The Twin Paradox Made Simple

[marcospolo]

So you think there is a way to show that The Twin Paradox is not a real paradox?

Then try to solve this new Paradox, The Einstein Paradox. Its not so easy to dodge the issues.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

 

Good luck.

[A-wal]

The twin paradox isn't a paradox at all. One twin has to change their inertial frame of reference and that's what causes them to have experienced less proper time when they meet back up. It shouldn't be called the twin paradox, it just confuses people by causing them to assume it's actually a genuine paradox. It should be called the twin problem.


A preferred frame of reference, as Moronium was trying to push doesn't work either because if there were a preferred frame then (assuming we're not at rest relative to it which isn't plausible considering the motions of the Earth, Solar System and galaxy) time dilation would depend on the direction of motion.

If the clock of a moving (in the test frame) object runs slowly because of its motion relative to a preferred frame then the clock of an object moving at the same speed in the opposite direction couldn't tick at the same rate as the first moving object because if the first object is moving faster relative to the preferred frame then second moving object must be moving slower relative to the preferred frame (because they're moving in opposite directions) and the rate of their clocks in the test frame would have to be different from each other.

In other words the tick rates of moving clocks would have to depend on their direction of motion as well as their velocity relative to the test frame if there's a preferred frame and this isn't the case. Only velocity, not direction of motion affects the tick rates of moving clocks and that can only be the case with a preferred frame if we are at rest relative to that frame, and that's not remotely plausible.


I haven't watched the video yet, I'll do it tomorrow. I doubt it's a genuine paradox but I'll keep an open mind until I've seen it.

[marcospolo]

The twin paradox isn't a paradox at all. One twin has to change their inertial frame of reference and that's what causes them to have experienced less proper time when they meet back up. It shouldn't be called the twin paradox, it just confuses people by causing them to assume it's actually a genuine paradox. It should be called the twin problem.

 

 

A preferred frame of reference, as Moronium was trying to push doesn't work either because if there were a preferred frame then (assuming we're not at rest relative to it which isn't plausible considering the motions of the Earth, Solar System and galaxy) time dilation would depend on the direction of motion.

 

If the clock of a moving (in the test frame) object runs slowly because of its motion relative to a preferred frame then the clock of an object moving at the same speed in the opposite direction couldn't tick at the same rate as the first moving object because if the first object is moving faster relative to the preferred frame then second moving object must be moving slower relative to the preferred frame (because they're moving in opposite directions) and the rate of their clocks in the test frame would have to be different from each other.

 

In other words the tick rates of moving clocks would have to depend on their direction of motion as well as their velocity relative to the test frame if there's a preferred frame and this isn't the case. Only velocity, not direction of motion affects the tick rates of moving clocks and that can only be the case with a preferred frame if we are at rest relative to that frame, and that's not remotely plausible.

 

 

I haven't watched the video yet, I'll do it tomorrow. I doubt it's a genuine paradox but I'll keep an open mind until I've seen it.

Which tomorrow was that?

[A-wal]

Which tomorrow was that?

I told you, TOMORROW!

[sluggo]

So you think there is a way to show that The Twin Paradox is not a real paradox?

Then try to solve this new Paradox, The Einstein Paradox. Its not so easy to dodge the issues.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

 

Good luck.

I watched the video.It is simple to explain if you know how SR works.

[A-wal]

I watched the video.It is simple to explain if you know how SR works.

Why didn't you then?

 

I can't watch it with my player for some reason, youtube videos are still working. I'll either download another player or watch it at the library, tomorrow.

[marcospolo]

 

I watched the video.It is simple to explain if you know how SR works.

 

 

Yes, please continue with you explanation.

[marcospolo]

Why didn't you then?

 

I can't watch it with my player for some reason, youtube videos are still working. I'll either download another player or watch it at the library, tomorrow.

 

Its also on Vimeo

 

vimeo.com/physicsjokes

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by marcospolo

[A-wal]

Player error

 

The player is having trouble. We'll have it back up and running as soon as possible.

