The correct explanation for the twin paradox

1 tjrob137 The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 14 July 2017
2 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Saturday 15 July 2017
3 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Wednesday 19 July 2017
4 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
5 rotchm Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
6 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
7 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
8 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
9 Ustin Veterre Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
10 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 20 July 2017
11 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 21 July 2017
12 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 21 July 2017
13 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 21 July 2017
14 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Saturday 22 July 2017
15 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Sunday 23 July 2017
16 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Sunday 23 July 2017
17 kenseto Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Sunday 23 July 2017
18 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Sunday 23 July 2017
19 Michael Moroney Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Sunday 23 July 2017
20 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Monday 24 July 2017
21 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Monday 24 July 2017
22 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Monday 24 July 2017
23 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Monday 24 July 2017
24 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Wednesday 26 July 2017
25 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Wednesday 26 July 2017
26 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 27 July 2017
27 tjrob137 Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 27 July 2017
28 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 27 July 2017
29 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 27 July 2017
30 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 27 July 2017
31 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
32 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
33 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
34 The Starmaker Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
35 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
36 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 28 July 2017
37 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Saturday 29 July 2017
38 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Saturday 29 July 2017
39 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Saturday 29 July 2017
40 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Wednesday 2 August 2017
41 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Wednesday 2 August 2017
42 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 3 August 2017
43 Npierre Imaux Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 3 August 2017
44 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 3 August 2017
45 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 3 August 2017
46 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Thursday 3 August 2017
47 Nicolaas Vroom Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 4 August 2017
48 Paparios Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 4 August 2017
49 mlwo...@wp.pl Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 4 August 2017
50 Otten Schneijders Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 4 August 2017
51 Otten Schneijders Re :The correct explanation for the twin paradox Friday 4 August 2017

The correct explanation for the twin paradox
230 posts by 24 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/R98bdh4PsvQ[26-50


1 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Friday 14 July 2017
On 7/14/17 7/14/17 - 4:28 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> For the nth time: two spaceships pass each other in space, containing twins and flying on the same plane but in opposite directions.

A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A.

This is JUST NOT TRUE. Assuming they are identical clocks, A's clock runs at EXACTLY THE SAME RATE as B's clock.

This is as much an error in English phrasing as it is in the physics. It is wrong at both levels.
But it is true that when two observers use the usual method of measuring a clock moving relative to their own inertial frame, A will MEASURE B's clock to run slower than her own, and B will MEASURE A's clock to run slower than her own. These are, of course, quite different measurements, and there is no inconsistency here.
In YOUR phrasing above there is an inconsistency. When you say "A's clock runs slower than B", your words compare the INTRINSIC RATES of their clocks, and since the clocks are identical, so are their intrinsic rates. In order to make a correct statement, you MUST mention who is doing the measuring.
This is an aspect of SR that so many people around here get wrong, causing great confusion.
Yes, many elementary books on SR, and most ancient texts also get it wrong. If a book says "moving clocks run slow", discard it and get a better book. I recommend:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
Tom Roberts


2 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Saturday 15 July 2017
On 7/15/17 7/15/17 4:09 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Apparently there is a lots of confusions in the relativity camp.

Not among physicists, who UNDERSTAND relativity. Only among fools and idiots who DON'T understand it but insist in attempting to write about it nevertheless.

But it is true that many popular writers, and most ancient writers, use verbal shortcuts to get the main point across while being technically wrong. Such as "moving clocks run slow" -- this is WRONG, but if you have seen how many words I have to use to set the record straight, you can appreciate why popular authors take the shortcut (even though it is wrong).

Tom Roberts


3 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Wednesday 19 July 2017
On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it?

It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow between their meetings. For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin followed has less elapsed proper time.

"Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it is a different geometrical property related to the projection of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame that is measuring it.

Tom Roberts


4 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it?
>

It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow between their meetings. For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin followed has less elapsed proper time.

The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome of a certain experiment: Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. Observer A is considered to stay at home. Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come?

The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation.

Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers?

IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of the clock relatif to the speed of light.

> "Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it is a different geometrical property related to the projection of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame that is measuring it.

The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this question and putting it a different coat) The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like)

Nicolaas Vroom


5 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: rotchm
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome of a certain experiment:... When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come?

"How come" as in "cause" is not part of physics but of metaphysics. No matter the "cause", it wont change the prediction of the model; it wont change the math of SR.

> The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation.

And physicist answered that a long time ago: Physics has no explanation; such a concept does not apply; its the prediction of the model, to "pop out value" that matters.

> IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity).

Perhaps. But such metaphysical concepts are not necessary, so why carry them around? Thats why the modern philosophy is to remove such concepts from physics, since it wont change the models (the equations, the predicted results).

> The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of the moving twin runs behind.

NO. Perhaps *you* would like such a dynamical view or understanding, but physicist moved past that and realized that such views become obsolete and unnecessary.

> The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like)

SR-compute. Conclusion: As the twins reunite, its the non inertial twin's value that is less than the other twin (& by the gamma factor).


6 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 8:37:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it?
> >

It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow between their meetings. For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin followed has less elapsed proper time.

>

The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome of a certain experiment: Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. Observer A is considered to stay at home. Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come?

No matter how many times this is explained to people like you in this group, you do not understand.

Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. While the odometers (ie the clocks) are both measuring miles (ie seconds), due to the different routes (ie spacetime path) the trip accumulated distance in miles of each odometer (ie clock) is different.

> The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation.

Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers?

IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of the clock relatif to the speed of light.

nonsense.


7 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 8:37:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow between their meetings. For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin followed has less elapsed proper time.
> >

The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome of a certain experiment: Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. Observer A is considered to stay at home. Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come?

>

No matter how many times this is explained to people like you in this group, you do not understand.

What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. For me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. With the aid of different experiments I try to understand.

What is wrong with that?

> Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. While the odometers (ie the clocks) are both measuring miles (ie seconds), due to the different routes (ie spacetime path) the trip accumulated distance in miles of each odometer (ie clock) is different.

My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odometer IMO they cannot be used to measure time.
As such when you go from A to B using different routes I expect the odometer will indicate different distances. What is your point?

> > The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation.

Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers?

IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of the clock relatif to the speed of light.

>

nonsense.

Why nonsense?
Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices It's all about physics

Nicolaas Vroom


8 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
Translate message into English Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>

On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this question and putting it a different coat)
The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like)

Nicolaas Vroom

At what point in time does the clock run faster? Is it one second after the traveling twin moves?

Is it one minute after the traveling twin moves?
Is it one hour after the traveling twin moves?
Is it one day after the traveling twin moves?

At what point in time does the clock run faster?


9 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Ustin Veterre
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. For me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. With the aid of different experiments I try to understand.

What is wrong with that?

Which one. You didn't say anything at all.


10 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Thursday 20 July 2017
You clearly demonstrate that you do not know what an analogy is, and for that you are unable to understand the reason the twin paradox is not a paradox.

I will put the explanation without "odometers", but for sure you will not understand.

a)Both clocks (of the stay at home (point A) and the traveller twins) are accurate clocks (may be atomic clocks).
b)When the traveller departs and travels at a speed v c)the traveller twin clock follows a path through spacetime, which it turns out is shorter than the path through spacetime the stay at home twin followed. Yes, even if the stay at home twin did not move or travel, its time coordinate changed. Yes, the traveller twin path through spacetime changed all of the coordinates (x,y,z and t).
d)From the above, the accumulated time(the sum of ticks) of the traveling clock is then LESS than the accumulated time of the stay at home twin.

Why is traveller’s proper time shorter than that of the stay at home twin? the answer is the particular structure of the relativistic spacetime that is responsible for the difference of accumulated or proper times. Let us see why.
In classical mechanics and ordinary space, the Pythagorean theorem indicates that z^2 = x^2 + y^2, as in any right-angled triangle, which implies that z < x + y.
But Special Relativity requires the introduction of a four-dimensional geometrical structure, the Poincaré-Minkowski space-time, which couples space and time through the speed of light.
The Pythagorean theorem becomes s^2 = x^2 – c^2t^2, and a straightforward algebraic manipulation allows us to deduce that s is always longer than x + ct. As said previously, s measures the proper time. In Poincaré-Minkowski geometry, the worldlines of inertially moving bodies maximize the proper time elapsed between two events.


11 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Friday 21 July 2017
On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. The usual twin paradox with instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one.

Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed.

Tom Roberts


12 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Friday 21 July 2017
El viernes, 21 de julio de 2017, 4:57:47 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 22:45:17 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 14:50:06 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odometer IMO they cannot be used to measure time. As such when you go from A to B using different routes I expect the odometer will indicate different distances. What is your point?
> >

You clearly demonstrate that you do not know what an analogy is, and for that you are unable to understand the reason the twin paradox is not a paradox.

>

Why do we need an analogy to explain the twin paradox i.e. to explain the behaviour of clocks?

Because the car analogy serves to explain why, in the twin gedanken, identical clocks which follow different paths when reunited show different readings.

> > I will put the explanation without "odometers", but for sure you will not understand.
>

If your explanation is solely based on experiments you have a high chance that I will understand. If your explanation is solely based on mathematics you have a low chance that I will understand except the logic inherent in mathematics.

Actually, first the explanation is geometrical and secondly a multitude of physical experiments and observations confirm the geometry of the spacetime.

> > c)the traveller twin clock follows a path through spacetime, which it turns out is shorter than the path through spacetime the stay at home twin followed. Yes, even if the stay at home twin did not move or travel, its time coordinate changed. Yes, the traveller twin path through spacetime changed all of the coordinates (x,y,z and t).
>

IMO when I travel then I travel through space in time. You use a concept spacetime but that is someting that physical does not exist. i.e it is a mathematical concept based on complex numbers. s = x + ivt or s = l + ivt with v = c and constant. l = a vector

For sure spacetime is a model created by our thougths. Nature itself appears to use not mathematics nor geometry. We do not really know how and why Nature does this and that.

Copernicus thought of a model in which the Sun is at the center of a circle where the Earth is orbiting the Sun. This is a geometrical 2D model which you can say it appears to agree with our senses of the situation (also thoughts).

Spacetime is another geometrical model extending the previous one by using the time coordinate. The orbit would be now a 3D geometrical model, where the Earth orbit now follows an Helix path through spacetime, while the Sun follows a straight line. For sure you would agree this is a model as physical as the Copernican one. Note that no mathematics (real or complex) are needed up until now.

