passage through time", while it actually is slowing the motion of objects and clocks by increasing inertia. A clock is an inertiameter, or an inertial field strength meter. If inertia becomes stronger, the escapement of your clock is harder to move back and forth, hence the clock slows. Because this applies to any object moving in this higher inertia, we think this is "time" we are measuring, while in fact it does not much more than your freezer, alowing the motion of the molecules. Uwe Hayek. >> If time dilation is mutual then one twin cannot age >> any different than the other. But one does. > > Notice that in SR only inertial coordinates are > equivalent. > > >> Please prove that time only appears slower. I say >> to you that you will see the station's clock always >> running faster and mutual is an excuse; If you are >> the one that accelerated as the station did not. >> The difference is you felt weight at acceleration >> that the station doesn't know about. >> >> Mitch Raemsch > > Yes, like I said you see the station`s clock go > slower, until you get out from inertial coordinates. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Daryl McCullough on 8 Aug 2010 13:26 It's not so mysterious. Think about traveling along the x-axis. If you travel at a constant speed for 1 hour elapsed time, you'll end up a certain distance from your starting point. If you travel twice as fast, you'll end up twice as far from your starting point. There's nothing mysterious about that. Now, people are always traveling at a nonzero velocity in the t-direction. If you travel for one hour, you'll end up at a different time then when you started. If you travel for one hour at twice at twice the velocity in the t-direction, you'll end up twice as far along the t-axis. The 4-D view of SR is that every object has a velocity in the x-direction, the y-direction, the z-direction and the t-direction. Different travelers have different velocities in the t-direction, so they travel different distances along the t-axis. Rather than thinking one twin ages 1 hour while the other ages 1/2 hour, instead you think that one twin takes a full hour to go from 12:00 to 1:00, while the other twin only takes 1/2 hour to go the same distance along the t-axis. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Gc on 8 Aug 2010 13:50
On 8 elo, 18:54, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Surely you can be so ill-informed? > You cant come up with one yourself? Try... let your imagination work a > little. I would rather see what you imagination has invented...or maybe not... |