On Jul 6, 12:25 am, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 10:00 am, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2:46 pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > > > harald says... > > > > > >Acceleration effects are not identified as gravitational fields in > > > > >Newtonian physics (which, as you now know, you didn't know); and > > > > >neither is that the case in SRT. In those theories acceleration is > > > > >"absolute", and no gravitational fields are caused by acceleration. > > > > > This is a topic for another discussion, but I'm talking about > > > > "pseudo-gravitational" fields, which crop up in both SR and Newtonian > > > > physics if you use accelerated coordinates. > > > > We agree on "pseudo", while Einstein rejected that. > > > > > >> I think it is because you have not made it very well. I still > > > > >> have no idea what your point is. > > > > > >Just study Einstein's paper carefully, > > > > > I want to know what *YOUR* point is. State it in your own words. > > > > I did, also in the part of my sentence that you exactly here snipped: > > > > *you'll know what theory the paradox challenges*. > > > > THAT (and only that) was my point: the clock paradox challenges the > > > General PoR. > > > > You certainly are aware that, despite Einstein's *suggestion* to that > > > effect in the introduction of his 1905 paper, SRT is *not* based on > > > the General PoR. > > > Strictly speaking the 'domain' of the 'special' theory of relativity > > is limited to inertial states. The original principle of relativity > > as expressed in Einstein's 1905 work covered only that domain. So > > Harald is correct, the paradox is confined to the situation where, you > > have identical twins one remain in the original inertial frame, the > > other accelerated rapidly (nearly instantaneously) to speed ~c travels > > for x time wrt the original FOR, reverses comes to an equally rapid > > stop (wrt the original FOR) then returns the same way. Since SRT is > > based upon v^2 effects (second order quantities) the directionality of > > any asymmetry is lost in the expressions that quantify changes. > > However, there is NO! paradox, either in nature, or SRT, once one > > understands that limitation. The traveling twin, not the stay at home > > twin will be physically younger. On a one-way trip however, we can't > > say which one would be for an equal physical duration. That would > > depend upon the speeds of both FOR relative to the CMBR... > > Directionality does matter. > > I don't follow your last sentence. Perhaps you mean, as Langevin put > it, that a change of direction of speed does matter for the asymmetry. > > Regards, > Harald
According to LR the rate at which time passes is related to the absolute speed wrt to the aether frame. For any round trip direction is irrelevant, the total travel necessary to complete the circuit will guarantee the total time will be relative to the delta velocity between the systems. However!, if, for example you are traveling at 600,000 Kps in some direction as measured by the CMBR Doppler and accelerate in a direction as to bring your speed to zero wrt to the CMBR, LR predicts that your rate of time passage is now proceeding faster than your stay at home twin. That twin is now receding from you at 600,000 Kps and to EVER! hope to get back to him you must catch up to him. Doing so requires you to go faster, longer, than ANY outbound track, making the total elapsed time still less when you get back than his. However, if you don't go back, LR say your time passes faster. Note however that for the outbound one-way trip your clock rate depends upon whether you're increasing or decreasing your speed relative to the CMBR. Definitely direction dependent.