Twin's Paradox revisited.

[grav]

Hello Grav.

To purchase your argument, I would have to conclude this applies to Einstein's 1918 solution to the traditional solution of the twins experiment. However, Einstein proved all parties agreed on the solution.

Now, in my case, we have a solution and the twin's know the answer.

Yet, when I ask SR, you and SR claims well now the answer depends.

Guess what, no it does not, the twins have the answer. It is just that SR cannnot decide it.

So, we cannot trust SR.

Oh, you mean the twin paradox? All observers will agree upon the ages of the twins only when they coincide in the same place for a direct comparison. Since the twins are separated by some distance in the new frame in your scenario, simultaneity effects come into play over that distance between them as viewed from other frames. Now, if you can put the twins together in one place in the new frame, then all observers will agree on the ages, as they can do a direct side by side comparison with no simultaneity effects involved.

[abcdefg]

I want to say this.

I get the argument, well now abcdefg no one agrees with you.
Interesting.

Yet, when I was on other ATM threads, I was instructed to not agree with the ATM position.
I was instructed to ask questions

So, if it is the case that no mainstream folks can agree with ATM logic, then how can it be otherwise that anyone would do anything but disagree?
Therefore, because of the rules, this is a baseless and useless argument.

Mainstream folks should be allowed to agree with ATM on points if they choose.

Otherwise, we create a false impression of disagreement when in fact it may be very limited.

Logic would certainly indicate we would not want to do that, if, we are in pursuit of the truth.

[abcdefg]

Oh, you mean the twin paradox? All observers will agree upon the ages of the twins only when they coincide in the same place for a direct comparison. Since the twins are separated by some distance in the new frame in your scenario, simultaneity effects come into play over that distance between them as viewed from other frames. Now, if you can put the twins together in one place in the new frame, then all observers will agree on the ages, as they can do a direct side by side comparison with no simultaneity effects involved.

Oh, you are taking the position of others here that Einstein's clock sync method is useless. That is not mainstream.

Say it loud, you are against SR's clock sync method and deny the results.

I just want to caution you, there are hundreds of papers in the mainstream that rely on this method for clock synching.

So, you are forced from the mainstream to accept the results.

This is not a valid argument.

[grav]

I want to say this.

I get the argument, well now abcdefg no one agrees with you.
Interesting.

Yet, when I was on other ATM threads, I was instructed to not agree with the ATM position.
I was instructed to ask questions

So, if it is the case that no mainstream folks can agree with ATM logic, then how can it be otherwise that anyone would do anything but disagree?
Therefore, because of the rules, this is a baseless and useless argument.

Mainstream folks should be allowed to agree with ATM on points if they choose.

Otherwise, we create a false impression of disagreement when in fact it may be very limited.

Logic would certainly indicate we would not want to do that, if, we are in pursuit of the truth.

Well, that is simply because this is your ATM and it is up to you to defend it, but that doesn't mean others can't agree on some points. As I have said before, when it comes to the logic of SR, I don't go for it either, and neither do some other mainstreamers on all counts, but the mathematics of it is solid as based upon that logic, so it cannot be broken there, and it has been verified to within the limits of our means of testing so far, so it cannot be broken there either yet. The best one can do is to try to come up with another model that can pass all the same tests and yet is somehow more logically acceptable. I have been working on trying to come up with such a model for the past couple of months, but so far haven't succeeded.

[abcdefg]

Well, that is simply because this is your ATM and it is up to you to defend it, but that doesn't mean others can't agree on some points. As I have said before, when it comes to the logic of SR, I don't go for it either, and neither do some other mainstreamers on all counts, but the mathematics of it is solid as based upon that logic, so it cannot be broken there, and it has been verified to within the limits of our means of testing, so it cannot be broken there either. The best one can do is to try to come up with another model that can pass the same tests and is somehow more logically acceptable. I have been working on trying to come up with such a model for the past couple of months, but so far haven't succeeded.

grav, did you see me flinch in presented my findings and math?

I have not seen one mainstream advocate come here and refute the conclusions and the proofs.

I will come up with the other model later if you will be patient. I know you have asked this 3 times now but folks have to understand the basics of what is really going on or they will never see anything else.