For sure also you can add coordinates (dimensions) to your models and that does not make them less physical the the Copernican one.

> > d)From the above, the accumulated time(the sum of ticks) of the traveling clock is then LESS than the accumulated time of the stay at home twin.
>

All of that is mathematical correct but how do you demonstrate that this is true.

You can't demonstrate the true or the wrongness of a model. What you can do is to perform experiments which can verify or falsify the model. Verifying a model does not proof the model is correct. Falsifying a model implies the model has to be revised. So since SR and GR models were proposed, thousands of experiments have been and are being carried out to verify or falsify the validity of SR and GR.


13 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Friday 21 July 2017
- hide quoted text - The Starmaker wrote:
>

Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> >

The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this question and putting it a different coat) The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like)

Nicolaas Vroom

>

At what point in time does the clock run faster? Is it one second after the traveling twin moves?

Is it one minute after the traveling twin moves? Is it one hour after the traveling twin moves? Is it one day after the traveling twin moves?

At what point in time does the clock run faster?

In other words, 'when' does the clock run faster? Are both clocks the same time two days later after the traveling twin?
How about a week later? Are the clocks still the same?? Or, are the clocks differnt times the moment the traveling twin ...travels?
When does it speed up or slow down??? A year later? A second later?
Or, ....whenever it feels like it.
No one can answer this question cause...no one knows.
I guess you gotta stop making 'thought experements' and measure it in the real world.


14 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Saturday 22 July 2017
On 7/21/17 7/21/17 1:47 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> It appears a big problem many have with the traveling twin problem is that people don't understand the idea of time flowing at different rates. [...]

That's not the real problem. The real problem is that time does NOT "flow at different rates" [#], and yet when the twins rejoin they are different ages.

[#] That is, for a traveling twin who experiences gentle accelerations that she survives, within her spaceship time always flows as she is accustomed to -- she can measure any time-dependent physical process inside her spaceship and MEASURE that time flows as usual (e.g. measuring the frequencies of atomic lines; the lifetimes of metastable states, etc.). Indeed, after accounting for the acceleration from her spaceship's thrust, she can use ALL of the physics textbooks and reference materials we use today, WITHOUT CHANGE (except for the difference in gravity).
The difference between the twins' ages is PURE GEOMETRY, but of a sort that most people have never experienced. It is measurable because clocks measure the elapsed proper time along their trajectory though spacetime -- different trajectories between a given pair of events (departure, reunion) can have different elapsed proper times (aka ages).

With the analogy:

clock -> odometer time -> distance
it is quite clear that odometers traversing different paths between a given pair of points can display different distances. The difference between the analogy and the twin paradox is that automobile odometers clearly have a direct coupling to the road on which they travel, while clocks have no such coupling. But consider a new type of odometer that measures distance without any such coupling, and can measure distance in the vacuum of deep space -- it's clear that it is still true that odometers traversing different paths can display different distances. Well, a clock is like that new odometer, except it displays time instead of distance, without any "coupling" to anything.

Tom Roberts


15 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Sunday 23 July 2017
On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?
>

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY.

okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. This implies that the second car drives the fastest. Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading?

> The usual twin paradox with instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one.

This implies (if my understanding is correct) that the second clock should show less elapsed proper time. In simple terminology; the second clocks runs behind

> Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed.
Okay
> Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed.
Here we have a problem. What do you mean?

To solve the issue "how clocks perform" we have to made two (4) assumptions:
1) We agree that every where, the universe, at this moment has the same time after the Big Bang. This implies that the Universe has everywhere the same age.
2) We agree that every where in the universe at this moment, all events that can be be indentified, are simultaneous events. 3) As such we also agree that a self centered view of the Universe (of what I see and observe) is irrelevent.
4) As such it is our responsible to define a clock which shows the age of the Universe.

The problem is that an odometer is not very helpfull in this exercise, which as far as I understand can only be used to measure distances here on earth (?) and not in space.
When you want to study the twin "paradox" different identical clocks with different speeds are used. Different speeds require accelerations and these accelerations change the performs of the clocks. At the pages 26 and 27 in the book GRAVITATION the concept "good" and "bad" clocks is introduced. "Bad" clocks undergo accelerations. Accelerations imply different speeds. IMO when you change the speed it is the inner workings of the clock that changes. This is important for a clock which uses lightsignals to function, because the speed of light does not change. The result is that the usual clock rate changes. The most important lesson is "not" to use clocks with different speeds when you want to unravel the laws of nature.

A very interesting article to study is this: http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273

Nicolaas Vroom


16 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Sunday 23 July 2017
El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?
> >

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY.

> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
> Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. This implies that the second car drives the fastest. Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading?

That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances.

The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks themselves but to the different paths through spacetime.


17 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: kenseto
Datum: Sunday 23 July 2017
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?
> >

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY.

> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
> Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odd meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles.

With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. This means that the odometer analogy is useless.


18 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Sunday 23 July 2017
wat kind of clock was einstein using in his twin paradox thought experiment, a "good" clock or a "bad" clock?


