The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Topic: Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
Replies: 7   Last Post: Jan 8, 2013 1:46 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Koobee Wublee

Posts: 1,417
Registered: 2/21/06
Re: Simplified Twin Paradox Resolution.
Posted: Jan 7, 2013 3:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jan 7, 12:31 pm, Absolutely Vertical <>
> On 1/7/2013 12:43 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > That was what PD said years ago. Stupid PD, an ex-professor of
> > physics at a university in Texas. <shrug>

> i would imagine a lot of people would say it, since it's not so.
> if someone tells you that the earth is not flat, i expect you to remark
> that someone else on usenet said so too.

Flat earth was exactly what ignorant PD had argued before. For your
information, PD, since the age of maritime sailing about 3 to 4
thousands of years ago, people always knew the earth was spherical,
and that was even the case during the darkest of the Dark Age.
Columbus did not try to convince his financier that the earth was
spherical. He was trying to convince his backers that the earth was
not as big as what they believe in. In fact, Columbus was wrong. He
had underestimated the size of the earth by about 1/3. <shrug>

> > After both have done their acceleration, they continue to move away
> > from each other. What is their relative speed? Does the Lorentz
> > transform not say time dilation? At this moment, who is actually
> > moving, and who is not? If time dilation is building up, how does it
> > evaporate? <shrug>

> in the turnaround of one of them.

How? Say 100 years of time dilation all gone in one turn around?

> > Actually not according to the Lorentz transform. You cannot make up
> > your own laws of physics. You are no god. <shrug>

> the lorentz transform as you're using it doesn't deal with the
> turnaround. you need to use the version that deals with the acceleration
> of the turnaround.

Believing yourself to be a god does not make you a god, PD. <shrug>

Just how many versions of the Lorentz transform are there? <shrug>

> > In this case, both accelerate with a coasting period to allow for
> > mutual time dilation building up. Shouldn?t the magic effect of
> > acceleration cancel out?

> in the case where both twins accelerate, then there is no asymmetry.
> while there is a change that happens during the acceleration, it's the
> same for both, so when they meet again, their clocks show the same time.

Where is the math that supports your faulty claim? <shrug>

> yes, the turnaround undoes the time dilation of the coasting period. for
> both observers in the symmetric case, the other's clock leaps forward to
> be ahead of the other's clock. if this comes as a shock it's because
> you've never looked at the generalization of the lorentz transform in an
> accelerated frame.

And what exactly is this generalization of the Lorentz transform in
the accelerated frame? <shrug>

> > If not, why not? Just what part of this
> > simple scenario do you not understand, PD? <shrug>

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.