Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #466262 > unrolled thread

Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

Started by	dneedles@gmail.com
First post	2018-07-30 13:30 -0700
Last post	2018-08-06 12:35 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 84 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

#466700 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-08-02 23:18 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<21e7e74e-6bf3-4a76-9826-fb9d02eb0dee@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466693

On Friday, 3 August 2018 02:55:40 UTC+2, rotchm  wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 1:24:54 PM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 August 2018 18:10:18 UTC+2, rotchm  wrote:
> > 
> > > Relativity predicts *values*, values of measurements (devices). 
> > 
> > And these values are worthless, 
> 
> Worthless?? Do you know how much ca$sh I made thanks to the values predicted by relativity!?

I know you're a stupid, lying fanatic shit.
And as every follower of relativity, you're
doing things classical way and pretending
they are relativistic.
Anyway, the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t
very clearly, against your  Shit's moronic 
prophecies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466853 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	dneedles@gmail.com
Date	2018-08-04 09:29 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<d21c1900-2659-4c97-83bb-236f877eb498@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466631

> My answer to your title, well there is no "why time jumps...".
> The "why" or "causes" is a philosophical question and has been removed by the current philosophy of physics.
> Relativity predicts *values*, values of measurements (devices). If one applies & computes correctly, one gets an answer. It is that that relativity "tells us"; no need for further explanations (causes). The model, the computing/conclusion suffices. 
> 
> And a few more notes:
> 
> The twip paradox (TP) has many versions. There are versions devoid of any accelerations (triplet version for instance). 
> 
> And in the version of accelerations, the accelerated twin (frame) needs to specify how he coordinated his frame: There is no convention for this, and we are all free to chose the coordination procedure, hence the various metrics used in accelerated frames. This is not the case in inertial frames where the procedure is conventional and once applied, we get SR's predictions (values). 
> This is a reason why you see that most derivations are made from the inertial twin, and not from the accelerated twin (again, from the POV of the accelerated twin, time and distance are meaningless until he defines his coordination procedure). 
> 
> And also recall what 'time' is in an inertial frame. Its the *value* on a clock at a specified location. This is the parameter "t" or "t' " in the LT's, say.

Change "why" => "describe" and cause => "derives" or "the structure of".  If you step outside the problem and seeing the universe as a whole I am trying to understand the description of this consistent shape in space where twins are involved and further understand their perceptions/experience within different points in this shape at their serial moments of subjective experience.  8-)   Thanks for the further info that does help a bit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466594 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-02 11:32 +0200
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<pjuj2u$1jhp$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#466573

Op 02/08/2018 om 06:10 schreef dneedles@gmail.com:
> 
>> Doubtful.  Distance has nothing to do with how the lines of
>> simultaneity
> 
> Wow. Thanks for all the effort put in by everyone.  Thomas issue I am
> still not following you on - if the turn points do not involve a
> "speed up" based on the turn in perspective then how can the
> traveling twin experiences the stationary twin's clock going slower
> during the trip but somehow at the end things reality is reversed.
> 
> Specifically, if I use your last set of numbers in the table -
> imagine we are the traveling twin.  Then it will appear to us the
> stationary twin is slower.  But at the end instead of 32 I find out
> the stationary twin was 40.  I do not see how you can solve this
> change in perception without some accelerated perception of the
> stationary twin's time by the moving twin at the turn points.
> 
> Also if it is cause they the change in orientation with respect to
> space then the farther away the object there would be more of an
> acceleration.  (I used "jump" earlier, but that was just me being
> sloppy.  I mean really an appearance of the stationary twin's clock
> accelerating forward in step with my acceleration/deceleration or
> orientation)
> 
> I might be missing something but I am not seeing how you are able to
> make up the "time" from the perspective of the traveling twin if they
> see the stationary twin's clock going slower without using the
> acceleration/deceleration points in some way, shape, or form.  What
> am I missing?
> 

I haven't look at Thomas's post, but you can see the "jump" here:
    http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
Check the calculation.

