Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

just look at those idiot's!!!

Quote:

Does my proposed hypothetical address the question...

If no trouble, Ora, you might send a link to the posting that best describes it

Resolution

The reasoning from A's frame is correct: twin B is younger. The simplest way to explain this is to say that in order for twin B to leave the earth and travel to a distance star she must accelerate to speed v . Then when she reaches the star she must slow down and eventually turn around and accelerate in the other direction. Finally, when B reaches the earth again she must decelerate from v to land once more on the earth. v

Since B's route involves acceleration, her frame cannot be considered an inertial reference frame and thus none of the reasoning applied above (such as time dilation) can be applied.

To deal with the situation in B's frame we must enter into a much more complicated analysis involving accelerating frames of reference; this is the subject of General Relativity.

Both are moving

1. The gps has shown that time dilation applies equally to both inertial and accelerating objects, so, in fact, "time dilation" does apply.

This is NOT accurate from what other experts say. Virtually all mathematicians will tell you that SR can be (mathematically) applied to accelerating objects and that GR is NOT necessary to calculate time dilation for accelerating objects for SR).

inertial state where they end up is what determines which one was running slow.

If you have A/B moving toward each other both would see the other's clock as running slower. Both would be correct because they are in different states.

So let's see your math.

It's a common misconception that special relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. Sometimes it's claimed that general relativity is required for these situations, the reason being given that special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true.

Not at all. I am only pointing out that BOTH clocks are relatively moving. It is only the inertial state of the observer that shows which one is moving slow. Two observers in different states will see different things that would appear to contradict the other state. It isn't a paradox at all.

Can you elaborate? It's really unclear to me what you are trying to say here.

It's beginning to become trouble. It grows tiresome asking you questions over and over and over again and never getting an answer

Note that the speed of light is rarely a constant in non-inertial frames, and this has been known to cause confusion.

How do you propose that B is able to circumnavigate the universe without changing direction which would require an acceleration and thus bring GR into play?

Note that the speed of light is rarely a constant in non-inertial frames, and this has been known to cause confusion.

The Speed of Light as Measured by Non-Inertial Observers

light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling, and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where you are, you always measure it to travel at c; no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing. If you're fixed to the ceiling, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. And if you're fixed to the floor, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. But if you are on the floor, you maintain that light travels faster than c near the ceiling. And if you're on the ceiling, you maintain that light travels slower than c near the floor.

Really a good q. But I had understood that B doesn't change direction, to him it's a straight path all the way, no acceleration at all

"In a lecture that Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, in 1921, he said the following:

"Geometry predicates nothing about relations of real things, but only geometry together with the purport of physical laws can do so... The idea of the measuring rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world."

When accelerating, the time at the ceiling will move at a different rate than the time at the floor, all part of the non inertial state.