Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:27:55 GMT
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:01 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Another argument I forgot is in GR: one can construct a twin scenario
using two twins that move inertially (e.g. one circular orbit around a
planet, one highly elliptical orbit in the same plane, timed so that
they periodically meet). Neither twin accelerates at all yet the elapsed
proper time between meetings can be different.
That's a good scenerio, but Tom you've made
a minor mistake. The clocks need to be sync'd
at relative rest, like both in a circular
orbit nearby.
Not true. All that is required is that each "twin" keep track of his OWN elapsed proper time between meetings. Clearly no clock synchronization is required for that. Then the values are compared afterwards.
Then one fires his thrusters
to go into an elliptical orbit, such that
the circular orbit radius is still perigee,
(that's a common manuveur).
I'm hoping to find an easy proof that the
thrusted clock's time will accumulate lag.
See what I wrote above. This is plain and simply not true.
Even in your scenario, the thrusting happens once, but once established in their respective orbits, the two twins can compare elapsed proper times between meetings for any number of orbits, so the one-time thrust cannot possibly explain all of the differences. IOW: after the first orbit this scenario is the same as mine.
Tom Roberts
.
- References:
- A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Alen
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: RP
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- Prev by Date: Re: A simple lightspeed experiment by single GPS horizon skimming.
- Next by Date: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Previous by thread: Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- Next by thread: Re: A New Solution to the Twins Paradox, and Others
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|