Re: O'Barr & Jupiter's revolving moons

Daniel Weston:
>O'Barr made an interesting comment to the effect that both twins counted
>the same number of rotations of Jupiter's moons. Is this statement
>correct? I think it is.

Sure, and that sort of question has been asked and answered a
number of times before, so o'barf is not telling anyone anything new.

>We now have what strikes me as a bizarre situation. At the reunion
>their wrist watches disagree as to the elapsed time, but they both agree
>as to the equal elapsed time when calculated in terms of
>Jupiter's moons. Is there a simple explanation for this apparent
>paradox?

Sure, and if you think about it, the answer should present itself.
If the twins' elapsed times differ and both count the same number of
rotations, what do you have left that will resolve the paradox?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr & Jupiters revolving moons
    ... the same number of rotations of Jupiter's moons. ... their wrist watches disagree as to the elapsed time, ... Is there a simple explanation for this apparent ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr & Jupiters revolving moons
    ... > the same number of rotations of Jupiter's moons. ... > their wrist watches disagree as to the elapsed time, ... There is no conceptual ifference between that clock ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Tag-team orbits and tidal locking
    ... > two really big moons in a tag-team orbit... ... apply to the co-orbital moons already known, ... they have synchronous rotations (I assume ... bodies are at the "mean distance". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
Quantcast