And if you are prepared to do some study, the jump is very nicely
modeled by a delta-dirac here:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411233.pdf
Note that there is a little typo on page 2. See if you
can find it :-)

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466852 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	dneedles@gmail.com
Date	2018-08-04 09:24 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<855076b9-0a18-41f3-b5ee-807d29b18ad2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466594

On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 2:32:17 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
> I haven't look at Thomas's post, but you can see the "jump" here:
>     http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
> Check the calculation.
> 
> And if you are prepared to do some study, the jump is very nicely
> modeled by a delta-dirac here:
>     https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411233.pdf
> Note that there is a little typo on page 2. See if you
> can find it :-)
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Thanks!! I'll take a gander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466889 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll>
Date	2018-08-04 21:27 +0000
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<pk55o6$7cm$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#466852

dneedles wrote:

> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 2:32:17 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
>> 
>> I haven't look at Thomas's post, but you can see the "jump" here:
>>     http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>> Check the calculation.
>> 
>> And if you are prepared to do some study, the jump is very nicely
>> modeled by a delta-dirac here:
>>     https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411233.pdf
>> Note that there is a little typo on page 2. See if you can find it
>> 
>> Dirk Vdm
> 
> Thanks!! I'll take a gander.

user.telenet.be is a crackpot site.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466897 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2018-08-04 15:35 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<5B662A4C.45F3@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#466889

Tson Ylor wrote:
> 
> dneedles wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 2:32:17 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I haven't look at Thomas's post, but you can see the "jump" here:
> >>     http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
> >> Check the calculation.
> >>
> >> And if you are prepared to do some study, the jump is very nicely
> >> modeled by a delta-dirac here:
> >>     https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411233.pdf
> >> Note that there is a little typo on page 2. See if you can find it
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Thanks!! I'll take a gander.
> 
> user.telenet.be is a crackpot site.


wikipedia.com is also a crackpot site.


nasa.gov is a crackpot site..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466702 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-03 09:01 +0200
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<1bc45927-90cf-4d90-e083-987f6daa0e58@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#466573

dneedles@gmail.com wrote:
>> Doubtful.  Distance has nothing to do with how the lines of
>> simultaneity
> 
> Wow. Thanks for all the effort put in by everyone.  Thomas issue I am
> still not following you on - if the turn points do not involve a "speed
> up" based on the turn in perspective then how can the traveling twin
> experiences the stationary twin's clock going slower during the trip but
> somehow at the end things reality is reversed.

They reverse direction.  That is a change of frame of reference.  IOW,
“leading clocks lag”, and the leading clock on the trip away is a different
one than on the return trip.  Still, the situation has to be consistent for
both twins.

> Specifically, if I use your last set of numbers in the table - imagine we
> are the traveling twin.  Then it will appear to us the stationary twin is
> slower.

Yes, but if we assume infinite acceleration, then there is a gap in the
time/life of the home twin that is not intersected by the traveling twin’s
lines of simultaneity.  You can see this in my other spacetime diagrams
(considering my later correction).

If the acceleration before and after the turning point is linear, so that
the traveler’s wordline would look more like

       t (a)
       ^
       :
    40 +.
       :_`.
       :  -`.
  27.2 +- _  `.
       :    - _`.
       :        -.
    20 +- - - - -:  16 a (*starship* time)
       :    _ - .'  .
       :_ -   .'   .
  12.8 +  _ .'     .   __
       :- .'       .  |PE
       :.'         .
     0 '-----------+----> x (ly)
                   12

then while turning the traveler would see (if they could observe it) the
homebody’s time speeding up compared to their own time (in my table, you can
see this by the fact that from 16 to 24 years starship time, about 17 years
of home time are observable to pass by; by contrast, from 15 to 25 years
home time, only about 6 years starship time are observable to pass by).

Because then for a brief moment (or even longer) the traveler would be
(almost) at rest relative to the homebody, and then they were (almost) in
the same frame of reference as the homebody (indicated above by the parallel
lines of simultaneity; ASCII art is inadequate to show it, but I hope you
get the picture).

> But at the end instead of 32 I find out the stationary twin was 40.