19 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Michael Moroney
Datum: Sunday 23 July 2017
kenseto writes:

> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?
>> >

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY.

>> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

>> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
>> Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odometer will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles.

> With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. This means that the odometer analogy is useless.

Stupid Ken, nowhere in this party of the analogy were clocks mentioned. He is discussing how you can make different trips from Chicago to New York, and by doing so, you get different distance measurements by the odometers. Odometers strictly measure distance, not time, and they are not clocks.


20 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Monday 24 July 2017
What time is it? It's six miles.


21 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Monday 24 July 2017
Translate message into English W dniu niedziela, 23 lipca 2017 14:10:01 UTC+2 uzytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisal:
> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. [...]What is your point?
> >

The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY.

> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
> Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. This implies that the second car drives the fastest. Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading?

Get conscious, man. Have you ever seen 2 clocks with identical readings? The question is not whether clocks have identical indications or not. What matters is: is difference between them "proper" or "erroneous".


22 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Monday 24 July 2017
You can use a "space-time odometer", ..at the tone the time will be 6 and half miles past 3 o'clock.


23 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Monday 24 July 2017
most likely a "bad" clock since einstein doesn't really want to measure the exact time...

but if you combine a light-clock with a space-time odometer..


24 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Wednesday 26 July 2017
On Sunday, 23 July 2017 17:14:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading?
>

That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances.

The change in the odometers come because of the different physical distances travelled.

> The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks themselves but to the different paths through spacetime.

I do not think you need the concept of spacetime to explain this behavior. If you have a clock at "rest" (#) this clock will tick at a constant rate, that means the time between each tick is constant. If after a tick you move the clock the next tick will be later. If you move the clock back the next tick again will be later. From there on the clock will again tick at his original constant rate. (all compared with an identical clock)

The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change.

When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) runs behind or ticks slower.

A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks.

(#) To call a clock at rest is a physical simplification. The whole issue is that if a clock is at rest or not, has no influence physical on the speed of light. The assumption is in order to calculate the speed of light (from A to B) you should use clocks which don't move. All of this becomes simpler if only one reference frame is involved.

See also recent discussion in thread at 26 July: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book

Nicolaas Vroom


25 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Wednesday 26 July 2017
El miércoles, 26 de julio de 2017, 3:27:55 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Sunday, 23 July 2017 17:14:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading?
> >

That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances.

>

The change in the odometers come because of the different physical distances travelled.

> >

The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks themselves but to the different paths through spacetime.

>

I do not think you need the concept of spacetime to explain this behavior. If you have a clock at "rest" (#) this clock will tick at a constant rate, that means the time between each tick is constant. If after a tick you move the clock the next tick will be later. If you move the clock back the next tick again will be later. From there on the clock will again tick at his original constant rate. (all compared with an identical clock)

First, every clock is at rest with respect to itself and with respect to co-moving clocks (relativity is always local, meaning in the vicinity of a spacetime location). That implies that comparison with clocks that are not near is impossible. Say you want to compare your at rest in the Moon clock with your at rest at Earth clock. For that you need to exchange signals, which will take 1.3 seconds (and changing) to reach the other clock. So you will be comparing one current clock reading with the reading of the other clock but from 1.3 seconds before.

What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following:

1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. 2) The Traveling twin, according to his co-moving clock, periodicaly sends a signal to the Earth twin (for instance, "hey today is my birthday"). The Earth twin does the same, that is sends a signal to the traveling twin "hey today is your birthday". The reception of those yearly signals can be compared. (See the second figure in http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html 3) When the twins reunite, they can make the final comparison between their clocks.

> The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change.

Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all.

> When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) runs behind or ticks slower.

First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all (of course within a certain limit (probably over 200g), where the clock box components begin to dissasemble). Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g to reach very high speeds in less than a year (and breaking in less than a year). With that acceleration the traveler twin would be very happy.

> A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks.

SR and GR do predict the correct values for the reading of those clocks.


26 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Thursday 27 July 2017

On 7/20/17 7/20/17 8:37 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like)

[First, as I keep saying, this is NOT ABOUT ONE CLOCK "RUNNING FASTER" THAN THE OTHER -- identical clocks ALWAYS run at identical rates. This is about the total elapsed proper time for each twin between their separation and reunion.]

Given that the home twin remains at rest in an inertial frame the answer is clear: NO.

Proof: Use the usual coordinates in the inertial frame of the home twin, denote the separation as happening at time T0, and the reunion at T1. The home twin's clock displays

\integral_T0^T1 dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = T1-T0 (v=0)
The traveling twin's clock displays
\integral_T0^T1 dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) < T1-T0 (0 <= v < c)
[Since the integrand for the traveling twin is always <= 1, and is < 1 for at least part of the journey, the traveling twin's clock displays less elapsed proper time than the home twin's.]

Tom Roberts


27 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: tjrob137
Datum: Thursday 27 July 2017
On 7/23/17 7/23/17 7:09 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>> Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes.
> Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. This implies that the second car drives the fastest.

The ANALOGY is strictly in Euclidean geometry in which there is no time. You are to look ONLY at the values on the odometers. Driving speed is irrelevant.

