Re: The real real twin paradox.

On Nov 30, 7:04 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp wrote:
Daryl McCullough
wrote:
colp says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:
Right, but the time dilation formula is only valid if you stick to
*ONE* inertial coordinate system. Mixing the results from two *DIFFERENT*
inertial coordinate system is nonsense, and you get nonsensical
results.
You don't need to mix the the results to show a paradox.
So why don't you pick a single inertial frame, and show
that it leads to a paradox?

Because paradoxes are not limited to observations made from single
inertial frames.

You keep changing your story.

First we showed you were wrong on what SR says because you forgot
to account for the change of frames.

Wrong. SR has nothing to say about what happens when frames change.

Special relativity (SR) (aka the special theory of relativity) is the
physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference
proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article "On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Then you changed it:

Relativity of simultaneity is not relevant because the paradox
can be demonstrated from a single frame of reference (the
outgoing leg) which has spatial and tempoaral symmetry with
the inbound leg.
Message-ID:
a28782bb-0721-4972-95e7-4f266b581...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


That is not a change from my position that paradoxes are not limited
to observations made from single inertial frames.

Various people showed you wrong on that too.

Really? How come you didn't quote me like you did for your previous
claim?

Now you're back to
your mistake about change of frames.

What mistake? I said that the observation of time compression is
necessary to resolve the paradox and that SR does not describe time
compression.


The paradox is based on what happens when an observer changes inertial
frames.

The paradox is based on your own silly theory, where relativity
has the facts consistent and, experiments indicate, correct.

False. The paradox is based on the application of SR to the example in
the OP.


All three frames agree on the answer. Why are you
claiming that there is a contradiction?

Because contradictions can arise when observers move between frames.
In your examples the observer is not a twin, but someone who observes
the events from within a single frame.

If you do not account for what relativity says happens when you
change frames, then you get a contradiction.

So what does relativity say happens when you change frames?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paradox of Zeno.
    ... double-think that relativistic particle physicists use to make their ... Zeno's paradox is easily solved by application of basic calculus ... relativity theory is riddled with apparent paradoxes if you ... Measurements in all these frames are equally valid, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... Or follow the proper rules when changing frames. ... The pole looks taller than the mountain. ... It IS a *paradox* just as surely as the missing ... screws into place when there is a perfectly good screw driver sitting right ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: In Special Relativity, Velocity is not always Relative.
    ... one must conclude that the paradox of the ... simple Special Relativity problem. ... , and twin B, in two new inertial ... frames, moves to a distant point and returns. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... Or follow the proper rules when changing frames. ... The pole looks taller than the mountain. ... Not a paradox. ... screws into place when there is a perfectly good screw driver sitting right ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... Paradox insted of Problem, but it is not a paradox. ... principle of relativity. ... both frames have the same laws of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)