Yes.

> I do not see how you can solve this change in perception without some 
> accelerated perception of the stationary twin's time by the moving twin 
> at the turn points.

Yes, that is precisely what I said.

> Also if it is cause they the change in orientation with respect to space 
> then the farther away the object there would be more of an acceleration.

Not necessarily.  In fact, if you start decelerating relative to the
destination half the way to it, then the required negative/positive
acceleration would be less than if the destination were closer.  (If you are
driving a car and there is a kid playing on the road just a few meters
ahead, you hit the brakes as hard as you can for maximum
deceleration/negative acceleration.  If you see the kid a kilometre away, it
suffices for you to gradually reduce speed to come to a halt before there is
an accident.)

> (I used "jump" earlier, but that was just me being sloppy.

Regarding the observed passage of time, “jump” is adequate in the idealized
case.  I just do not think it is adequate to speek of a “jump” regarding
frames of reference; “change” is better.

> I mean really an appearance of the stationary twin's clock accelerating 
> forward in step with my acceleration/deceleration or orientation)

Exactly.  Before and after the traveler is turning, in 8 years of starship
time 15 years of home time are actually observable to pass by, while in 10
years of home time, still only about 6 years of starship time are actually
observable to pass by.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466721 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net>
Date	2018-08-03 08:06 -0600
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<24f5401c-ace2-8382-65f3-42f5fdece84b@comcast.net>
In reply to	#466384

On 7/31/18 5:02 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> 
> 
>   Yes, the amount of the sudden increase in the age of the home twin 
> (according to the accelerating twin) is proportional to their distance 
> apart.  There is no increase when they are co-located.
> 
> It is all explained in detail here:
> 
>   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame
> 

I can give you a simple equation (I call it "the CADO equation") that 
gives the age of the home twin when the traveling twin is age "t", 
according to the traveling twin.  The CADO equation can be easily 
derived by anyone who really understands Minkowski diagrams.

In the CADO equation, the independent variable (i.e., the variable which 
can be arbitrarily chosen to be whatever you want it to be) is the age 
of the traveling twin, "t".  There are two variables which denote the 
age of the home twin when the traveler's age is "t". There are two of 
them, not just one, because in general the home twin and the traveling 
twin don't agree about the answer to the question "How old is the home 
twin when the traveling twin is age 't'?"  To distinguish between those 
two variables, I start by using the acronym which begins with "CADO" for 
both of them, but then I add a different "subscript" to each of them: 
"_H" to indicate the home twin's answer, and "_T" to indicate the 
traveling twin's answer.  (The initial acronym stands for "the Current 
Age of a Distant Object", where the "distant object" is just the home 
twin.)  So, the current age of the home twin, when the traveling twin is 
age "t", according to the HOME twin, is denoted CADO_H(t).  And the 
current age of the home twin, when the traveling twin is age "t", 
according to the TRAVELING twin, is denoted CADO_T(t).

The simple equation is

  CADO_T(t) = CADO_H(t) - v(t) * L(t)

where

  v(t) is the speed of the traveling twin, relative to the home twin, 
according to the home twin, at the given instant "t" in the traveler's 
life, with "v" taken as positive when the twins are moving apart,

and

  L(t) is the distance from the home twin to the traveler, at the given 
instant "t" in the traveler's life, according to the home twin.

The asterisk denotes multiplication.

All of the units of the various quantities are chosen so that the speed 
of light is numerically equal to unity.  Specifically, distance is 
measured in lightyears (ly), and time is measured in years (y).