Tom Roberts


28 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 27 July 2017
Op woensdag 26 juli 2017 16:41:16 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:

> What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following:

1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. 2) The Traveling twin etc. (See the second figure in http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html

What the reader should study is: (Via Paradox selection) http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox.html

The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows:

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2,
ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years.
I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway.

> 3) When the twins reunite, they can make the final comparison between their clocks.
And what will you observe? That the stay at home clock aged 10 years and the moving clock aged 8 years. That is the result of the experiment. How do we explain this?

> > The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change.
>

Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all.

Please study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks

> > When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) runs behind or ticks slower.
>

First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc.

In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality always accelerations are involved. You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base and you can compare clock readings.
Please study this link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm Specific the "Reflection 1" which explains the behaviour of moving clocks. In principle you can have two types of clocks:
1) one in which the lightsignal moves vertical and the mirrors are horizontal.
2) one in which the lightsignal moves horizontal and the mirrors are vertical.
In both clocks the moving clock runs the slowest but at a slightly different rate.
The type one clock is described at page 270 of the book "Was Einstein right" by Glifford M. Will. The result of this clock is in agreement with the same prediction as SR as in Reflection 1.

> > A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks.
>

SR and GR do predict the correct values for the reading of those clocks.

Reflection 1 also shows the same result as SR.

Nicolaas Vroom.


29 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Thursday 27 July 2017
El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 9:28:08 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> Op woensdag 26 juli 2017 16:41:16 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:
> >

What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following:

1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. 2) The Traveling twin etc. (See the second figure in http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html

>

What the reader should study is: (Via Paradox selection) http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox.html

The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows:
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2,
ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years.
I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway.

Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps:

1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years.
2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth).
3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This is an invariant value for both twins.
4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years.
5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years.
6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0.
This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of view, the travel lasted only 4 years.
7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.

> > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all.
>

Please study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks

These optical clock are on research studies and they are not related at all to your misconceptions.

> >

First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc.

>

In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality always accelerations are involved. You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base and you can compare clock readings.

That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate.


30 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Thursday 27 July 2017
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:

> 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years.
2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin,

And from a point of a walking on a street twin, trees and buildings are running around. An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a mistake.

Paparios 27 JUl El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 11:04:59 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió:
> W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:
> >

1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin,

>

And from a point of a walking on a street twin, trees and buildings are running around. An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a mistake.

But, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you are wrong!


31 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:
> > The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2,
ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years.
I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway.
>

Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps:

I do not think the problem is on my side. The reason is the text is not clear

> 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years.
2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth).
3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This is an invariant value for both twins.

Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1.
Starting point is the equation:
c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2
t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r 4t = 5t0
That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest corresponds with 4 ticks (years) of the moving clock.

> 4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years.
5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years.
6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0. This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of view, the travel lasted only 4 years.
7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.

And what is the correct answer?

> > > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all.
> >

Please study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks

>

These optical clock are on research studies and they are not related at all to your misconceptions.

The issue is what happens when you use such a clock to test its behaviour.

> > > First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc.
> >

In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality always accelerations are involved.
You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base and you can compare clock readings.

>

That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate.

What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes. The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame)

The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates this change in behaviour of the two clocks.

Nicolaas Vroom


32 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 22:12:36 UTC+2 schreef mlwo...@wp.pl:
> W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 uzytkownik The Starmaker :
> > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > >

W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 uzytkownik The Starmaker napisal:

> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >

does the twin biological clock move faster or slower?

> > > >

It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used...

> > >

Yes, it does.

> >

When does it go slower?

>

It depends on technical details.

That is correct. It depends both on technical details of the clock self and how the clock is used (at "rest" versus "moving")
An interesting document is:
http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimekeeping.pdf
This document starts with an overview of the evolution of time keeping or clocks. In fact IMO each clock requires different mathematics to describe its behaviour. Page 9 is interesting because it discusses the clock of John Harisson. At page 36 the issues related to SR and GR are discussed.

Nicolaas Vroom.


33 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
Translate message into English El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 9:12:37 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:
> > > The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2,
ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years.
I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway.
> >

Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps:

>

I do not think the problem is on my side. The reason is the text is not clear

> >

1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years.
2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth).
3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This is an invariant value for both twins.

>

Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1. Starting point is the equation:
c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2
t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock
Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r 4t = 5t0
That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest corresponds with 4 ticks (years) of the moving clock.

Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers reading at different distance rates in km/km).
What the interval measures is the total distance along a spacetime world line, which does not depend on the clock ticking (actually we know accurate clocks ticking is not affected by gravitation, ie they tick always at 1 sec/sec).

> > 4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years. 5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years.
6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0. This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of view, the travel lasted only 4 years.
7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.
>

And what is the correct answer?

The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime.

> > > In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality always accelerations are involved.
You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base and you can compare clock readings.
> >

That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate.

>

What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes.

This is your assertion and experiments have proven it is false.

> The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame)

The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates this change in behaviour of the two clocks.

Nicolaas Vroom

No it does not demonstrate anything of the sort.


34 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: The Starmaker
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>

W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 uzytkownik The Starmaker napisal:

> > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >

W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 uzytkownik The Starmaker napisal:

> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >

does the twin biological clock move faster or slower?

> > > >

It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used...

> > >

Yes, poor idiot, it does.

