Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: The twin paradox has not to be a paradox according to me

  1. #1 The twin paradox has not to be a paradox according to me 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    Hello,

    'I'm Maarten and I'm from Belgium.

    My English is not very well, but I will try to write well and I hope you will forgive me when I don't formulate something correct.

    I'm a student in psychology (in my free time as an adult) and tried to think about perceiving time and space by an observer.
    I think I found an interesting issue, related to relativity. I want to post to get some feedback.

    The twinparadox is only a paradox in a uniform gravitational field
    I believe that the twinparadox is for relative movements in a uniform gravitational field.
    Why?
    Because when an astronaut leaves earth, he must accellerate to leave the gravitational field.
    While he is accellerating away from Earth, he sees the 'object Earth' more and more turning around.

    First the Earth stood still, no he sees the earth more and more turning around its axis. So the heavy object were he is moving away from is not only moving away from him from his reference point of view. This heavy object is also turning around itself more and more.
    When the astronaut is leaving the solarsystem, he is not only measuring that the heavy object Earth is moving away from him relative to his reference point of view.
    No, he sees that the heavy object Earth also succesively is turning around the sun more and more till it reaches the speed of 30 m/s around the sun.
    When the earth is moving away from him - relative to his reference point of view - it's also spinning around the sun to reach the speed of 30 m/s
    At that point the astronaut himself is outside the solarsystem and is not turning around the sun anymore.


    So the timedilation of the object by progressively spinning in the gravitational field by the measurements of the moving observer is is not calculated in the measurements of relativity in the gravitational field.

    The Earth or any other object is not only going away from us from our point of view while we are accelerating away from it, but is also beginning to move around its axis, wobbling with the moon, around the sun, the sun begins to move in the milkeyway. While we are leaving the solarsystem. (and then it's redshifting from our new point of view)

    The twinparadox:

    Both twins in the twin paradox will have the same time while coming back together.
    The twins will have the same age when they meet again.
    Because the twin who stood on earth was not only accelarating away relative to the traveling twin. He was also turning around more and more. Spinning around the earth, wobbling with a moon, spinning more and more around a sun and so on.

    The timedilations caused by these measurable spinning movements are not involved in the calculations for gravitational relativity.
    Therefore I think that the twinparadox is only a paradox in a uniform gravitational field, but not when an observer is moving away from an object in space.

    When an observer is moving away from an object in space, that object is not only moving away from him from his point of view. But while he or she is accellerating to escape the gravitational field, that object begins also to spin in the gravitational field that he is leaving.
    The gravitational accelerations of the bodies will be measured too as movements of the bodies, and will be the cause for the measured timedistortions of these bodies.
    These measurable movements of the objects in the gravitational field does change their time (timedistortion) relative to the time of the travelling observer.
    So the twins will have the same age when they reunite.

    Maarten Vergucht
    Belgium
    .


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,200
    Sorry, but putting language issues aside, your idea just doesn't make any sense in terms of physics. The various rotational movements of the bodies do not have any significant effect in terms of relativistic effects. Besides, even if you factor them in, they are a fixed amount. With the twin paradox, the time difference depends on the speed of the traveling twin. In other words a twin traveling at 0.5c would have a time difference when he returned that was different than one who traveled at 0.9c, assuming the same time passes on Earth for both. Since the movement of the Earth would same for both, and would result in exactly the same relativistic effects, these effects could not result in the both sets of twins being the same age when they meet up again.

    The Twin paradox is not actually a paradox because Relativity perfectly accounts for the age difference( which is real) between the twins when they unite.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Sorry, but putting language issues aside, your idea just doesn't make any sense in terms of physics. The various rotational movements of the bodies do not have any significant effect in terms of relativistic effects.
    Why not? It (the body where he is moving away from) accelerates in the same way that the twin does. When the traveling twin accelerates, the body will move more and more too in the gravitational field. (accelerates too)
    And (heavy) bodies who accelerate change their time too. (moving = timedistortion)

    So this Earth is not only moving away from the traveling twin point of view like he does, but this moving Earth is also moving in spiral forms. (rotating in the gravitational field)

    And that is changing its time in the same way timedistortion is happening to the traveling twin.

