Date: Jul 4, 2010 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
On Jul 4, 6:00 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:12 am, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > harald says...
> > >On Jul 3, 4:10=A0pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure what paradox you are referring to, then.
> > >I did some digging to understand the main cause of confusion. What I
> > >found, is the clock paradox started out as the one that Einstein was
> > >confronted with, as criticism of his GRT. At least, concerning SRT,
> > >before the development of GRT, I found no trace of such a paradox in
> > >the old literature. Did you?
> > 1905 paper has the first exposition of the twins paradox (though not
> > in the currently frames words) .. of a pair of clocks at rest, then
> > one moves away and returns and shows a shorter elapsed time
> That's not caused by time dilation...but rather a traveling clock
> second contain a larger amount of absolute time than a stay at home
> clock second.
> > No GR involved there.
> > Or are you talking now of some other paradox?
If it is 'larger amounts' of time shouldn't the traveling twin have
aged a 'larger amount'???
Should it not instead be age = rate * duration. So, if the traveling
twin ages less either the rate or duration is less. Lorentz would say
the rate was less...