[General] STR twin Paradox

[Wolfgang Baer]

On 6/4/2017 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
Each twin has two choices
> 1.) He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is back 
> again, he meets twin 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They will 
> indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.
He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT. Both twins do exactly the 
same thing and physics tells them to expect to get the same result.
> 2.) He knows physics SRT and particularly special relativity. And, to 
> be close to your case, he may define after his start his frame of 
> motion as the reference frame. So in this frame his clock will run 
> with normal speed. 
His frame of reference is his spaceship outfitted with real meter sticks 
and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler shift from a 
predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the other is moving 
away at velocity 'v' relative to himself
> Then, whenhis retro rocket has started, he will notice the 
> acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion 
> he is now moving towards twin 2 with a speed which you have called v. 
His frame of reference is still his spaceship outfitted with real meter 
sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler shift 
from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the other is 
moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself only now the velocity is 
toward each other.
> And as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fact that now his own 
> clock will run differently than before. 
No he reads a book on special relativity written by Einstein that tells 
him the other twins clock should run slowthan his own.
> So if he wants to understand what is going on and if he still takes 
> his original state of motion as his reference frame, he has torealize 
> that his clock is now running slower. 
Why would he take his original state of motion as his reference frame? 
That would be some imaginaty space ship still moving away at velocity 
"v". His reference frame is his space ship, something may have effected 
its clocks and rods but his frame is his frame. You are making up a 
story about his own clocks that are obviously running exactly the way 
they always as far as his observations are concerned  in order to make 
the theory he read in the SRT book more valid than what he actually sees 
and can measure.
> - On the other hand, if he wants to understand the situation of twin 2 
> he has to realize that the speed of twin 2, *takin**g place with v in 
> relation to his own original frame,****causes a slow down of the clock 
> **of t**win 2*. But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro rocket, 
> twin 2 will have speed = 0 with respect to the original frame of 
> twin1. So the clock of twin 2 will now run in the normal way. 
Compared with an imaginary frame. We and Einstein claimed to deals with 
real rods and clocks
> - If you now add the different phases of both clocks, i.e. the phases 
> of normal runand the phases of slow down, you will see that the result 
> is the same for both twins. And this is what I have explained 
> quantitatively in my last mail.
All one has to do is to add to the protocol that each twin should take a 
faximily of their own clocks and  compare them later by your own 
analysis (*see bold face above*) each twin would believe his own Fax 
would run at the normal rate but the other would slow down.

In other words the experiment gives the answer logic would expect, but 
the story in Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that mooving clocks do 
not slow down but the theory explaining it is different and must include 
the physics of the observer, which I'll describe next once we get this 
point straightened out.
>
> I must say that I have problems to understand where you have a 
> difficulty to see this.

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/a820e658/attachment.htm>