Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill <cosmosco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:20:31 -0700
On Jul 19, 6:42 pm, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"bill" <cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1184810766.298641.95760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 18, 2:57 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
So I take it that nobody openly supports the idea that the earth bound
twin physically ages at a faster rate than the traveler and that this
only occurs during acceleration following turn around?
Can we stick to the topic as to whether or not the stay at home
physically ages at the faster rate during turn around rather than
introduce mind games? Keep things as simple as possible.
A similar thing happens in the twin paradox. While
the two twins are traveling inertially at constant
velocity, each twin can consider himself to be "at rest"
Although the traveler considers himself to be 'at rest' he has
experienced the force of acceleration as he blasted away from the
planet and now sees the universe rushing past him so it is a purely
solipsist, philosophical attitude on his behalf for him to consider
himself to *be* at rest.
When
the two twins get back together, one twin will have
aged more than the other. In Special Relativity,
the twin that took the inertial (constant velocity)
path ages the most.
So you apparently agree with the decade old posting that the stay at
home twin physically ages at the faster rate ('ages the most') rather
than it is the traveler who ages at the slower rate.
Could you explain what the difference is between those two
scenarios? How could we tell?
The difference is that according to the original posting the stay at
home physically ages at the faster rate and although as you correctly
point out there is no way that we can tell which twin physically aged
at the different rate - from the traveler's point of view the earth
could be orbiting the sun at close to the speed of light then at the
very instant that he takes his foot off the gas pedal that orbital
velocity instantly changes from close to 300,000K-s to 30K-s.
In your opinion - does the traveler *really* believe that this
*physically* takes place?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with what *we*, as stay at home
observers observers, think but what is claimed the *traveler*
determines is reality.
What we can tell is that, when the two twins meet up, the travelling
twin has aged less than the earthbound twin.
One could argue that inertial clocks run as quickly as possible
and that the best way of describing what has happened is
to say that the non-inertial (travelling) twin's clock has been
slowed down.
--
Martin Hogbin
Other than what one 'could argue' I fully agree with those comments
but I cannot agree, as expressed above, that the stay at home
*physically* ages at the faster rate thus that the traveler could
obliterate all life on earth by taking his foot off the gas pedal.
The fact that the traveler finds on his return that everything is
'normal' back here - that life continues - should indicate to him that
the earth had *not* been orbiting the sun at near light speed, that
what he saw or determined was nothing more than a visual illusion
generated by his rate of travel.
Bill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- References:
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: cosmosco
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- Prev by Date: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by Date: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Previous by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|