0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
The twin paradox is not actually a paradox
Quote from: David Cooper on 03/08/2020 01:00:06passing a virtual baton to each other when they pass each other.The act of "passing the baton" will require acceleration, because the direction that the mass-energy aboard the ship is moving will change every time a signal (which must be composed of that same mass-energy) is passed from one ship to the other.
passing a virtual baton to each other when they pass each other.
What are you talking about?There is no circle in the diagram. Please, stay true what is presented on the diagram,Jano
It isn't a paradox as it has a resolution in LET, but it remains a paradox in STR.
Quote from: arjeet45o on 03/08/2020 07:08:38The twin paradox is not actually a paradoxIt isn't a paradox as it has a resolution in LET, but it remains a paradox in STR. Just as you can remove the acceleration issue from the circling case, you can do this with the twins paradox, so let's do that now. If we give the stay-at-home twin clock A, then the other twin can travel with clock B away and back at 0.866c. On return, when they compare their timings for the separation, clock A ticked twice as many times as clock B, so clock B was clearly ticking slow, but people like to attribute that to the accelerations. We can eliminate the role for acceleration though just by introducing two additional clocks. Clock C travels alongside clock B on the outward leg, and clock D travels alongside clock D on the return leg. Neither of these new clocks accelerates at any point. Clock C makes a timing from when it passes clock A until it passes clock D. Clock D makes a timing from when it passes clock C to when it passes clock A. Timing B = timings C+D, confirming that the only role for the accelerations of clock B was to change its absolute speed of motion through space. We get the result timing A = 2(C+D).In all cases with the twins paradox, you get A > C+D. Without a space fabric and absolute frame, clocks A, C and D would all have to be ticking at the same rate as each other, but that would give us the result A = C+D, which is a result that the universe never provides. STR demands that A ticks faster than C while C ticks faster than A. It also demands that A ticks faster than D while D ticks faster than A, and that C ticks faster than D while D ticks faster than C. Those are all paradoxical. But what the twins paradox shows us is that A always ticks faster than C or D (if not than both of them), and that's an asymmetrical requirement. The only symmetry involved in it is with our inability to pin down whether A is ticking faster than C or D if it isn't ticking faster than both of them, but A > C+D demands that A is ticking faster than the average of C and D. There has to be a relationship between A and C or A and D in which A is ticking at a faster rate than the other clock while that other clock cannot also be ticking faster than A. The symmetry breaks.
Quote from: David Cooper on 03/08/2020 21:28:20It isn't a paradox as it has a resolution in LET, but it remains a paradox in STR.I thought Lorentz ether theory and special relativity made identical physical predictions, the only difference being some of the underlying mechanics where LET invokes an ether and SR does not.
The red dot (representing a clock) travels in circles around the white clock.
I thought Lorentz ether theory and special relativity made identical physical predictions, the only difference being some of the underlying mechanics where LET invokes an ether and SR does not.
LET makes conditional predictions (meaning that they're all predicated by "if this is the absolute frame") while STR makes absolute ones
Quote from: David Cooper on 03/08/2020 21:10:57The red dot (representing a clock) travels in circles around the white clock. And there's your problem. Circular motion requires continuous acceleration towards the center of the circle, so there is no symmetry between an orbiting twin and a stationary one.
The two theories do make identical predictions. Dave has a long history of creating straw man arguments against SR, such as the statement below:
Quote from: David Cooper on 04/08/2020 23:23:51LET makes conditional predictions (meaning that they're all predicated by "if this is the absolute frame") while STR makes absolute onesOn that note, it seems that if LET asserts that, then lacking a frame that satisfies the requirements of the interpretation, the interpretation must be false.
Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer is nothing more than a contrived mathematical abstraction
.It doesn't lack such a frame - we just can't tell which one it is.
You've moved on into such broken physics that I'm not going to bother commenting on it beyond saying that Spacetime generates event-meshing failures all over the shop: it's not sustainable science and it's being torn to shreds on Quora, the one place where it can be discussed properly without censorship.
The whole point of this example is that the circular motion is eliminated by the other clocks forming a relay race round the same circuit with them all moving along straight paths and confirming that the acceleration is irrelevant: it shows the case with acceleration to map with high precision to the case without acceleration, and if you want higher precision, you just add more clocks to the relay to have the polygon tend to the circle.