Twin paradox chancy

@Kevin Sorbello,

Kevin Sorbello wrote:

How a clock "appears" is therefore meaningless. Why? because experiments show the clock actually slows...not just appears to slow...

Exactly. And as I said in the other thread today, it does not even "appear" to run slow, at least not mutually. The idea that it "appears" to run slow is merely an assumption imposed by the theoretical requirements of SR.

The (faster) moving clock slows down. If that clock supposedly "sees" the other clock slowing down, then it is hallucinating. But for theoretical constraints, it would "see" the other clock speeding up, not slowing down. Theory makes the clock "assume" that the other is slowing down, when it isn't, in fact. It's a bad theory.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

If that clock supposedly "sees" the other clock slowing down, then it is hallucinating.

The twin paradox itself (unwittingly) proves this point. The travelling twin "sees" the earth's clock slowing down, but he is admittedly WRONG. When he returns home, he finds out that he was mistaken all along. HE, not his twin on earth, was the one who was REALLY aging less rapidly.

1 Reply

@stevesims,

Quote:

So are there 2 kinds of time?

https://able2know.org/topic/370613-1

0 Replies

@Kevin Sorbello,

Quote:

the relativistic effect of time dilation is apparent

Yea Kev, indeed. I've made an attempt ass you will see from the link asbove

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I have read to be confusing

Yea the Twin Paradox had confused me for a lifetime, but as you can see from my link, I have answered it...

Haven't I

0 Replies

@layman,

1. true: The gamma factor is a function of v/c, speed, not acceleration.
2. false: Using the light clock example, it's the additional time light chases the moving clock, that accounts for the slowing of the clock process, due to light speed being constant and independent of the source.

4 Replies

@sluggo,

Still, conventional relativity seems to assert it's the one who accelerated whose clock slows down. But this remains paradoxical 'cause why should it still be goin' slower after the acceleration is over

2 Replies

@sluggo,

sluggo wrote:

2. false: Using the light clock example, it's the additional time light chases the moving clock, that accounts for the slowing of the clock process, due to light speed being constant and independent of the source.

I said:

Quote:

2. Delays in light travel have absolutely NOTHING to do with time dilation due to speed differential. Any consideration of the doppler effect is therefore a totally irrelevant red herring (non sequitur) and should be ignored.

That's completely true, you are misunderstanding the issue.

And it is not "light speed" or "light clocks" which makes moving clocks slow down.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Still, conventional relativity seems to assert it's the one who accelerated whose clock slows down. But this remains paradoxical 'cause why should it still be goin' slower after the acceleration is over

As was stated, Dale, acceleration has no direct effect on time dilation. It is merely incidental. It is the acceleration which gets an object moving (faster), that's all. Clocks slow down because they are moving, not because they are accelerating.

That's why a clock continues to tick at a slower rate, unless and until it's speed is reduced.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

ass you will see

Apolos Kev, t'was an honest-to-Peter typo

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

It is the acceleration which gets an object moving (faster), that's all

Okay Lay, but doesn't that revive the paradox

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

What are you calling "the paradox," Dale?

If it's that each of two clock can't run slower than the other, yet special relativity claims they do, that's not a "paradox," really. It's just conclusive evidence that SR is a seriously flawed theory, that's all.

Of course, while claiming "each clock runs slower than the other" (a logical contradiction), they make an exception in the case of the "twin paradox." Again, that's not a "paradox," it's simply self-contradiction.

The theory is refuted by both the facts and logic, which they can't change. So they have to concede the facts while nonetheless trying to cling to their theory, which says otherwise. Some people call that a "paradox," I guess. I just call it stupid.

In effect SR is treating the earth as a "preferred frame of reference" in the case of the twin paradox. Yet treating any frame as preferred is absolutely prohibited by the theory. As some scientists are prone to saying: "If the facts conflict with the theory, then so much the worse for the facts/"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

What if both change course to reunite?

1 Reply

@Kevin Sorbello,

Quote:

Why? because experiments show the clock actually slows...not just appears to slow

Thanks Kev for that response. However my own crazy theory doesn't require it to stop either. If the speed of light can be condidered relative just like all other motion, then his entire trip two years to us, was actually instantaneous

It's hard to explain in a few words but it's an attempt to reconcile Newton and Einstein, at the same time dispatching the twin paradox

Quote:

the one running slow actually has more mass

In my world it's simply because we underestimate its velocity

Happy to elaborate if you like, been a pleasure Kev

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

says you're being illogical if you dispute it

Yea Lay, the Twin Paradox is still alive. I wish I could persuade someone to take my version of the whole thing l more seriously

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

proven in the lab that acceleration has absolutely NO independent effect on time dilation

Of course not, this ahs always been obvious to me, in my Relative Relativity

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

HE, not his twin on earth, was the one who was REALLY aging less rapidly.

But Lay this only bolsters the paradixicalness of the paradox. In the Hilemanian theory his clock doesn't slow at all: He merely undertakes the entire trip instantaneously

Why we've aged 2 years is easily explained by our inability to entertain certain concepts not yet available owing to our present humanoidal limitations I'd be happy to elucidate but I might not seem to make much sense, owing to these very limitations

Of course I could be ded wrong. But that's what they said about Einstein

But you better hurry as my Alzie's is progressinbg at a more rapid pa e...

0 Replies

@sluggo,

Quote:

due to light speed being constant and independent of the source

Well yes Sluggo, in the present humanoid concept argued by Albert. However, the whole controversy dissolves if we can simply assume the speed of light as infinite

It's a bittough but I'd be happy to elucidate in the last stages of Alzie's, b4 it's too late...

0 Replies

@layman,

Clocks are frequencies, so mutual passive observations only detects doppler shifts.
Here is an example of reciprocal time dilation using light measurement.
https://app.box.com/s/ayna7twve1y4yvo3aw5htkxac5gewvcx

1 Reply

@sluggo,

Quote:

due to light speed being constant and independent of the source

Well yes Sluggo, in the present humanoid concept argued by Albert. However, the whole controversy dissolves if we can simply assume the speed of light as infinite

It's only necessary by mens of my 'Relative Relativity'' to reestablish that link 'tween Albert and Isaac, showing that the value of c only appears to be a certain whole number, that the problem lies in our 'mind's eye' view of time-at-a-distance

It's a bit tough but I'd be happy to elucidate in the last stages of Alzie's, b4 it's too late...

0 Replies

Twin paradox chancy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know