> >

When does it go slower?

>

It depends on technical details.

okay, you don't want to pick a clock, pick a "technical detail".. - show quoted text -


35 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2017 17:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:
> El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 9:12:37 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> > Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1. Starting point is the equation:
c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2 t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2
or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r 4t = 5t0. That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest corresponds with 4 ticks (years) of the moving clock.
>

Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers reading at different distance rates in km/km).

The twin scenario (horrible description, it is more about clock comparison under different conditions) is all about clock ticks. See: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years.

> > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.
> >

And what is the correct answer?

>

The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime.

You invented a new answer.
The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one.

> > What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes.
>

This is your assertion and experiments have proven it is false.

IMO most experiments try to stay away from accelerations, because it makes the whole situation much more complex.

> > The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame)

The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates this change in behaviour of the two clocks.

>

No it does not demonstrate anything of the sort.

IMO if after an experiment the readings of their clocks are different than in some way or another the behaviour (internal operation) has changed.

This has all to do with clock accuracy.

See: http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimekeeping.pdf specific the pages 36 etc.

Nicolaas Vroom


36 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Friday 28 July 2017
El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> Op vrijdag 28 juli 2017 17:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Paparios:

> >

Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers reading at different distance rates in km/km).

>

The twin scenario (horrible description, it is more about clock comparison under different conditions) is all about clock ticks. See: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years.

You are so much confused about what a comparison means:

1) One clock (the traveling clock) travels far away at a high speed and after a while it returns to Earth to reunite with its staying at Earth twin clock.
2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking faster or slower than the other. Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken.
3) The clock comparison is related to the reading shown on each clock, where the Earth clock shows 10 years have passed by, while the traveling clock shows
8 years have passed by. This is the accumulated time on each of the clocks (similarly to the accumulated distance shown by the odometers) followed through each clock path through spacetime.

> > > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.
> > >

And what is the correct answer?

> >

The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime.

>

You invented a new answer. The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one.

Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime. So your conclusion above is total nonsense. When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.


37 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Saturday 29 July 2017
W dniu piatek, 28 lipca 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:

> 1) One clock (the traveling clock) travels far away at a high speed and after a while it returns to Earth to reunite with its staying at Earth twin clock.
2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock.

Of course. We can check it practically at GPS. One of the clocks ticks faster, but they keep the same time - againt the moronic prophecies of your idiot guru.


38 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Saturday 29 July 2017
On Friday, 28 July 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years.
>

You are so much confused about what a comparison means:

Sorry, I try to understand.

> 2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking faster or slower than the other.
Correct. That describes what I understand.

> Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken.

That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), but not while travelling.

> 3) The clock comparison is related etc

See at the end.

> > > > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete.
> > > >

And what is the correct answer?

> > >

The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime.

> >

You invented a new answer. The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one.

>

Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime.

Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in seconds, in ticks or counts.

> So your conclusion above is total nonsense.
?
> When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.

That means the moving clocks runs behind? The true question is how do you explain that. IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build and how the clock functions.

The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. (That certain processes are time dependent)

The problem start when you introduce a human aspect in this physical/mechanical problem.
The question becomes than more: how is it possible that humans on earth have aged 100 years while the pilot in the spacecraft has aged only 20 years?
(In some sciencefiction storys the pilot becomes even younger as when he started) The problem is that what maybe physical is possible for a certain clock is not necessary physical possible for a human being. That is why people are physical tested in space flights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body The problem is definite not mathematics.

Nicolaas Vroom.


39 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Saturday 29 July 2017
Translate message into English El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Friday, 28 July 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > > The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years.
> >

You are so much confused about what a comparison means:

>

Sorry, I try to understand.

> >

2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking faster or slower than the other.

> Correct. That describes what I understand.
> >

Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken.

>

That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), but not while travelling.

Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you will not understand what relativity is.

Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long.

> >

Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime.

>

Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in seconds, in ticks or counts.

Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec).

> > When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.
>

That means the moving clocks runs behind?

It is not running behind in the sense of being slow.

> The true question is how do you explain that. IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build and how the clock functions.

No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks).

The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined.

> The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. (That certain processes are time dependent)

Of course, this "paradox" is not a paradox at all. It is easily explained by SR.

> The problem start when you introduce a human aspect in this physical/mechanical problem.
The question becomes than more: how is it possible that humans on earth have aged 100 years while the pilot in the spacecraft has aged only 20 years?

The same as how two odometers show different readings in the traveling between two cities following different paths.


40 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Wednesday 2 August 2017
On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> >

That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), but not while travelling.

>

Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you will not understand what relativity is.

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

> Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long.

What an odometer measure is only physical.

> > >

Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime.

> >

Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in seconds, in ticks or counts.

>

Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec).

> > >

When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.

> >

That means the moving clocks runs behind?

>

It is not running behind in the sense of being slow.

Then what is it? Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age of the universe

> > The true question is how do you explain that. IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build and how the clock functions.
>

No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks).

The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined.

IMO when you study the link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 the explanation is much simpler. (At least if a clock is considered)

> > The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. (That certain processes are time dependent)
>

Of course, this "paradox" is not a paradox at all. It is easily explained by SR.

Again see above link.

Nicolaas Vroom


41 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Wednesday 2 August 2017
El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > >

That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), but not while travelling.

> >

Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you will not understand what relativity is.

>

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

Wrong again. Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.

> > Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long.
>

What an odometer measure is only physical.

As physical as what a clock measures.

> > > >

Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime.

> > >

Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in seconds, in ticks or counts.

> >

Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec).

> > > >

When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.

> > >

That means the moving clocks runs behind?

> >

It is not running behind in the sense of being slow.

>

Then what is it? Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age of the universe

What are you trying to say with that?

> > > The true question is how do you explain that. IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build and how the clock functions.
> >

No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks).

The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined.

>

IMO when you study the link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 the explanation is much simpler. (At least if a clock is considered)

All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental measured values and b) be simple but as complete as possible.

Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as possible within their domain of applicability.


42 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 3 August 2017
On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> >

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

>

Wrong again.

?

> Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.
Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense. The problem is what is the exact definition of physical. You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck with the definition: what is a dimension.

> > > Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long.
> >

What an odometer measure is only physical.

>

As physical as what a clock measures.

A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is movement-in-general (time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" we call a tick a second or a minute. As such a clock displays time. But that does not immediate mean that time is a physical object the same as a clock.
We can also display time as a line in the direction t. The length of the line increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed. When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict)
As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2.
Is this s (spacetime) something physical?

> > > >

That means the moving clocks runs behind?

> > >

It is not running behind in the sense of being slow.

> >

Then what is it? Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age of the universe

>

What are you trying to say with that?

What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of something and you use two clocks and both show a different time than only one can be used to indicate the duration. Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it is better to call one inacurate and use the other one.

> > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined.
> >

IMO when you study the link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 the explanation is much simpler. (At least if a clock is considered)

>

All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental measured values

This sentence is in conflict with the uncertainty principle which claims that you cannot measure both position and speed (momentum) of an elementary particle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

> and b) be simple but as complete as possible. Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as possible within their domain of applicability.

The problem I have with this that you can IMO also describe the behaviour of clocks without SR. At the same time I have a problem with the definition of what is specific for SR and what is not. For example when you declaire (postulate) the speed of light a constant this makes the mathematics simple (See above s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2), but maybe it is not physical correct. (Because under certain conditions the speed maybe vary.) This again can influence the behaviour of clocks which functioning depends about the speed of light.

Nicolaas Vroom.


43 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Npierre Imaux
Datum: Thursday 3 August 2017
Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck with the definition: what is a dimension.

degree of freedom, idiot.


44 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Thursday 3 August 2017
W dniu sroda, 2 sierpnia 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:
> El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > > >

That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), but not while travelling.

> > >

Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you will not understand what relativity is.

> >

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

>

Wrong again. Our human senses detect x,y,z and t.

No, poor idiot, our senses don't detect any coordinates. That's because coordinates are abstract.

Before we used to think
> x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.

Since your moronic physics stopped requiring their constructs to be measurable...

> All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental measured values and b) be simple but as complete as possible.

No - your idiot guru has proven they don't have.

> Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as possible within their domain of applicability.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.


45 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Thursday 3 August 2017
El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2017, 6:50:54 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > >

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

> >

Wrong again.

> ?
> >

Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.

> Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense. The problem is what is the exact definition of physical. You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck with the definition: what is a dimension.

It appears that you do not know what physics is all about and what physical means. You should read about the history of physics, going back as to why we care about these things.

A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and measured. A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure x,y and z) and clocks (to measure t).

> > >

What an odometer measure is only physical.

> >

As physical as what a clock measures.

>

A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is movement-in-general (time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" we call a tick a second or a minute. As such a clock displays time. But that does not immediate mean that time is a physical object the same as a clock.

t it is as physical as x. t has a value as x has. You can draw a x-t diagram which represents a physical event (the movement of a particle).

> We can also display time as a line in the direction t. The length of the line increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed. When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict) As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2. Is this s (spacetime) something physical?

First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical. You appear to not know from where s comes. Here it goes in baby-steps:

1) There are two reference frames K and K', where K' is moving with speed v with respect to the origin of K, say to the right of line x.
2) A signal is send from a point x1 at time t1 in frame K. That signal propagates at speed c and arrives to a point x2 at time t2 in frame K.
3) The distance between the two events (sending and arrival) is obviously c(t2-t1).
4) That same distance is also given by sqrt[(x2-x1)^2].
5) We can then write the following relationship:
(x2-x1)^2=c^2(t2-t1)^2 ==> (x2-x1)^2 - c^2(t2-t1)^2 = 0
6) The same two events are observed from the K' reference frame, where the coordinates are (x'1,t'1) and (x'2,t'2).
7) The relationship is then (and considering the speed of light is the same in both frames):
(x'2-x'1)^2 - c^2(t'2-t'1)^2 = 0
8) Generalizing, the INTERVAL between the occurrence of any two events (x1,t1) and (x2,t2) is:
(s_12)^2 = (x2-x1)^2 - c^2(t2-t1)^2 9) From the principle of invariance of the speed of light, if the interval between any two events is zero in one inertial frame of reference, then it is also zero in any other inertial frame of reference.
10) If the two events are infinitely close to each other then the interval reduces to:

ds^2 = dx^2 - c^2dt^2

Nowhere complex numbers were used or needed.

