Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Twin Paradox and Inertial Frame of Reference

  1. #1 The Twin Paradox and Inertial Frame of Reference 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    I tried to post the Delay factor of the Doppler effect relating to the acceleration under Gravitational - free fall, free draft, slingshot, but the audience did not have maturity, so if there is someone who understand my explanation, please let me know - this topic is noting new, just a clarification of the century old concent, before I can move on to the more advanced topics.

    The key point is to understnad the acceleration / inertial frame of reference in precise definition.

    A Local Inertial Frame of reference is defined by




    This simply means that, when you are in a Gravitational acceleration that abides by (d^2)x/d(t^2) = g(local net value to the barycenter), then you are in an Inertial Frame of Reference regardless of your geometric acceleartion from another mass. Based on this principle, please read the below comments.

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Some claim that the Twin Paradox is explained by the fact that that the Symmetry is broken when taking the relative Doppler Shift into a consideration. Comparing the Earth and the rocket that made a round trip, the rocket travels along the signal from Earth and when it made a turn, it will experience an immediate shift from red to blue, while the Earth will experience a delay factor by t(del) = d/c because it takes time for the signal from the rocket to reach the Earth after the rocket has made a turn. Therefore, the rocket will have traveled fast forward in time with respect to Earth.
    However, consider one scenario. Since the rocket cannot use booster all along for its acceleration, the rocket uses nearby celestial bodies to accelerate away from Earth but manages to stay relatively stationary to the center of the Galaxy, while the Earth, along the Sun, travels around the Galaxy. Both the Earth’s and rocket’s relative travel is due to a free fall towards the center of Galaxy and to the nearby celestial bodies, it is Gravitation. The Earth made a round trip and the rocket now maneuvers to land on the Earth.
    In this case, which one made a round trip, and which went through an acceleration? Also, how does the Doppler Shift work for both parties?
    My conclusion is that the Symmetry never breaks, or the Symmetry breaks in a symmetrical way to both the Earth and the rocket, and the Doppler Shift delay factor by t(del) = d/c to both parties because both stayed in their own “inertial” frame of reference. While the Earth will observe rocket’s time elapsed less, if you had been on the rocket, you will observe the Earth’s time elapsed less. Then, where is the agreement? See the Loaf Model of Space-Time, this explains well.
    While Space-Time can have any vector mathematically, since we are locked in our own perceptual Space-Time, one can only meet the other for an infinitesimal period of moment and never again. The original Earth and the rocket never meet up again, each will experience the other newly constructed within each one’s frame of reference.
    The Symmetry has never broken, and this is not a way to fast forward time travel.
    Next topic will be on the Proper Acceleration, I call it “Inertial Acceleration”, and related phenomena we can observe, including the fast forward time travel.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by tachyon1 View Post
    I tried to post the Delay factor of the Doppler effect relating to the acceleration under Gravitational - free fall, free draft, slingshot, but the audience did not have maturity...
    No. What it means is that you couldn't find people who had made the same errors as you.

    Learn to tell the difference. Want to learn? Ask questions. If you're looking for more members of the "often wrong, but never in doubt club," you've come to the wrong place.

    Sorry to be harsh, but your arrogant ignorance means that a gentle approach will certainly be ineffective, while this approach only probably will be.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    tk421 - Well, what is your definition of the Inertial Frame of Reference? KJW understood and acknowledged that my notations were correct.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181
    Oh, tk421 from Star Wars?
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,173
    This is just a rehash of the other thread already moved to "New Ideas and Hypotheses". The moderation team has decided that this is the best place for this topic. Thus this thread will be locked and any continuing post should be made to the already exsiting thread.


    "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
     

Similar Threads

  1. Using the CMBR as a frame of reference.
    By kojax in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 11th, 2012, 04:12 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 16th, 2010, 03:37 AM
  3. Measuring Velocity of an Inertial Frame in Free Space
    By geistkiesel in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 21st, 2009, 01:43 AM
  4. frame of reference.
    By wallaby in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 17th, 2006, 12:42 PM
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
  •