0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now...Please tell me...How the Heck am i seeing the Front one faster/more?Left side of my body is Ageing faster than Right side?
ps - The Speed of Light remains Constant...ALWAYS!
Indeed, at the end of your acceleration you may notice that the light at the back has experienced more time than the light at the front and requires replacement while the front light is still good. The back light has been running for more hours and hence emitted more flashes of light for you to see in the middle of the craft.
There's a post here:
How the Heck am i seeing the Front one faster/more?
QuoteLet's pair the values of the giant clocks with travelling clock.Earth clock ~ 4Y --- 0 dSecond clock ~ 5Y --- 16.3 dThird clock ~ 6Y --- 32.6 dFourth clock ~ 7Y --- 49 dStar clock ~ 8Y --- 65.3 d, then return.Fourth clock ~ 9Y --- 81.6 dThird clock ~ 10Y --- 97.9 dSecond clock ~ 11Y --- 114.2 dEarth clock ~ 12Y --- 130.6 dObservers on giant clocks and travelling clock should agree with these values.In the travelling twin's frame, the giant clocks should tick slower than his own. Thus when he arrives at the star, it should have increased by a smaller amount than his own. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?
Let's pair the values of the giant clocks with travelling clock.Earth clock ~ 4Y --- 0 dSecond clock ~ 5Y --- 16.3 dThird clock ~ 6Y --- 32.6 dFourth clock ~ 7Y --- 49 dStar clock ~ 8Y --- 65.3 d, then return.Fourth clock ~ 9Y --- 81.6 dThird clock ~ 10Y --- 97.9 dSecond clock ~ 11Y --- 114.2 dEarth clock ~ 12Y --- 130.6 dObservers on giant clocks and travelling clock should agree with these values.
Quote from: Zer0 on 08/01/2024 20:12:39... Because Craft is moving Forward ...According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?
... Because Craft is moving Forward ...
Quote from: pzkpfw on 08/01/2024 22:19:07Quote from: Zer0 on 08/01/2024 20:12:39... Because Craft is moving Forward ...According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?If One canNot contemplate the question, what then, are the Chances of answering it.As it is Visibly clear, i have received Satisfactory answers from the Seniors.Still, thanks for your input.Better luck, next time, try Harder!ps - anyways evaluating users neurological disorders & getting threads locked up is your only forte!
Furthermore, there being no material present, ε0 and μ0 must be isotropic, so the speed of light is independent of direction in free space.
(a) no acceleration = no "paradox"
Chapters: 00:00 What is the twin's paradox?00:48 Why acceleration doesn't solve twin's paradox2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)4:42 The traveling frame7:13 My new website - floatheadphysics (ad)8:48 Earth's frame again - with the flag11:38 Travelling frame again - with the flag13:30 The resolution! 14:45 Relativity of simultaneity17:02 Isn't the root cause the acceleration?18:20 What do they 'see'? In this video, we'll intuitively resolve the twin's paradox. This version of the twin's paradox involves no acceleration. And no, you don't need equivalence principle, and you don't need general relativity to solve it. Twin's paradox can be completely solved using special theory of relativity and the correct usage of relativity of simultaneity.
Actually, yes, different parts of your body will age at different rates in this acceleration.
So you need to be more specific, such as in the outbound frame (S') where the travelling twin is stationary for 65.3 days.In that frame 65.3 days pass for him, and during those 2+ months, nearly 3 days (2.92) pass for each of the giant clocks moving past him at 0.999c.
Quote from: Zer0 on 10/01/2024 20:07:17Quote from: pzkpfw on 08/01/2024 22:19:07Quote from: Zer0 on 08/01/2024 20:12:39... Because Craft is moving Forward ...According to whom is the craft moving forward? You, at rest in it?If One canNot contemplate the question, what then, are the Chances of answering it.As it is Visibly clear, i have received Satisfactory answers from the Seniors.Still, thanks for your input.Better luck, next time, try Harder!ps - anyways evaluating users neurological disorders & getting threads locked up is your only forte!Yes, you've missed the point.
Bad idea to reference your common sense or intuitions when discussing relativity that you obviously don't understand.
Gregory Chaitin propounds a view that comprehension is a kind of data compression.[19] In his essay "The Limits of Reason", he argues that understanding something means being able to figure out a simple set of rules that explains it. For example, we understand why day and night exist because we have a simple model?the rotation of the earth?that explains a tremendous amount of data?changes in brightness, temperature, and atmospheric composition of the earth. We have compressed a large amount of information by using a simple model that predicts it. Similarly, we understand the number 0.33333... by thinking of it as one-third. The first way of representing the number requires five concepts ("0", "decimal point", "3", "infinity", "infinity of 3"); but the second way can produce all the data of the first representation, but uses only three concepts ("1", "division", "3"). Chaitin argues that comprehension is this ability to compress data. This perspective on comprehension forms the foundation of some models of intelligent agents, as in Nello Cristianini's book "The shortcut", where it is used to explain that machines can understand the world in fundamentally non-human ways.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding#As_a_model
For instance, there is not, and never way, a paradox in the twins scenario. There's no rule broken, so no paradox to resolve. It perhaps contradicts ones intuitions, but that't the problem with the intuitions/common sense rather than the theory.
This question, as worded, makes no sense. If you are asking if light pulses travelling in different directions have the same velocity, of course not, by definition. If you're asking if a given pulse of light has the same velocity in one inertial frame as another, the answer there is also no.
All participants are in all frames. It is not possible to exit a frame in SR. What you probably mean is 'an observer remaining stationary relative to the frame in which the ship was stationary before it started accelerating'.I'm just trying to stress clarity here. It doesn't help the discussion to make ambiguous statements.
It does not anywhere state that the twins scenario is paradoxcal.It does initially call it a paradox, because that's how it is typically named in pop literature, but it it was never actually a paradox, SR would be disproved by being self-inconsistent.
2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)
To establish a relative velocity, we have to accelerate at least one of them.