I am creating doubt right now. If that is all I achieve, future ATM's I do will be able to use that.

[grav]

grav, did you see me flinch in presented my findings and math?

I have not seen one mainstream advocate come here and refute the conclusions and the proofs.

That's because the basic conclusions for the math are correct. When the twins are separated by some distance, difference frames will view different times on their clocks.

I will come up with the other model later if you will be patient. I know you have asked this 3 times now but folks have to understand the basics of what is really going on or they will never see anything else.

Okay, that's cool, and should be interesting. Remember it has to pass the same tests that were put to SR.

I am creating doubt right now. If that is all I achieve, future ATM's I do will be able to use that.

The doubt may or may not already be there in the logic, but there is no doubt in the math based upon that logic.

[abcdefg]

That's because the conclusions for the math are correct. When the twins are separated by some distance, difference frames will view different times on their clocks.

Okay, that's cool, and should be interesting. Remember it has to pass the same tests that were put to SR.

The doubt may or may not already be there in the logic, but there is no doubt in the math based upon that logic.

Okay, that's cool, and should be interesting. Remember it has to pass the same tests that were put to SR.
I will make it pass more tests.

That's because the conclusions for the math are correct. When the twins are separated by some distance, difference frames will view different times on their clocks.
This is not relevent. This is an ability of mine to use the tools available in a different way.

It is not my fault.

But, in the Definition of Simultaneity Einstein assured everyone this result of clock synching was valid.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

So, the twins know the answer but the frames do not.
This implies the LT translation cannot be trusted.

[grav]

That's because the conclusions for the math are correct. When the twins are separated by some distance, difference frames will view different times on their clocks.
This is not relevent. This is an ability of mine to use the tools available in a different way.

It is not my fault.

But, in the Definition of Simultaneity Einstein assured everyone this result of clock synching was valid.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

I'm not sure what you mean there. The conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SR. Only if the twins are in the same place will all observers agree since there will be no distance for simultaneity effects to act across. That is just what the equations of SR say based upon the logic used. So either you must prove that time cannot be relative between frames somehow or come up with a more logical model that passes the same tests. Or more tests, even better.

[zerocold]

I don't really think this issue is about an alternative model

Wonder if somebody could refute the abcdefg's points more directly.

abcdefg your point will be diverted with your "new model" i suggest you to avoid it.

All of you will end discussing other points and other issues than the original proposed problem

he conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SR

Is more less what i'm thinking on this problem

[abcdefg]

I'm not sure what you mean there. The conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SR. Only if the twins are in the same place will all observers agree since there will be no distance for simultaneity effects to act across. That is just what the equations of SR say based upon the logic used. So either you must prove that time cannot be relative between frames somehow or come up with a more logical model that passes the same tests. Or more tests, even better.

That is not true.

The other frames perform their calculations and are not watching the clock sync.

They were having coffee at the time.

The calculations do not agree with the clock sync.

[abcdefg]

I don't really think this issue is about an alternative model

Wonder if somebody could refute the abcdefg's points more directly.

abcdefg your point will be diverted with your "new model" i suggest you to avoid it.

All of you will end discussing other points and other issues than the original proposed problem



Is more less what i'm thinking on this problem

You have a very good point.

Agreed.

[abcdefg]

Quote:
he conclusion that you found is just the simultaneity difference in times over a distance as viewed by other frames according to SR

Is more less what i'm thinking on this problem

Let's explore

[grav]

That is not true.

The other frames perform their calculations and are not watching the clock sync.

They were having coffee at the time.

The calculations do not agree with the clock sync.

Do you remember the simultaneity shift for the clock synch in post #511 with the tunnel observers? According to the tunnel observers, all of thier clocks are synchronized all the way down the tunnel, but to us while travelling toward the tunnel, the clocks in the back of the tunnel show a greater time than those in the front of the tunnel. It is the same way with the twins. Since there is some distance between the twins once they reach the new frame, there will be a simultaneity shift for the difference in times read on their clocks by other frames. However, if you were to put both twins in the same place with no distance between them in the new frame, then their clocks will read the same difference in times to all other frames as they read between their own clocks because there is no distance between them for the simultaneity shift to act.