    The twin on earth is accelerating too, in circles. This spiral and spinning acceleration is equal to the straightforward acceleration of the traveling twin. (in relativity)
    So both twins are travelling with the same speed away from eachother. Both will have the same age when they reunite. (and will stand still next to eachother).
    Because their distortions where equal.

    It seems very logic.

    Both twins have traveled away from eachother with the same speed.

    Relativitytheory does not has calculated the timedistortion of the moving twin on Earth in its gravitational field, spinning more and more.
    It's truth in a uniform gravitational field. But not in space, when the twin is leaving the gravitational field.

    This is your view of your twinbrother on Earth while you are accelerating away from it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWyM-M8o0c
    Last edited by Maarten Vergucht; August 13th, 2011 at 05:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,200
    You seem to be confusing two different concepts, one is the effect caused by the Earth's gravity and it motion and the other is due to the traveling twin's perspective that the Earth is moving away from him.

    The first is negligible. Calculations shows that the time difference due the Earth's orbital motion would account for a difference of 1.6 seconds over 10 years and that due to the gravitational field is 0.8 sec for the same period. Put together they would still only account for >2 and a half secs over a ten year period. If the twin travels a speed of even 0.5 c, the difference over 10 years would work out to ~ 1 and a third years. Obviously, the time dilation of the Twin's motion total swamps out that due the Earth's orbital motion and gravity, and we can in the course of discussion safely ignore these effects. In other words, as long as we deal with fairly high velocities for the traveling twin we treat the Earth as being at rest in an inertial frame of reference and gravity free.

    The second issue, that the twin sees the Earth moving away from him again deals with the concept of inertial frames also. In this case, it deals with the fact that the Earth remains (or very closely so) at rest in a single inertial frame, while the traveling twin does not. He goes out at some high fraction of the speed of light, turns around, and then returns at some high fraction of the SoL. The "turns around apart is important. Doing so causes him to be at rest in one frame going out and be at rest in another coming back. It is this switch between frames that separates him from the the Earth, breaks the symmetry between the motions of the two, and results in his having aged less upon return.

    Relativity theory does not has calculated the time distortion of the moving twin on Earth in its gravitational field, spinning more and more.
    It's truth in a uniform gravitational field. But not in space, when the twin is leaving the gravitational field.
    Do you honestly believe that science has, over the last 100 plus years, ignored any relevant effects of Relativity?
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    The first is negligible. Calculations shows that the time difference due the Earth's orbital motion would account for a difference of 1.6 seconds over 10 years and that due to the gravitational field is 0.8 sec for the same period. Put together they would still only account for >2 and a half secs over a ten year period. If the twin travels a speed of even 0.5 c, the difference over 10 years would work out to ~ 1 and a third years.
    You don't seem to understand what I mean. It's not only about Earth's rotation.
    It's about Earth's rotation, its rotation around the moon, around the sun and so on, while moving away from it.
    It's about these movements.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWyM-M8o0c

    Be aware of the fact that it's about the whole movement of the object Earth (rotation + wobbling + around the sun etc...)
    The Earth accelerates in these spinning motions equal with the acceleration of the twin.
    You can nog say that these motions are "negligible".

    Do you honestly believe that science has, over the last 100 plus years, ignored any relevant effects of Relativity?
    I don't know. It can happen. Why not? We are all people and we can overlook something.
    And in science you can not say: this or that is been proven for eternity.
    You only can speak about falsification: this or that has not been disproven yet and till know its our best theory we've got. But it must be open for falsification.
    People who don't like people who try to falsificate theories are no good scientists in my opinion.

