Re: This is confusing - can someone explain?
- From: "OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:46:51 +0100
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:178533hj17fjk6cilmch8qupapd3m24bmp@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:33:36 +0100, OG <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hjsb85@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I read (and learned in school) about time dilation and the twins
paradox - that is if you have one twin stay on Earth and the other fly
in a spaceship at relativistic speeds, the one on Earth will be older
when the spacebound twin returns. Did I get that right?
Now, can it be said that the Earth and the Universe itself is moving
at relativistic speeds in relation to the ship? If so, which twin will
get older? If seen from the ship, the twin on Earth was moving away at
relativistic speeds. If seen from the Earth, the twin in the ship was
moving away at relativistic speeds. Shouldn't the same effect
apply...? Because in the ship's frame of reference, the Universe was
moving.
Argh, this is so confusing.
What you have to be careful about is that there are two clocks here. One
is on the Earth and the other is on the spaceship.
Now - the twins started in the same place.
But only one of them gets accelerated until she is moving at
relativistic speed;she then gets accelerated again so that she canreturn
home.
The other twin has stayed living on the earth unaware of any particular
acceleration other than that of the sun on the earth in its orbit.
The fact that one twin gets accelerated (twice) and the other doesn't,
means that there isn't the equivalence between the two frames of
reference that causes the confusion.
You're telling little fibs again OG.
Apparently knowing more than you about physics does not make me a fibber.
Clocks don't change their absolute rates when you move them.
What changes is the clock rate that different observers see when the
observer and the clock are moving relative to each other.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Light Sources Simultaneously in Multiple Frames of Reference
- Next by Date: Re: How to prove or disprove GR in a nutshell.
- Previous by thread: Re: This is confusing - can someone explain?
- Next by thread: Re: Evidence against emission theories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