[abcdefg]

Do you remember the simultaneity shift for the clock synch in post #511 with the tunnel observers? According to the tunnel observers, all of thier clocks are synchronized all the way down the tunnel, but to us while travelling toward the tunnel, the clocks in the back of the tunnel show a greater time than those in the front of the tunnel. It is the same way with the twins. Since there is some distance between the twins once they reach the new frame, there will be a simultaneity shift for the difference in times read on their clocks by other frames. However, if you were to put both twins in the same place with no distance between them in the new frame, then their clocks will read the same difference in times to all other frames as they read between their own clocks because there is no distance between them for the simultaneity shift to act.

Grav this does not matter. We are questioning the twins internal clocks.

Surely, you are not claiming that outside factors entangle the results of those clock readings are you?

There is an answer between the twins and it is known to them. It is just that SR cannot logically decide it.

[grav]

Grav this does not matter. We are questioning the twins internal clocks.

Surely, you are not claiming that outside factors entangle the results of those clock readings are you?

There is an answer between the twins and it is known to them. It is just that SR cannot logically decide it.

Internal, external, it doesn't matter. The question is "when" does a twin's clock read a certain time. According to the twin, it is whatever it reads "now", "when" the twin looks at their own clock. According to an observer in a different frame at a distance, however, that "when" for the twin happens at some other time. In other words, the twin's "now" and the observer's "now" are not the same thing. Time is relative to the frame of an observer.

[WayneFrancis]

...
Einstein in 1918 concluded with the original twins paradox that all parties will agree the traveling twin will be younger.
...

ONLY when that twin finally came back to the original rest frame. This is the part you keep missing. Just because 2 twins are in the same frame of reference doesn't mean that a third observer has to observe them with the same age. If both twins, at the end of your experiment, return to the original rest frame then you'll see that the one that was accelerated longer experience less time. The time is calculable by SR. So isn't the proper time each experience. What you don't understand is that for the 2 twins and a third observer there is no absolute "Now" especially when they are not together and are in different frames.

Get this through your skull there is no "universal now" Observer C looking at the 2 clocks sees things differently because of SR and SR allows you to calculate what is actually seen.

[WayneFrancis]

Pleas fill in the answer to the following questions.

I'll use your scenario and I'll describe it in full

Alice (A) and Bob (B) have a ship that can accelerate at 10,000m/s, relative to the Charlie's frame
Charlie (C) remains stationary at the launching pad

At T₀ all clocks are synced up as the are at rest in the same reference frame and = 0s
T₁ = 14989.6229s in Charlie's Reference frame
Both will accelerate for 14989.6229s, in Charlie's frame.
T₂ = 14989.6229s * 2 in Charlie's Reference frame.

Alice Launches at T₀
Bob Launches at T₀ + 14989.6229s

Answer the following questions as you understand how SR work

What is Alice's proper time when she stops accelerating?
What is Alice's Distance from Bob and Charlie when she stops accelerating in her reference frame?

What is Bob's proper time when he stops accelerating?
What is Bob's Distance from Alice when he stops accelerating in his reference frame.

What you are missing is that Bob and Alice looking at each others clock separated by distance x is while in the same reference frame is not the same as what they would see if one or both then proceeded to accelerate toward the other so they are side by side to compare the 2 clocks.

I'm bet you'll get a bunch of wrong answers because you do not know how to apply SR properly.

[WayneFrancis]

Oh, when I said I accept c as the speed of one way light transfer, I was confirming my belief in the light postulate.

As for the second postulate, no I do not agree.
Further, if you look here, all the major confirmations of SR involve the light postulate and not the relativity postulate.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Top

But, that makes no difference. My twins paradox assumed the truth of the two postulates and proceeded.

My personal views are not the subject of this investigation because again, I assumed the truth of both postulates and proceeded.

So, my twins paradox is not an issue of my lack of understanding or belief system, it is a matter that when you assume the truth of SR, it contradicts itself when answering which twins is younger.

Therefore, LT cannot be assumed to successfully translate time frame to frame since SR failed to provide a consistent answer to the twins age.
But, the twins have the correct answer and so a correct answer exists.

It is just SR does not.