 

[sluggo]

There are three ways to respond to the video.

1. The first postulate of SR: 'the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference'.

If the light requires 1 millisec to move the length of the container while at rest, then it requires 1 ms at any constant speed, recorded by a clock in the container.

 

2. The spacetime graphic.

It shows a 1 light ms container length contracted as a result of accelerating to .5c.

The U clock records the light at the B sensor at U1.73 ms. The red lines of constant time indicate the B clock is synchronized (green line) to the A clock which reads A1.00 ms.

If the signal were to return to A at A2.00 ms, A would conclude the B sensor was at a distance of 1 light ms.

 

3. Using the LT:

 

x'=g(x-vt)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

 

tx'=g(t-vx)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

[A-wal]

This is nowhere close to being any kind of paradox.

Whether or not the bomb goes off depends on how long it takes for the light beam to reach the other side of the ship in the ship's/bomb's reference frame. How long it takes for the light beam to reach the other side of the ship in a frame of reference in which the ship is in motion is completely irrelevant, it's not the watches in any other frame that bomb uses. Your right that the motion of the ship relative to the other observer affects how long it take for the light beam to cross the ship because from the perspective that observer the ship's velocity isn't added to the velocity of the light beam because it moves at the same speed in all inertial frames, but that has no affect on how long it takes the light to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch and it's the ship's watch that determines whether the bomb goes off.

You seem to also take issue with there being nothing to distinguish between which of the two frames is in motion. They are both in motion relative to each other, that's the only way to define motion. Absolute motion doesn't even make sense because you need a specified frame of reference to define it. If a ship leaves Earth for example then it will be in motion relative to the Earth but the Earth is in motion relative to the rest of the Solar System so if you were to define the ship's motion relative to another body that's in motion relative to the Earth you'd get a different answer. You could use the sun to measure the motion of the ship and of Earth but the Solar System itself is in motion relative to the rest of the galaxy, and the galaxy is in motion relative to other galaxies. Do you see? There's no way to define motion in the absence of a point of reference (frame) and it's a completely arbitrary choice.

[marcospolo]

There are three ways to respond to the video.

1. The first postulate of SR: 'the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference'.

If the light requires 1 millisec to move the length of the container while at rest, then it requires 1 ms at any constant speed, recorded by a clock in the container.

 

2. The spacetime graphic.

It shows a 1 light ms container length contracted as a result of accelerating to .5c.

The U clock records the light at the B sensor at U1.73 ms. The red lines of constant time indicate the B clock is synchronized (green line) to the A clock which reads A1.00 ms.

If the signal were to return to A at A2.00 ms, A would conclude the B sensor was at a distance of 1 light ms.

 

3. Using the LT:

 

x'=g(x-vt)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

 

tx'=g(t-vx)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

forum anti SR.gif

 

And all 3 ways are invalid.  And as all three ways are totally different, which is f any are THE way to prove me wrong?

 

1. The experiment is set up exactly the same way as Einstein's experiment, which clearly REQUIRES a difference between the two observers data. What you have done with this first excuse is to say that there is no Special relativity, Einstein is wrong, with this I agree, well done.

 

2. You show with your weird and unproven Minkowski diagram, which can't actually be used to prove me wrong, as we have not even shown that Einsteins thought experiment is useful, (that is the original purpose of his thought experiment) and anyway, the Minkowski Diagraam requires Space-time which was not yet invented. SR must stand on its own, so spacetime cant be used to back it up. also, you say IF the signal were to return to A,  ... but it did not.  and so there IS a difference in the two times, ONLY ONE IS EXACTLY ONE MILLISECOND, so spaceman is dead, and not dead.

 

3. and LT is saying that both observers will measure 1 milisecond? so that is no transform at all is it? everyone says its one milisecond. But the lorentz transform was invented to fix up the problem of the variance of Maxwell's equations, which don't work when velocity is considered, and lorentz REQUIRED AETHER  in his equations!