    Science is a graveyard of fallen theories been replaced by better and other theories.
    Last edited by Maarten Vergucht; August 13th, 2011 at 06:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Maarten Vergucht View Post
    The first is negligible. Calculations shows that the time difference due the Earth's orbital motion would account for a difference of 1.6 seconds over 10 years and that due to the gravitational field is 0.8 sec for the same period. Put together they would still only account for >2 and a half secs over a ten year period. If the twin travels a speed of even 0.5 c, the difference over 10 years would work out to ~ 1 and a third years.
    You don't seem to understand what I mean. It's not only about Earth's rotation.
    It's about Earth's rotation, its rotation around the moon, around the sun and so on, while moving away from it.
    It's about these movements.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWyM-M8o0c

    1. I did not say the Earth's rotation, I said the earth orbital motion, which is 30 km/sec. Compared to which, the Earth's rotation and wobble due to the moon is negligible. (at the Equator the rotation is about 0.4 km/sec and its wobble due to the Moon is only about 12 meters/sec. Even the Sun's motion ~200 km/sec (which results in the helical path would lead to an insignificant time dilation difference of 70 sec over 10 years. But the last one doesn't count, because the traveling twin would share in this motion resulting no additional difference in speed between Earth and twin due to this motion. Of the motions listed, the one that would have the greatest effect by far is the Earth's orbital motion, and that produces an insignificant time dilation.

    Be aware of the fact that it's about the whole movement of the object Earth (rotation + wobbling + around the sun etc...)
    The Earth accelerates in these spinning motions equal with the acceleration of the twin.
    You can nog say that these motions are "negligible".
    Yes you can, as long as your traveling twin's velocity with respect to the solar system is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, in which case, the effects of time dilation due this totally overshadow any such effects of these motions. As far as accelerations go, these are hardly even worth noting. The centripetal acceleration due to the Earth's orbit is only 0.006 m/secē and that due to "wobble" is only 0.00003 meters/secē; completely negligible under the twin paradox scenario. [/quote]



    Do you honestly believe that science has, over the last 100 plus years, ignored any relevant effects of Relativity?
    I don't know. It can happen. Why not? We are all people and we can overlook something.
    [/quote]We are not talking about a single person overlooking some barely noticeable detail. You are suggesting that generations of 1000's of physicists ignored something that would have been staring them in the face, despite the fact that some of them were actually looking for a flaw in the theory.

    And in science you can not say: this or that is been proven for eternity.
    You only can speak about falsification: this or that has not been disproven yet and till know its our best theory we've got. But it must be open for falsification.
    People who don't like people who try to falsificate theories are no good scientists in my opinion.

    Science is a graveyard of fallen theories been replaced by better and other theories.
    However, all the experiments to date agree with Relativity to an extremely high accuracy,(In order for GPS to work properly, the satellite clocks have to be adjusted per Relativity) which mean that is correct to that level of accuracy. Any theory that may supplant it would have to agree with those same tests and would be a refinement to Relativity and not a complete refutation of it (Which includes the results that it predicts for the twin paradox, since multiple experiments have shown that time dilation does behave as predicted).
    Theories are replaced with better ones when the old one are shown not to correctly reflect reality; When experiment or observation produces a result that conflicts with what the theory predicts.

    And lastly, to be frank, what you have presented so far falls way short of being any serious challenge to Relativity's validity.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    I know about the satelites and GPS, but that's not the topic here. (I don't disagree on gravitational timedilation)

    When you try to go outside the solar system, you must challenge gravity. You can not follow a linear path. When you do follow a straight line, you are turning around the sun. Why? Because gravity will pull you back. (straight lines in a curved spacetime).

    I even believe that "straight forward" en "curved" is relative given by your 'frame of reference' in the gravitational field. (the universe) (gravitational relativity)

    You can make a resemblance with us here on earth: when you follow a straight line on earth, you will turn around earth, seen by an observer from out of space. From your point of view, you accelerate straight forward. But, from the point of view of an observer outside Earth's gravity, you are following a curved road and are forming circles.
    So, you must first follow a coriolispath. (a curved road).
    You must always hold a centripital acceleration in the beginning according to yourself. Because when you accelerate straighforward, you are following straight lines in a curved spacetime, curved by the sun, the solarsystem etc. (gravity will pull you back).
    And
    When you try to escape the gravity of the solar system, by following these curved road,
    your time will distort by gravitational timedistortion.
    And
    Whey you escape gravity by following this curved road, you are not accelerating forward to near the speed of light.
    (it would be very difficult)
    And finally, you see the Earth redshifting.
    So, when you do the - very complex - math: the clocks will be the same I think. It's far more complex then you think.