> > What are you trying to say with that?
>

What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of something and you use two clocks and both show a different time than only one can be used to indicate the duration. Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it is better to call one inacurate and use the other one.

Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it does not exist.

> > > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined.
> > >

IMO when you study the link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 the explanation is much simpler. (At least if a clock is considered)

> >

All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental measured values

>

This sentence is in conflict with the uncertainty principle which claims that you cannot measure both position and speed (momentum) of an elementary particle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. We can accurately predict and measure the speed. For instance we can predict and measure the perihelion precession of Mercury.


46 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Thursday 3 August 2017
Translate message into English W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:
> El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2017, 6:50:54 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> > > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > > >

The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.

> > >

Wrong again.

> > ?
> > >

Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.

>
> >

Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense. The problem is what is the exact definition of physical. You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck with the definition: what is a dimension.

>

It appears that you do not know what physics is all about and what physical means. You should read about the history of physics, going back as to why we care about these things.

A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and measured. A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure x,y and z) and clocks (to measure t).

Tell me, poor idiot, how long are the longest rulers you have to measure x,y and z?

> First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical.

In the meaning: physics imagined it.

> That has nothing to do with what I wrote. We can accurately predict and measure the speed. For instance we can predict and measure the perihelion precession of Mercury.

:) you would never do it if you treated your Shit seriously.


47 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 4 August 2017
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
>

A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and measured.

A much better name is parameter. A dimension is related to the physical length of a rod.

> A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure x,y and z)
Yes correct with a standard ruler you can measure the length of a rod. As such I have no problem with an odometer.
> and clocks (to measure t).

A clock can be used to measure time but it is important to study the inner workings of such a clock i.e. its accuracy

> > > >

What an odometer measure is only physical.

> > >

As physical as what a clock measures.

> >

A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is movement-in-general (time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" we call a tick a second or a minute. As such a clock displays time. But that does not immediate mean that time is a physical object the same as a clock.

>

t it is as physical as x. t has a value as x has.

As I said above the accuracy of the clock is important

> You can draw a x-t diagram which represents a physical event (the movement of a particle).

That is correct.

> > We can also display time as a line in the direction t. The length of the line increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed. When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict) As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2. Is this s (spacetime) something physical?
>

First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical. You appear to not know from where s comes. SNIP ds^2 = dx^2 - c^2dt^2

Nowhere complex numbers were used or needed.

I agree with this final sentence.

Still Spacetime is not a measured value but a calculated value. IMO it is possible to predict the performance of a clock without the concept of spacetime. The outcome also depents how the clock is build.

> > What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of something and you use two clocks and both show a different time than only one can be used to indicate the duration. Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it is better to call one inacurate and use the other one.
>

Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it does not exist.

I'm not speaking about absolute time but about the age of the universe. If all people involved use different clocks with different speeds you will never find a usefull answer.

See: http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimek

eeping.pdf specific the pages 36 etc.

In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as ticks) as your reference clock.

In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving twin aged 8 years) It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving clock? I doubt it.


48 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Paparios
Datum: Friday 4 August 2017
El viernes, 4 de agosto de 2017, 12:06:14 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> > Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it does not exist.
>

I'm not speaking about absolute time but about the age of the universe. If all people involved use different clocks with different speeds you will never find a usefull answer.

No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

>

In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as ticks) as your reference clock.

When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity.

> In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving twin aged 8 years) It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving clock? I doubt it.

What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two year difference is not due to any clock error and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger.


49 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: mlwo...@wp.pl
Datum: Friday 4 August 2017
W dniu piatek, 4 sierpnia 2017 19:55:03 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:

> No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

Have you heard your idiot guru has "discovered" time is relative?


50 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Otten Schneijders
Datum: Friday 4 August 2017
Paparios wrote:

> No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

You neglect the periods when a day was like a week, like a month, like a year and like a century.


51 The correct explanation for the twin paradox

From: Otten Schneijders
Datum: Friday 4 August 2017
mlwozniak wrote:

> W dniu piatek, 4 sierpnia 2017 19:55:03 UTC+2 uzytkownik Paparios napisal:
>>

No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years.

>

Have you heard your idiot guru has "discovered" time is relative?

Does not matter. In average the Universe, with all in it, is not moving very fast. Actually you are right by mistake. Relativity effects are not present at very large scale. This since there are LARGE distances among mass bodies, hence the curvature may safely be considered close to ZERO.

One more proof, for Upside-Down Evolution. In the past planets etc were closer to each other. Lots of fun. Yes, they DID land on Moon, but that must have been FAR in the PAST.

me (Nicolaas Vroom change) 16:44 (9 minutes ago)
> > In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as ticks) as your reference clock.
>

When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity.

And when you travel from London to the planet Pluto you adjust your clock to Pluto time. That solves the twin paradox.

> > In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving twin aged 8 years) It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving clock? I doubt it.
>

What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two year difference is not due to any clock error

but caused by?

> and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger.

and the moving clock runs behind. (and I do not understand why)

Thanks

Nicolaas Vroom

Back to USENET overview USENET
Back to my home page Contents of This Document