 

So you cant say that two observers will NOT agree on the time, hence we have SR time dilation, then in the next breath claim that the two times ARE equal!, so this is not a paradox!  If SR is real  then the spaceship guy is dead and alive at the same time.  So clearly this shows the insanity of SR.

 

 

[marcospolo]

This is nowhere close to being any kind of paradox.

 

Whether or not the bomb goes off depends on how long it takes for the light beam to reach the other side of the ship in the ship's/bomb's reference frame. How long it takes for the light beam to reach the other side of the ship in a frame of reference in which the ship is in motion is completely irrelevant, it's not the watches in any other frame that bomb uses. Your right that the motion of the ship relative to the other observer affects how long it take for the light beam to cross the ship because from the perspective that observer the ship's velocity isn't added to the velocity of the light beam because it moves at the same speed in all inertial frames, but that has no affect on how long it takes the light to reach the other side of the ship on the ship's watch and it's the ship's watch that determines whether the bomb goes off.

 

You seem to also take issue with there being nothing to distinguish between which of the two frames is in motion. They are both in motion relative to each other, that's the only way to define motion. Absolute motion doesn't even make sense because you need a specified frame of reference to define it. If a ship leaves Earth for example then it will be in motion relative to the Earth but the Earth is in motion relative to the rest of the Solar System so if you were to define the ship's motion relative to another body that's in motion relative to the Earth you'd get a different answer. You could use the sun to measure the motion of the ship and of Earth but the Solar System itself is in motion relative to the rest of the galaxy, and the galaxy is in motion relative to other galaxies. Do you see? There's no way to define motion in the absence of a point of reference (frame) and it's a completely arbitrary choice.

 

Paragraph 1.... Time dilation claims that there IS a difference between the two observers time recorded by each.  this fact is undeniable. If you agree with SR then we must have two times, so then we have a dead spaceman, but he is also alive spaceman. 

 

Paragraph 2.  It does not matter who is stationary or if both are moving relative to "absolute".  The scenario is exactly the same as Einsteins, so you cant gripe with it. You are arguing about nothing related to the experiment here.   

[exchemist]

 

There are three ways to respond to the video.

1. The first postulate of SR: 'the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference'.

If the light requires 1 millisec to move the length of the container while at rest, then it requires 1 ms at any constant speed, recorded by a clock in the container.

 

2. The spacetime graphic.

It shows a 1 light ms container length contracted as a result of accelerating to .5c.

The U clock records the light at the B sensor at U1.73 ms. The red lines of constant time indicate the B clock is synchronized (green line) to the A clock which reads A1.00 ms.

If the signal were to return to A at A2.00 ms, A would conclude the B sensor was at a distance of 1 light ms.

 

3. Using the LT:

 

x'=g(x-vt)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

 

tx'=g(t-vx)=1.15(1.73-.865)=1

forum anti SR.gif

 

And all 3 ways are invalid.  And as all three ways are totally different, which is f any are THE way to prove me wrong?

 

1. The experiment is set up exactly the same way as Einstein's experiment, which clearly REQUIRES a difference between the two observers data. What you have done with this first excuse is to say that there is no Special relativity, Einstein is wrong, with this I agree, well done.

 

2. You show with your weird and unproven Minkowski diagram, which can't actually be used to prove me wrong, as we have not even shown that Einsteins thought experiment is useful, (that is the original purpose of his thought experiment) and anyway, the Minkowski Diagraam requires Space-time which was not yet invented. SR must stand on its own, so spacetime cant be used to back it up. also, you say IF the signal were to return to A,  ... but it did not.  and so there IS a difference in the two times, ONLY ONE IS EXACTLY ONE MILLISECOND, so spaceman is dead, and not dead.

 

3. and LT is saying that both observers will measure 1 milisecond? so that is no transform at all is it? everyone says its one milisecond. But the lorentz transform was invented to fix up the problem of the variance of Maxwell's equations, which don't work when velocity is considered, and lorentz REQUIRED AETHER  in his equations!