All of the quantities on the right-hand-side of the above equation are 
"according to the home twin", and therefore they are very easy to 
determine (and are non-controversial) in the simple twin "paradox" 
scenario with constant speeds except for an instantaneous speed change 
at the turnaround.  The equation then allows the quantity on the 
left-hand-side of the equation (which is "according to the traveling 
twin") to be easily calculated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466713

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-03 06:06 -0700
Message-ID	<59bdbef5-31b8-4849-be7e-57c0721fda5c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466262

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:30:57 PM UTC-4, dnee...@gmail.com wrote:
> I apologize if this has been covered (an URL referral would be fine) but my Google Foo has failed me the last few days.
> 
> Going over the typical explanation (that during the turn around the traveler sees a time skip on the non traveling frame of reference) presented a problem when I thought through it.  This would imply the acceleration and later deceleration at the origin is different than the acceleration and deceleration at the destination since no time skip is seen in these other instances.  I assume the space distance is somehow involved as the time skip uniformly increases the further the distance from the origin.  (Also, this would also apply with the inertia interpretation if you want to leave acceleration out of it.)  Does anyone have a good link that explains this?
> 
> Also, I would like to get my hands on a tutorial that goes through the math of special relativity and general relativity as it has been a few years.  I suspect the best references have changed (or at least no >longer be a book - lol)

The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

Please read the paper in the following link to get a full understanding of absolute time:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466723 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-03 16:29 +0200
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<pk1osr$slm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#466713

Op 03-aug-2018 om 15:06 schreef kenseto:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:30:57 PM UTC-4, dnee...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> I apologize if this has been covered (an URL referral would be
>> fine) but my Google Foo has failed me the last few days.
>> 
>> Going over the typical explanation (that during the turn around the
>> traveler sees a time skip on the non traveling frame of reference)
>> presented a problem when I thought through it.  This would imply
>> the acceleration and later deceleration at the origin is different
>> than the acceleration and deceleration at the destination since no
>> time skip is seen in these other instances.  I assume the space
>> distance is somehow involved as the time skip uniformly increases
>> the further the distance from the origin.  (Also, this would also
>> apply with the inertia interpretation if you want to leave
>> acceleration out of it.)  Does anyone have a good link that
>> explains this?
>> 
>> Also, I would like to get my hands on a tutorial that goes through
>> the math of special relativity and general relativity as it has
>> been a few years.  I suspect the best references have changed (or
>> at least no >longer be a book - lol)
> 
> The main problem is the definition of time. 

No, as always you've got that completely wrong.
The main problem is the absence of brain tissue in the Seto skull.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466727 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-03 08:20 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<89f3f8ee-b17e-4707-90ce-959a719437d3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466723

On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:29:50 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 03-aug-2018 om 15:06 schreef kenseto:
> > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 4:30:57 PM UTC-4, dnee...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> I apologize if this has been covered (an URL referral would be
> >> fine) but my Google Foo has failed me the last few days.
> >> 
> >> Going over the typical explanation (that during the turn around the
> >> traveler sees a time skip on the non traveling frame of reference)
> >> presented a problem when I thought through it.  This would imply
> >> the acceleration and later deceleration at the origin is different
> >> than the acceleration and deceleration at the destination since no
> >> time skip is seen in these other instances.  I assume the space
> >> distance is somehow involved as the time skip uniformly increases
> >> the further the distance from the origin.  (Also, this would also
> >> apply with the inertia interpretation if you want to leave
> >> acceleration out of it.)  Does anyone have a good link that
> >> explains this?
> >> 
> >> Also, I would like to get my hands on a tutorial that goes through
> >> the math of special relativity and general relativity as it has
> >> been a few years.  I suspect the best references have changed (or
> >> at least no >longer be a book - lol)
> > 
> > The main problem is the definition of time. 
> 
> No, as always you've got that completely wrong.
> The main problem is the absence of brain tissue in the Seto skull.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Moron....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466807 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date	2018-08-04 10:41 +0200
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<KEd9D.1706748$tw.1577562@fx42.am4>
In reply to	#466713

Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> 
> The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).

I see.
So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
then they have really aged equally much.

But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
beard when they have returned.

Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466829 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-04 06:52 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<65f182ee-c1e7-4670-91fc-fed4eb3f637c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466807

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:41:16 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> > 
> > The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
> 
> I see.
> So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
> the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
> then they have really aged equally much.

They have aged equally in terms of absolute time....not in terms of clock time.

> 
> But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
> twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
> beard when they have returned.

All the processes of nature, including beard growing, are operating on absolute time. So the traveling twin’s beard is the same length as the stay at home twin’s beard.

