Re: The real twin paradox.

"paparios@xxxxxxxxx" <paparios@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:b4955e4e-63a4-4b86-bbe3-c4c661540c97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 30 nov, 06:36, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
colp <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:

That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one
coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other
coordinate systems. An example of the is clock synchronisation for
GPS sattelites.

But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent'
under certain sets of circumstances.

Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the
logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'.

The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither
remarkable nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity.

It is only indicative of a lack of understanding.

I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole.
The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than
the pole.

Paradox?

Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light
traveling in 'straight lines'.

Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? Only to those ignorant of
the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through
time-space.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an infinite set.

bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

While totally agreeing with your comments, I would also indicate that,
in many cases, those misunderstandings of SR and/or GR are mostly due
to poor or incomplete explanations from people who are assumed to know
the stuff.
For instance, when we say that time dilation or length compression is
seen from the point of view of an observer at rest (a kind of
perspective "illusion"), the logical question arises to whether this
view is or not "real" for the moving observer, thus producing more
confusion. Indeed, we add more confusion by indicating that the moving
observer will see nothing of this during the trip (he will not notice
this time dilation or length compression on himself).
Of course, the traveling twin (in my example going at v=0.6c) is
watching his surroundings and when he reaches his destination (for
instance a star at 6 light years) he will notice less time has passed
than the one calculated according to the rocket speed (8 years
according to his clock instead of 10 years) and so verifying the time
dilation experienced.
So regarding the twin paradox, while indicating that there is no
paradox at all, we should emphasize that the final result is as real
as it gets, and so the traveling twin is really younger than his
brother when he returns to Earth, the strange result not being just a
matter of perspective or geometry.

well said.

You might enjoy this article I found today. It seems apt.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/Galileans.html





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages