"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107313455.285745.273790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Tom Capizzi wrote:

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107300043.423636.178250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Tom Capizzi wrote:

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107279972.314247.150990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

To: Tom Cappizzi

Neither of the twins can see each other, and they don't, until

the

astronaut twin lands back on Earth. I did not say both of them

age

slower; SR claims the astronaut twin ages slower than his

Earthbound

twin

I know that isn't what you said. This particular claim is not the

paradox,

either.

Your response indicates that you do not understand what I said, and
that you don't understand the Twin Paradox, either.

What you wrote above is not a paradox. The astronaut twin is simply
younger than his Earthbound twin. Relativity says time is dilated for
the moving frame of reference, and everything in it.

No, I say Relativity says no such thing, but all you have to do is show
a creditable reference and I'll concede the point.

Here is an excerpt from Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies":

we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved
in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the
journey
lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the
travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 t v^2/c^2 second slow.

This is merely time dilation.

There is no actual time dilation; it is only an effect resulting

from

the fact that the time rate of the spaceship slowed compared to

the

Earth's time rate each and everytime the ship's speed exceeded

the

Earth's speed. Each time the ship went faster, it aged at a

rate

slower than the Earth.

And that is time dilation. Maybe you should inform us what you

define

time dilation to be.

That's precisely what I just did above!

You prefaced your remarks by saying "There is no actual time

dilation"

and then proceed to describe an effect which is time dilation.

Ok. You don't know the difference between an effect and a cause. Take
dark matter, e.g., which is invisible to us. We can know it exists
only because it causes certain effects, namely, it keeps the U. from
coming back in into itself. To say that time dilates is to say that
time at some arbitrary point during the trip

It is not some arbitrary point during the trip. It is a well defined
function
of relative velocity. If velocity is constant, the clock rate is slowed
uniformly for the duration of the trip.

accelerates simply because
nature grants a slower time rate to the astronaut twin. The question
then is, why? We can say, "because time dilates", or we can say that
what seems to be a time warp is an caused by the fact that time is a
property of mass

In the quote from Einstein above, there is no indication that any mass
is required for the time dilation to exist. The clocks are merely
indicators
of the passage of time in the frame of reference itself.

and it passes inversely proportional to a discrete
object's state of motion.

And what does "by the relative nature of velocity" mean?

That means that the earthbound twin observes the traveler to be

moving

away from earth in some direction, say +x, at some velocity +v.

The

traveler observes the earth moving away from him along the x axis

at

-v.

Since the relativistic factor gamma depends on the square of

relative

velocity, each sees the other as time dilated by the same factor.

Here I should have said, "each expects to see the other as time

dilated by

the same factor at the end of the trip", in keeping with the original

version
of the Paradox.

That is

the paradox. Common sense tells us that the spaceship is flying

away,

while the observer on earth is essentially standing still.

Relativity

asserts
this paradox, or else it would in theory be possible to figure out

which

twin was moving and which standing still, while both twins were in

inertial

frames of reference that were not stationary relative to each

other.

If that

were possible, it would also be possible to identify absolute

motion

and

an absolute frame of reference, something not allowed by Special

Relativity.

No. As I said, SR does not state anything about the twins seeing

each

other at all during the trip, nor does it have anything to do with
absolute motion or frames.

SR most certainly has something to say about frames and motion. While
the original version of the paradox may avoid the specifics of what

happens

during the trip, SR still applies if we choose to analyze in more

detail.

Well sure, you are most certainly free to choose to do that, but it
will only confuse you all the more.

That is what others have added to the SR
experiment simply because they don't understand it either. All

kinds

of mumbo jumbo has been added to the experiment and each one only
confuses people all the more. SR simply states that if one twin

were

to leave Earth for some years and then return, people could see

that

the Earthbound twin aged along with them normally while the

astronaut

twin did not. From there, we know that essentially the only

difference

between the twins during the trip was that one moved faster than

the

other during the trip in escaping from Earth's gravity and also in
catching up with Earth at the end of the trip.

SR thus infers that the difference of speed during the experiment

is

what causes the apparent time dilation, and I contend that the

reason

for the difference in aging is due to the fact that one twin went
faster than the Earth during the trip. If so, that shows that time

is

a property of matter

It is a property of the frame of reference as well as everything it
contains.

I've heard that contention before, but time cannot be a property of a
frame of reference because a frame of ref. is a set of coordinates and
not an object. For time to exist, we must have some real stuff with
mass.

and passes inversely proportional to an object's
state of motion.

Not exactly accurate. Time dilation is explicitly defined by gamma.

Well, tell us why you think so.

Read Einstein's paper:
Therefore, tau = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) = t - (1 - sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)) t

Gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Time in the stationary coordinate system
is t, and time in the moving coordinate system is tau.

Thus, who moved away from the other is not a relevant
issue, only who moved faster or slower.

But that IS the paradox. Each twin can claim it is the other one who

was

moving, but only one of them appears younger when it is finished.

No, that is not the paradox. The paradox is that at the end of the
experiment one twin is older than the other when they were both born on
the same date. Why do you think SR uses twins?

The paradox is that each twin can claim the other is the one that didn't
age.

The issue of relative motion is a strawman thrown in here by those

who

cannot understand the basic thought experiment.

Relative motion is the core of the paradox, not a strawman.

No, it isn't. See above.

Another confusing idea
is SR's claim that there does occur an actual time dilation, or

time

warp, or the folding of time, at some arbitrary point during the

trip,

Forget the science fiction. SR claims a real time dilation, which is

nothing

like the folding of time of the movies.

Reference, please.

Einstein's paper.

And SR also asserts that time is
slowed by relative motion.

No, it doesn't. Tell us why you think that.

See above.

which would constitute a real time dilation. But there is no time

warp

or folding of time (as shown in the movie "Dune"), there is only

what

appears to be such fictional occurrences but which can be explained

by

my idea that time rates of objects vary with their speed.

TomGee

The subject of this thread is the decay rate of muons. The number of
particles that survive is affected by the velocity of the muons. This

is

not an illusion. Depending on the velocity of the observer's frame,

it

can be attributed to time dilation, length contraction, or a

combination

of the two. The end result is a very real particle count.

And your point is...?
TomGee

Time dilation is not an illusion and is the result of relative velocity.