> 
> Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?

Not at all when you accept the existence of absolute time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466837 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-08-04 07:46 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<b2f1a57c-820a-495c-a867-d2b6cdcbde09@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466829

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 7:52:48 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:41:16 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> > > 
> > > The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts
> > > that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it
> > > is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and
> > > the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is
> > > no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of
> > > view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time
> > > point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the
> > > same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states
> > > of absolute motion).
> > 
> > I see.
> > So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
> > the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
> > then they have really aged equally much.
> 
> They have aged equally in terms of absolute time

Too bad no one has ever experienced "absolute time," least of all Seto.

> ....not in terms of clock time.
> 
> > But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
> > twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
> > beard when they have returned.
> 
> All the processes of nature, including beard growing, are operating on
> absolute time. So the traveling twin’s beard is the same length as the
> stay at home twin’s beard.

Too bad Seto is awash in air-headed contradictions.

> > Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?
> 
> Not at all when you accept the existence of absolute time.

Only vacuum-headed nincompoops accept that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466848 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	dneedles@gmail.com
Date	2018-08-04 09:20 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<9d868af0-a28d-42d9-b03c-6cda73d05218@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466829

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:52:48 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:41:16 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> > > 
> > > The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
> > 
> > I see.
> > So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
> > the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
> > then they have really aged equally much.
> 
> They have aged equally in terms of absolute time....not in terms of clock time.
> 
> > 
> > But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
> > twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
> > beard when they have returned.
> 
> All the processes of nature, including beard growing, are operating on absolute time. So the traveling twin’s beard is the same length as the stay at home twin’s beard.
> 
> > 
> > Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?
> 
> Not at all when you accept the existence of absolute time.

The only issue I see is the definition of the world line for each observer is his/her timeline through space.  This comes from the belief that time is a dimension just like space and so if you step outside it the universe is effectively static.  As such operating within the universe to observe the universe as a whole renders any language (math, computer, human language, etc) inert as it cannot operate without consuming part of the dimension to animate things.  That is operators, verbs, commands all require the consumption of time.  So the only way to animate things is to create either an additional dimension to observe the universe from the outside or animate the perception on the point location on the fabric.  (Effectively Zeno's arrow issue.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466874 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-04 12:47 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<a297fadf-fd42-4989-95c6-40eaef5e028e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466848

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 9:20:32 AM UTC-7, dnee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:52:48 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:41:16 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> > > > 
> > > > The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
> > > 
> > > I see.
> > > So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
> > > the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
> > > then they have really aged equally much.
> > 
> > They have aged equally in terms of absolute time....not in terms of clock time.
> > 
> > > 
> > > But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
> > > twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
> > > beard when they have returned.
> > 
> > All the processes of nature, including beard growing, are operating on absolute time. So the traveling twin’s beard is the same length as the stay at home twin’s beard.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?
> > 
> > Not at all when you accept the existence of absolute time.
> 
> The only issue I see is the definition of the world line for each observer is his/her timeline through space.  This comes from the belief that time is a dimension just like space and so if you step outside it the universe is effectively static. 

Newtonian mechanics is the same BTW. In fact it was noticed very quickly after Newton
that his theory implies no free will in any obvious sense.

What makes relativity a bit odd (philosophically speaking) is the combination of that
"staticity" with the _lack of simultaneity at a distance_. This is what makes it impossible
to select a preferred space, the way one can do it with Newton where at least one can
think of mechanical interactions purely in terms of 3D space with a separate time coordinate
parametrising "things moving".

The issue of free will becomes very interesting in QM, BTW.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466876 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-04 13:11 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<c74e379e-033f-460e-b73a-627f7219c8b0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466874

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> What makes relativity a bit odd (philosophically speaking) is the
> combination of that "staticity" with the _lack of simultaneity at
> a distance_.