Get this through your head. Until you bring the twins back together in the same frame you are going to have different observers in different reference frames saying they are different ages because there is no universal "NOW" that you can ask all observers "Hey what age are the 2 twins now?"

What SR will do is give you the calculations so you can predict their ages if they did return to you if you know what went on since they left you until they come back to you.

[WayneFrancis]

I want to say this.

I get the argument, well now abcdefg no one agrees with you.
Interesting.

Yet, when I was on other ATM threads, I was instructed to not agree with the ATM position.
I was instructed to ask questions

So, if it is the case that no mainstream folks can agree with ATM logic, then how can it be otherwise that anyone would do anything but disagree?
Therefore, because of the rules, this is a baseless and useless argument.

Mainstream folks should be allowed to agree with ATM on points if they choose.

Otherwise, we create a false impression of disagreement when in fact it may be very limited.

Logic would certainly indicate we would not want to do that, if, we are in pursuit of the truth.

Ok you are not getting this or deliberately muddling the waters. Name everyone that has posted in this thread that has said they agree with you.

There is no rule about not being able to agree with a ATM thread. The whole purpose isn't to shoot down ideas but to critically analyse them. Ie an idea could be ATM but still 100% correct in which case no one would be able to disagree with it. They could ask questions but at the end of the day if the idea is correct then it is fine for people to post "Yes, I agree with this math/logic/postulate"

What you say in that post is a straw man. There is no conspiracy to have everyone gang up against an ATM poster. It just happens that most ATM posts are not fully thought through and the original poster doesn't account for everything.

Like you not understanding that there is no universal "NOW" that you can apply to different observers in different frames separated by different distances.

If you can begin to understand that then you should see where your whole idea is faulty and that SR, in fact, does produce the correct answers.

[WayneFrancis]

Internal, external, it doesn't matter. The question is "when" does a twin's clock read a certain time. According to the twin, it is whatever it reads "now", "when" the twin looks at their own clock. According to an observer in a different frame at a distance, however, that "when" for the twin happens at some other time. In other words, the twin's "now" and the observer's "now" are not the same thing. Time is relative to the frame of an observer.

Over 700 posts and abcdefg still thinks there is some universal "NOW" that can be used for all observers in all reference frames. SR does exactly what it is supposed to.

If 2 observer separate after synchronising their clocks and by using an agreed upon flight plan then either observer can use SR to calculate when, according to their clock, they should read a certain time on the others clock based. Add in as many other observers into the mix as you want.

Using abcdefg's scenario if I want to send a message to either twin using light then I can accurately predict the age of that twin when they receive the message using SR.

[Ken G]

I already answered your questions and said proceed with your logic. I am OK with it.
What more do you want?

I wanted you to say you agree the experiment will come out as I am claiming, and I did not want you to mention SR because there is no SR in an experiment, SR is a theory. It was important to establish this, because otherwise if an inconsistency emerged, you could have blamed SR rather than the experimental reality. We seem to be OK with the fact that the experiment would indeed come out just as I described.

OK, then what we have is this:
We do an experiment, measure a speed of light and some times, and infer directly from the definition of speed that our firecracker, call it firecracker A, explodes in 3 seconds, and the other firecracker, call it B, explodes in 5 seconds. This holds despite the fact that when the two rockets pass each other, we note the two firecrackers are in an identical state that we normally associate with a firecracker that is going to blow in 3 seconds. What's more, the other rocket, being in exactly the same position as we are except they think we are moving away from them, concludes that firecracker B explodes in 3 seconds, and firecracker A explodes in 5 seconds. We are ready for the second question I posed:
Is there an inconsistency here?

[Fortis]

So, my twins paradox is not an issue of my lack of understanding or belief system, it is a matter that when you assume the truth of SR, it contradicts itself when answering which twins is younger.

Therefore, LT cannot be assumed to successfully translate time frame to frame since SR failed to provide a consistent answer to the twins age.
But, the twins have the correct answer and so a correct answer exists.

It is just SR does not.

O.K. At what time do you compare the age of twin A with that of twin B?

[NorthernBoy]

That would imply that R 101 teaches that the paradox is resolved under the symmetry of acceleration/deceleration and that is false.

OK, I'm late to this party (I've been travelling), but this post above requires a response.

