Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: THE SECRET TO THE TWIN PARADOX
Replies: 5   Last Post: Jan 13, 2013 5:27 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Pentcho Valev Posts: 6,212 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: THE SECRET TO THE TWIN PARADOX
Posted: Jan 9, 2013 6:10 PM

We have multiple clocks regularly scattered and fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc and a single non-rotating clock at rest situated outside the disc but very close to the periphery. This clock constantly compares its reading with the readings of rotating clocks passing by. Initially the disc is immobile and all clocks are synchronous but then the disc starts rotating and eventually a constant linear speed of the periphery is reached.

Does the difference:

increase, decrease or remain constant (zero) as the number of comparisons increases? Einsteinians answer immediately:

"The difference increases because Divine Albert said so, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Yet by increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). So the clock at rest is repeatedly checked against two clocks fixed on the periphery - according to special relativity, the clock at rest is found to run more slowly than the clocks on the periphery:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that the difference:

decreases. Since special relativity also predicts that the difference increases (Divine Albert is right about that), we just have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The consequent is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev

Date Subject Author
1/4/13 Pentcho Valev
1/6/13 Pentcho Valev
1/9/13 Pentcho Valev
1/10/13 Pentcho Valev
1/11/13 Pentcho Valev
1/13/13 Pentcho Valev