Re: Twin Paradox Question

Sue... wrote:
> Russell wrote:
> > Sue... wrote:
> > > Russell wrote:
> > > > Sue... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Well? You stood me up. Some possibilities:
> > > > > >
> > > > > <non physical possibilities snipped>
> > > >
> > > > Then I guess you didn't understand possibility #1, which accurately
> > > > describes what just happened here.
> > >
> > > Noether's theroem tells you what time is.
> > > Then you can go complile a list of corrections for for your FAQ.
> >
> > That's not a response. I asked you why you said I defeated
> > my own argument,
>
> I probably said that because you defeated your own argument.
> Scroll back and see.
>
> I recall you saying something like both twins would
> count the same orbits by simple doppler.

That was your original claim (that started this whole exchange)
and I *agree* with it. That *is* the prediction of SR. (Assuming
that you don't mean something unusual by "simple doppler".)

The so-called "self defeat" stuff came later, and what you wrote
then was something incoherent about planet A and planet B each
celebrating twice as many birthdays as the other and so <wave
hands here> the total number of birthdays was the same. I said
that that was not SR, and it is not. I asked you to read the FAQ
(assuming you preferred that to doing an actual calculation) and
to comment on it, and you said you would. I am still waiting.

>
> If I misunderstood, then accept my appologies.

I would much rather see some insight from you than an apology.

.

Relevant Pages