    But I can predict your answer: all negligible.

    (and to be frank: maybe you can neglect the whole reality, then your statement will be truth for sure)
    Last edited by Maarten Vergucht; August 14th, 2011 at 06:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3
    The Twin Paradox is one of the most well known and debated paradoxes associated with Relativity theory. Opponents challenge Relativity theory on the grounds that the Twin Paradox reveals an underlying flaw
    in the theory. Such opponents feel that the existence of a paradox, in and of itself, is sufficient to disqualify the
    theory. Supporters explain the paradox by introducing the concept of acceleration into the theory, thus limiting
    the interpretation to the twin that was undergoing the force of acceleration. However, both interpretations fail
    to explain why Relativity requires the paradox, which is actually the result of using a length based model to interpret wavelength based observations. Here we show the proper use and interpretation of wavelength based
    observations using wavelength based equations, and how the mistaken use of length based equations results in
    time dilation, length contraction, and the Twin Paradox.

    http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...x.20110519.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    I do not disagree on the twin paradox!!!
    I only think it's truth for a uniform gravitational field. Not in the universe when you talk about different gravitational fields.
    So it works on earth, when two objects move in the same "gravitational frame of reference".
    It's too simple in a complex whole as the universe (I think): a straight forward speed versus hanging still.
    In the universe you have gravity, curved spacetime, Hubble's law etc. A straight line is no straight line anymore.
    A curved road can be straight depending on the gravitational frame of reference.
    It's relative.

    But in the same gravitational field: the twinparadox will do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    I will complete my hypothesis here on gravitational relativity.

    So I think that there is an effect in gravitational relativity that is not mentioned in relativity:

    straight forward path versus curved path.

    These are relativistic observations in and outside a 'gravitational frame of reference' like lengthcontraction is in a uniform gravitational field between a moving observer and a an observer who stands still.

    1) When I drive an accelerating car on Earth, I go straightforward according to my gravitational frame of reference.
    2)When an astronaut sees me, he sees me going around in circles on a sphere (Earth).

    These are relativistic observations from within and from out a gravitational field.

    This is a gravitational relativity effect. Like the effect= moving earth versus earth standing still.

    So, when you think you go straighforward in the solarsystem, you are following a curved road around the sun
    Relativity=

    straight forward acceleration = centripetal acceleration
    a = g

    I worked this out as follow:

    g0 = a = Fb
    g0 = relative observed centripetal acceleration of the body from "outside the gravitational system frame of reference".
    Fb = actual Newtonian gravitational force on the body of the graviational system.
    a = acceleration of the body from the body 'frame of reference (lineair)



    The expanding universe


    Far starclusters should have a big centripetal acceleration (towards the universe as a whole), so we can calculate their mass by their observed relativistic straightforward acceleration and Newton’s law of gravity. (following this hypothesis)
    a = Fb
    Fb = G . m1.m2/r^2
    So 'curved road' (coriolispath) = "straigh forward speed" and vice versa in gravitational relativity. So "the expanding universe" is in this hypothesis a relativic
    effect in gravitational relativity instead of caused by a Big Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Hey Maarten,

    There is a suggestion as if for a twin pair each would constantly keep an eye on the other imagining them continuously frontal to each other. Such type of spin neutralizes the spin within the orbitation as how boxers spin to the mutual refence between them to not spin to each other. This is forgotten because of the neutralizing part and spin being kept or treated seperate from orbitting it stays out of the equation. It doesn,t come back anywhere in the equation then and such paradoxes come out as consecquences then. But I think it is part of Einsteins work.
    Last edited by Ghrasp; August 14th, 2011 at 08:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    it's just an exercise for me in 'gravitational relativity' and its effects on observers.


    This is the rest of my hypothesis:

    you stand still on Earth, on the moon, on mars.
    On every planet you are standing: you hang/stand still and the moon or planet is pushing you. (equivalenceprinciple).
    The observer always hangs still and any havy object with him/her too.
    (Earth, the moon, etc.)

    Why: because his time is always 'normal' according to him. Wherever he (or she) is.