 

So you cant say that two observers will NOT agree on the time, hence we have SR time dilation, then in the next breath claim that the two times ARE equal!, so this is not a paradox!  If SR is real  then the spaceship guy is dead and alive at the same time.  So clearly this shows the insanity of SR.

 

 

 

Er, I think we have an ongoing box-of-frogs situation with regard to this one. 

[marcospolo]

So far, the two responses to the paradox have failed to show that its not a "real" paradox.

 

Einstein's original claim, as illustrated in his thought experiment, which mine is based on perfectly, was to PROVE that there really was  a difference between the two observers times! 

 

I'm just saying that OK, lets assume that Einstein is correct, that there is a real time difference, that time dilation is occurring.

 

But the result MUST be that we have this paradox, so Einstein can not be correct. So we do not get to move ahead to Lorentz, or Minkowski, or any other excuse, as Einsteins hypothesis is clearly nonsense. With Einstein's own hypothesis, put into practice, we get a dead but alive spaceman.  I think that a dead but also alive guy is a bit of a problem.

[marcospolo]

Er, I think we have an ongoing box-of-frogs situation with regard to this one. 

Except that one side of the argument is rational, but the other side is desperately trying to prove an idea that is nonsensical, without success.

 

Also, I forgot to add the other little bit of equipment into my paradox, which was that before the space man went on his trip, he measured out, with the Earth man, a distance of exactly 150 meters and 300 meters from the Earth mans observation position, and placed markers at this positions.

 

Both Earth man and space man agreed that if the spaceman whizzed by the earth man at 0.5 c, then the spaceship MUST be exactly in line with the 150 meter marker at the instant that the light got to the 300 meter marker.  They both agree that this would be the outcome, as they both are good at math, and they are physicists.

 

As this is what they both expect to happen, why would they later think that there was some difference between the estimated time of arrival, previously agreed by both of them? 

They both know that physics still works the same on earth as it does in the ship.... 

 

So IF the Earth man can see that the ship is at the 150 meter mark in one milisecond, THEN the space-man will also see that that is his position too.  but now comes the problem. HOW THE F**K can they both suddenly "see" that light is in two different places?   Well its NOT.

 

Light must also obey the same rule that says that physics works the same way for both observers.  Light will be in the same position for both observers, there can be no difference in the observations, and there will be no conflict over the result.  What will really happen is that IF light only ever moves at c, and the spaceship is moving at 0.5 c, then unfortunately  the explosives will detonate.  

 

You may be correct that light always goes at c. but the added-on assumption that it will be always measured at c regardless of the motion off the observer, is not scientific. Its a irrational and unproven postulate, also quite unprovable.

 

The real paradox only remains a paradox because of this unfounded and silly postulate of Einstein, that light goes at c in any frame of reference.

Scrap that stupid claim, and physics becomes sensible again, no time dilation, no length contraction and no mass increase.

[A-wal]

Paragraph 2.  It does not matter who is stationary or if both are moving relative to "absolute".  The scenario is exactly the same as Einsteins, so you cant gripe with it. You are arguing about nothing related to the experiment here.

True, it doesn't have anything to do with it. Just pointing out that it's totally meaningless to claim that only one is moving, it makes no sense at all.

 

Paragraph 1.... Time dilation claims that there IS a difference between the two observers time recorded by each.  this fact is undeniable. If you agree with SR then we must have two times, so then we have a dead spaceman, but he is also alive spaceman.

No, there is no contradiction. It's the watch in the ship's frame of reference that determines whether the bomb goes off. Yes a greater amount of time passes for an observer in the other frame before the light beam reaches the other end of the ship but that doesn't effect the outcome, how could it? The same amount of time passes on the the ship's watch before the light beam reaches the other side whatever frame you're in so the bomb either goes off or it doesn't, in all frames of reference.