Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:54:13 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 53 Message-ID: <59710A65.72D1@ix.netcom.com> References: <086f7a5d-bd46-44dc-abf3-98488917a499@googlegroups.com> <7ecda924-3461-419e-84c9-7b4800de7bf7@googlegroups.com> <2764577b-f7d5-441a-97ca-4b070507f5b8@googlegroups.com> <57790307-91c3-4956-a8e3-ed07c8b92573@googlegroups.com> <7e69dc9d-5173-43bf-9167-7dcacacbc713@googlegroups.com> <0d4ffa90-a36f-4ea0-86d3-eb8956d94861@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: X9ItFNC7Zcz4l6MobL/YRA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170720-0, 07/20/2017), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:425707 Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two > > twins follow between their meetings. > > For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. > > The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin > > followed has less elapsed proper time. > > The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome > of a certain experiment: > Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. > Observer A is considered to stay at home. > Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" > When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks > and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? > > The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation. > > Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers? > > IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of > clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). > This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour > of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of > the clock relatif to the speed of light. > > > "Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it > > is a different geometrical property related to the projection > > of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame > > that is measuring it. > > The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of > the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this > question and putting it a different coat) > The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock > of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. > (has more elapsed proper time, if you like) > > Nicolaas Vroom At what point in time does the clock run faster? Is it one second after the traveling twin moves? Is it one minute after the traveling twin moves? Is it one hour after the traveling twin moves? Is it one day after the traveling twin moves? At what point in time does the clock run faster?