Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:37:14 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 60 Message-ID: <599F0ECA.278A@ix.netcom.com> References: <1cb6775d-d2c1-498b-9576-088e3e7ed2be@googlegroups.com> <4790542.Sb9uPGUboI@PointedEars.de> <587d73ca-c675-4557-99a1-0d85d758a1ff@googlegroups.com> <0a540f5f-3cbc-4851-b3e6-f5e0554d4466@googlegroups.com> <5752f78d-73ce-4af2-bc10-3554845e70f0@googlegroups.com> <2f9d5b32-1908-4e2b-974d-c887e670b447@googlegroups.com> <32aafcb3-75e1-4729-b0f6-264134a60909@googlegroups.com> <2671e131-36b0-4c20-bd09-c4cf4769e6f0@googlegroups.com> <599B2155.5DDD@ix.netcom.com> <599DBF68.90B@ix.netcom.com> <599F0D92.3D23@ix.netcom.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=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170824-0, 08/24/2017), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:429924 The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:07:20 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > > > > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > > > > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > > > > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > > > > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment > > > > > > i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of > > > > > this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if > > > > > that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). > > > > > You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the > > > > > clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks > > > > > displays). > > > > > > When you want to understand the twin paradox you have to understand > > > the concept of worldline and propertime of the moving twin (at least > > > that is the message I get based on the different postings) > > > > > > That is why I showed the example based on the movement of Our Galaxy, > > > the Sun, the Earth (or Marcury) and the Moon to demonstrate that it is very > > > complicated to calculate the length of such a worldline. > > > > > > I do not think there are simple geometrical diagrams. > > > It is easy to observe the readings but they are difficult to predict > > > in general! > > > > > > Anyway it is much more then a thought experiment. > > > > > > > Which clock contains the correct time? > > > > > > That is a very good question. I do not know. That is why I think > > > you should study all from one reference frame and use only one clock. > > > (And in some sense to forget the whole concept of worldlines, except > > > if there is some other reason to use it) > > > > > > Nicolaas Vroom > > > > well, if your watch is running slow..it means you have the incorrect time. > > It simply not possible for the Twins Paradox without at least a 'third > observer'. > > Get on your mark, get set....GO!!!! "Wait a second, where you're going?" "I'm going on a rocket and then I'll return, I only moved a second!" "No, come back here, the time is already running slow..no need to make that long trip."