0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2023 23:00:23In summary, it says that the difference is due to equivalence principle.I guess you will never be able to understand the twin 'paradox' with all the different explanations on Youtube.
In summary, it says that the difference is due to equivalence principle.
What it is about has already been well explained. Most you-tube videos on the subject contain mistakes. The one you provide is blatantly wrong in several areas.
As relativistic mechanics is now accepted as fundamental, with classical or newtonian mechanics being a special case where v<<c, the question is actually badly phrased. The meaningful question is "what causes apparent simultaneity?"
Hope the OP won't mind me Intruding.If i am in a spacecraft moving at 1%Speed of Light...I'm at the Centre..Which blinking light would i see first, the front or the back one?
Is there any experimental evidence showing that traveling twin age less than staying twin, excluding every other effects but their speed?
Eliminating paradox can be done by showing the mistakes in every contradicting explanation, except one.
Can you find a YouTube video on the subject that doesn't contain mistakes?
If i am in a spacecraft moving at 1% Speed of Light...
I'm at the Centre.. Which blinking light would i see first, the front or the back one?
The meaningful question is "what causes apparent simultaneity?"
You need to synchronise your clocks, which requires that they are not moving with respect to one another
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2024 08:19:27Is there any experimental evidence showing that traveling twin age less than staying twin, excluding every other effects but their speed?You mean like humidity changes or something?
Even one explanation with a mistake contradicting the theory would still be a wrong one.Try all the ones that don't contradict relativity. There are many different valid explanations of the twins scenario, and none of them contradict SR or each other. If one claims to be the "one correct" explanation, it is wrong.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/12/2023 23:00:44The meaningful question is "what causes apparent simultaneity?"You give zero indication of what you think 'apparent simultaneity' means. It's not a known term. Simultaneity is a convention, an abstraction. There's nothing physical about it, and no empirical test for it. The phrase seems to imply that there's a way to measure it without first presuming an abstract coordinate system.
from: alancalverd on 25/12/2023 23:00:44The meaningful question is "what causes apparent simultaneity?"
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:46:05You need to synchronise your clocks, which requires that they are not moving with respect to one another Clocks in each other's presence can be synced to the same value at that event, without any requirement of them being mutually stationary.You need a citation to back this speculation.
from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:46:05You need to synchronise your clocks, which requires that they are not moving with respect to one another
Quote from: Zer0 on 03/01/2024 16:55:25Hope the OP won't mind me Intruding.If i am in a spacecraft moving at 1%Speed of Light...I'm at the Centre..Which blinking light would i see first, the front or the back one?Theoretically, you will see them at the same time. Practically, you'll see the one you are facing to, except you use some helping devices like a mirror.
Let's say i am Not interested in the Theoretical part of it.I just wanna know Which one i'd see blinking first/faster?
Many Youtube videos trying to explain Twin Paradox point out what's wrong in explanations provided by other videos or books.
Some say that special relativity is not adequate to explain the paradox, while the others say that it is adequate. They are contradicting each other.
Some say that Doppler effect must be taken into account, while the others say it's unnecessary.
Some even declare that there is no paradox even without analyzing the situation from the perspective of traveling twin.
Saying that they are equally valid is not a logically sound position.
simultaneity is a convention.
We perceive and describe two nearby events as simultaneous if we receive information from both of them coincidentally, but we know that if the sources are at different distances from us, or indeed travelling at different velocities relative to us, they would not appear simultaneous to an observer for whom the arrangement was symmetrical.
Synchronisation doesn't just mean showing the same number at a given instant.
There is a presumption in "gentlemen, synchronise your watches" that they will all continue to tick at the same rate for long enough to effectively coordinate the invasion.
But relativity tells us that as the army, navy and air force travel at different speeds, they won't be coordinated when they reach alpha centauri.
What if i was standing Sideways?
Assume both Blinkers were Synchronised while spacecraft was at Speed 0.
Gradually 1%c is reached.My left eye tracking Front blinker.My right eye tracking Back blinker.Let's say i am Not interested in the Theoretical part of it.I just wanna know Which one i'd see blinking first/faster?
ps - is there any possible way U could avoid using SR/GR & give a Simplistic answer.
If the lights were synchronized at zero m/s, then no matter how fast you were going they would stay synchronized.
IOW the light from both sources would continue to hit you at exactly the same time.
Not true.
Which means either that these videos are wrong, or they're correct about the mistakes being made by the other videos/books. If they say that their own explanation is the one correct one, then the former is true.
QuoteSome say that special relativity is not adequate to explain the paradox, while the others say that it is adequate. They are contradicting each other.The latter case is correct here. The former claims indeed contradict that, and are wrong.