This is not the case with Larmor’s transform where the Lorentz-FitzGerald length contraction is strictly enforced [by nature].  <shrug>

> [rest of babbling irrelevance snipped]

1+1 = 2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466877 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-08-04 13:25 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<26a8af7f-33c6-4da3-a1de-82b85577080d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466874

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 21:47:07 UTC+2, JanPB  wrote:

> Newtonian mechanics is the same BTW. In fact it was noticed very quickly after Newton
> that his theory implies no free will in any obvious sense.

Said an idiot believing to be a guru.

> 
> What makes relativity a bit odd (philosophically speaking) is the combination of that
> "staticity" with the _lack of simultaneity at a distance_. 

No. What makes your Shit so "odd" (personally, I prefer
"idiotic" term) is ignoring and redefining basic terms
of sane people language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#466886 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.ll>
Date	2018-08-04 21:19 +0000
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<pk559u$7cm$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#466877

mlwozniak wrote:

> On Saturday, 4 August 2018 21:47:07 UTC+2, JanPB  wrote:
>> What makes relativity a bit odd (philosophically speaking) is the
>> combination of that "staticity" with the _lack of simultaneity at a
>> distance_.
> 
> No. What makes your

Both wrong. They are using a weird static transformation. But hey, you use 
transformation for mapping a domain into another domain. But there is no 
_other domain_ in relativity. Just another mistake.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467288 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 06:07 -0700
Subject	Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.
Message-ID	<56d6431d-dd03-492e-a7c5-3005a57e95d7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#466874

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 3:47:07 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 9:20:32 AM UTC-7, dnee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 6:52:48 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:41:16 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > > > Den 03.08.2018 15.06, skrev kenseto:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The main problem is the definition of time. Current physics asserts that a clock second represents  a universal interval of time.....it is not. In actual fact, the only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. IOW, there is no twin paradox if you looking it from the absolute time point of view. There is twin paradox if you looking it from the clock time point of view. WhY? Because a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion).
> > > > 
> > > > I see.
> > > > So if the travelling twin's clock show that only half
> > > > the clock time has passed compared to the home twin's clock time,
> > > > then they have really aged equally much.
> > > 
> > > They have aged equally in terms of absolute time....not in terms of clock time.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But if they shaved before they started, the travelling
> > > > twin's beard is only half the length of the home twin's
> > > > beard when they have returned.
> > > 
> > > All the processes of nature, including beard growing, are operating on absolute time. So the traveling twin’s beard is the same length as the stay at home twin’s beard.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't that strange since they have aged equally much?
> > > 
> > > Not at all when you accept the existence of absolute time.
> > 
> > The only issue I see is the definition of the world line for each observer is his/her timeline through space.  This comes from the belief that time is a dimension just like space and so if you step outside it the universe is effectively static. 
> 
> Newtonian mechanics is the same BTW. In fact it was noticed very quickly after Newton
> that his theory implies no free will in any obvious sense.
> 
> What makes relativity a bit odd (philosophically speaking) is the combination of that
> "staticity" with the _lack of simultaneity at a distance_. 
 
According to the LT simultaneity is maintained at a distance.....IOW, if two events A and B are simultaneous in my frame--say they occurred in a time interval of Delta(t)--then identical events A’and B’ in your frame are simultaneous in your frame but the simultaneity occur at different time (Delta(t)/gamma) seconds according to your clock.
In any case simultaneity got nothing to do with any physical processes. Einstein introduced it to save his P2. How? P2 says that the speed of light is constant in all frames but RoS says that the closing speed of light in the M’ frame is different in different directions. This assertion of different closing speeds in the M’ frame cancels out all the paradoxes created by the P2.

>This is what makes it impossible
> to select a preferred space, the way one can do it with Newton where at least one can
> think of mechanical interactions purely in terms of 3D space with a separate time coordinate
> parametrising "things moving".
> 
> The issue of free will becomes very interesting in QM, BTW.
> 
> --
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →

csiph-web

Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

Contents

#466700 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466853 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466594 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466852 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466889 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466897 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466702 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466721 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466713

#466723 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466727 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466807 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466829 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466837 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466848 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466874 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466876 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466877 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#466886 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.

#467288 — Re: Twin Paradox - Why time skip occurs for traveler at destination but not origin.