    But when he has another time than an other object, that object moves according to him.
    From a space point of view Earth moves. Because of the timedilation. But the observer in space has a normal time, so Earth must be round and moving. That's the consequence of the timedifference.
    So: the 'normality' of the time for the observer and his or her position relative to a heavy object will change the observed movements of that object in gravitational relativity.
    When you are on the moon: you see earth moving forward and going back and the moon stands still and is pushing you. (gravity and equivalenceprinciple)
    When you are in space, for you: your clock ticks normal. So, other things must change. Earth must move, because the clocks differ.
    I believe that the observer of space and time will be the cause of dilatation observations and effects.
    Because wherever he is, time runs normal.
    So, I think: wherever we are - as observers - in the universe. At the bounderies everything is redshifting. As a relativistic effect of space and time in the universe for any observer.
    But , it's just a hypothesis.
    The observor as the measure of space and time.
    The observer is always weightless and hangings still.
    A vehicle is pushing him/her, or a planet.
    The observer is always at 0 m/s according to the maximum speed.
    At nul time and nul space. That's our position, people.
    We are outside time and space in 'the actual moment"= zero.
    That's what I think.
    A so called 'reference frame' is always an observer in reality.
    The fallen observer (in free fall) is always weightless. He/she does not feel acceleration (no accelerated frame of reference)
    And he (or she) is been observed from earth as 'hanging still'.
    But observers on earth feel themselves pushed op by 1 g (equivalenceprinciple). So the 'fallen' observer is always hanging still.
    So Earth falls towards you in a centripetal way and will become a stable world for you. All heavy objects will become a stable world for you.
    Black hole
    I believe that you are weightless above a black hole ande BH is accelerating toward you at a high velocity. Slowed down by its mass it's coming towards you. You and alle the objects 'in the sky' with you are hanging quitley.
    But from outside this system, we see you circling around it at gigantic speed. That's gravitational relativity to me in real life.

    This video explains it all:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQe8kzzcAx4
    Last edited by Maarten Vergucht; August 14th, 2011 at 05:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    I want to clarify the twin paradox in gravitational relativity:

    In gravitational relativity, your acceleration is always an acceleration to escape gravity more and more. Because you can not be not in a gravitational field where you are trying to get out these gravitational systems. Acceleration in gravitational relativity means: to escape gravity.
    So while doing this, the object where you are moving away from is accelerating to, but in the gravitational fields that you are successively leaving.
    So the twin on earth begins to spin while you are accelerating outside Earth’s gravity.
    So both your accelerations are equal.

    And the twin on earth begins to wobble with a moon, while you escapes this Earth-moonsystem. So your accelerations are equal.
    The twin on Earth starts to travel around its star while turning in circles while you are leaving the solarsystem progressively.
    Because, now you are not turning around the sun anymore, so that twin there is turning around itself, wobbling around a moon and going faster and faster around the sun till it reaches the velocity of 30 m/s and then the sun begin to moves, so the object Earth will move more strangely from the travelling twin point of view.
    So while this twin is moving away from an object, this object is not only moving away from him relative to his 'frame of reference', but accelerates too, in the gravitational field.


    And that's why I think, that when they meet again: they will have the same age.

    You can not neglect this.


    When you accelerate to go outside the gravitational field, you must follow a curved path.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I wonder how the Twin Paradox looks if we change who's moving. Suppose twin #2 is stationary, twin #1 is flying away from twin #2 at nearly C, and.... the Earth is flying away from twin #2 at nearly C also. How would that be different from the traditional scenario, where twin #1 is stationary and the Earth is stationary, and twin #2 is flying away from them both at nearly C? In relativity there's really no way to tell who's moving, right?

    And yet, we get different ages for the two different cases? Or is this that part where acceleration fixes everything so they can both be the same age?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The twin paradox flaw
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2010, 08:56 AM
  2. The Twin Paradox
    By Booms in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 6th, 2009, 07:21 AM
  3. Twin paradox
    By EV33 in forum Physics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 30th, 2009, 07:24 PM
  4. Twin Paradox Question
    By salsaonline in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 12th, 2009, 06:51 PM
  5. Twin Paradox
    By Sreeja in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 17th, 2008, 11:41 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •