On Friday, September 12, 2025 at 2:42:11 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 10:41:59 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2025 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 7:58:36 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2025 12:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Thursday, September 11, 2025 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 2:35 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *why don't you spend a few minutes describing the main differences between the usual TP and this different one?* *Because if you can't be bothered to spend a few minutes watching the video then I can't be bothered to spend a few minutes making an inferior summary of that video. I can't easily provide snappy animations and illustrations needed to make things clearer. * *I did. I watched the first video and had a discussion with Brent about his alleged related solution, but I was finally turned off when he used the slingshot method for turnaround, but apparently couldn't explain how the traveling twin could start his adventure without accelerating. * You never asked that, and it's obvious from the diagram. Brent * I figured out that you could avoid acceleration entirely if the traveling twin is always in free fall and the clocks are synchronized when the traveler passes the resting twin. I don't recall you simply stating that, so I wouldn't have to decode your diagrams. What you left out is HOW the traveling twin gets into orbit. * I left out how he combs his hair too. Brent Is it really necessary to be mocking and rude? Just a few sentences about your models would be desirable to understand improbable scenarios. I'll go back to see if you met what I consider as necessary in this regard. AG The fact is I find it difficult to understand your diagrams because, unlike the usual description of the TP, which is very easy to understand, for example, your turnaround scenario is essentially impossible to imagine happening in the real world. You have the traveling twin in free fall in the Earth's gravitational field, returning at say, orbital speed of around 18,000 mph, presumably on a path tangent to the Earth's surface, so he can synchronize or compare clock readings with his stationary twin, while avoiding being burned up in the process. This might be a valid thought experiment to make your point, but since it's not achievable in the real world, it's not something that would naturally come to mind as what one of your diagrams is modeling. But there's something more important to say about your model. You want to avoid acceleration by asserting the traveling twin is in continuous free fall. Ever hear of g, the acceleration of gravity, 32 ft/sec/sec? An object near the Earth's surface when dropped, is in free fall AND accelerating. The space station is in constant free fall AND accelerating. What am I missing when I find your claim that the free falling twin is not accelerating? AG I see you don't use the Earth's gravitational field for the turnaround, but a neutron star. It doesn't effect the lack of realism in the model. Much more important, in order to claim there is no acceleration, you appeal to the force free characteristic of GR. But this is puzzling. As I wrote above, how can motion in a gravity not be accelerating? AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/879640b1-4d27-4bac-8588-2a645b963b5dn%40googlegroups.com.