My undergraduate course never "resolved" the twin paradox in any way at all, because there is nothing to be explained there. There is no paradox.

There is nothing to be explained, and so it was simply never mentioned.

Similarly, we did not get the area of a square explained to us, or how to go to the bathroom.

[worzel]

abcdefg, instinctively I want to refute just about every sentence you wrote in reply to me, but nothing new will be said so we are just going round in circles.. As KenG has really zeroed in what the problem is I'm going to bow out and watch your exchange with him for now.

[abcdefg]

Internal, external, it doesn't matter. The question is "when" does a twin's clock read a certain time. According to the twin, it is whatever it reads "now", "when" the twin looks at their own clock. According to an observer in a different frame at a distance, however, that "when" for the twin happens at some other time. In other words, the twin's "now" and the observer's "now" are not the same thing. Time is relative to the frame of an observer.

No it really is not when.

The twin's synced their clocks at the beginning of the experiment.

At completion, they sync again.
The only goal is to determine the elapsed time differential between the two.
Sure, the distance may cause the sync to take a while, but they are in the same frame and so any additional elapsed time will be equal for the twins.
Since we are looking for time elapsed differentials, then that equal additional elapsed time for the twins clock sync will not affect the differential, if it exists.

Therefore, this distance between the twins does not affect the outcome of determining the elapsed time differential between the two.

[zerocold]

If someone could at least post a link with the reference of the idea that to compare both twins, both must be exactly at the same location?

I must accept, that while it is the conventional comparation for the twin paradox, it could not ,probably ,be a must to compare the elapsed time

A bit better elaboration on this would be interesting, abcde your experiment can't be modified for such requirement?

[abcdefg]

I want to say this before I answer your questions.

It is clear to me everyone is making the same basic argument against this twins paradox.

All are making some form of an R of S argument. You are all basically saying when it comes to light/events, two or more frames will naturally reach different conclusions for two light flashes.

More specifically, it is impossible to know absolute simultaneity. In fact, if is impossible to know the ordinality of two flashes in any sense. That means you cannot decide whether one is before the other, at the same time or after the other.

So, you then conclude C and D should resolve to different conclusions regarding of the twins as a consequence of R of S under SR.

Here is the problem with that argument. Unlike R of S, we do have an answer. The twins sync and know the answer. Unlike with R of S where it is impossible to establish the ordinality the two flashes, the twins are able to decide the ordinality of their ages. So, this is different.

This means the ordinality of the ages of the twins is decidable under SR. Again, the twins know the answer with the clock sync.

But, SR contradicts itself from other calculations on this decidable twins age ordinality.

Put simply, SR has a problem within its domain that is decidable on one hand and not decidable on another.

For those of you into mathematical logic, this means the theory is inconsistent.

[WayneFrancis]

abcdefg, please answer the questions I've asked in post 737

[abcdefg]

abcdefg, please answer the questions I've asked in post 737

I'll answer all questions. I am looking them over.

If you look, there is quite a few of them.

[WayneFrancis]

I want to say this before I answer your questions.

It is clear to me everyone is making the same basic argument against this twins paradox.

All are making some form of an R of S argument. You are all basically saying when it comes to light/events, two or more frames will naturally reach different conclusions for two light flashes.

More specifically, it is impossible to know absolute simultaneity. In fact, if is impossible to know the ordinality of two flashes in any sense. That means you cannot decide whether one is before the other, at the same time or after the other.

So, you then conclude C and D should resolve to different conclusions regarding of the twins as a consequence of R of S under SR.

Here is the problem with that argument. Unlike R of S, we do have an answer. The twins sync and know the answer. Unlike with R of S where it is impossible to establish the ordinality the two flashes, the twins are able to decide the ordinality of their ages. So, this is different.

This means the ordinality of the ages of the twins is decidable under SR. Again, the twins know the answer with the clock sync.

But, SR contradicts itself from other calculations on this decidable twins age ordinality.

Put simply, SR has a problem within its domain that is decidable on one hand and not decidable on another.

For those of you into mathematical logic, this means the theory is inconsistent.

It is clear to me that you don't know how to apply the math of SR properly thus you think your incomplete math shows an inconsistency with SR but in actuality it only shows your lack of understanding of SR