Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 28 Nov 2007 13:44:41 -0800
colp says...
On Nov 29, 3:54 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
colp says...
And while he uses as reference the wiki page on time dilation (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), the following page in the same
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox) explains in detail
the twin paradox
You are supporting my original argument by quoting that page. The
specific example on that page uses the same formula and methodology as
I used when I showed Dirk's error in the OP.
That page explains in many different ways why the twin paradox
is *not* a paradox, why it's perfectly consistent.
Only in terms of asymmetry due to accleration.
When there is no asymmetry, the proper times for both
twins are the *same*.
The point is that if I am using delta t = gamma delta t0 incorrectly
You are using it incorrectly.
(in my example in the OP) then the Wiki example is also using it
incorrectly.
No, they aren't. The Wiki example, as you noticed, is about
a case in which one of the twins remains *inertial*. In that
case, you can talk about time dilation for that twin's inertial
coordinate system. If *both* twins are accelerating, then you
*can't* use the simple time dilation formula.
As I have explained before, time dilation is a relationship
between *one* clock and an *inertial* coordinate system.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- References:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is It Worth Asking Real Questions Here?
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|