On 10/1/2025 1:12 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
Acceleration is only change in velocity (per unit time). In the diagram there are four changes of velocity, all of them equal. The length of the path has no effect on the acceleration.On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote: On Wednesday, October 1, 2025 at 12:43:48 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/30/2025 1:47 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 7:49:01 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/7/2025 5:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: A complicated explanation of the triplet paradox. Length contraction is consistent, but it's not necessary to understand the effect. AG will reject it because he doesn't "believe in" handing off clock readings. Brent * * *No, that's not it. Rather, I am uncomfortable with de-facto frame-jumping because I am unsure what happens to time when this is included in a solution. And if the twins are at rest and juxtaposed as the scenario begins -- which, BTW, is how the TP is habitually DEFINED -- the traveling twin MUST accelerate to begin his journey. But in the final analysis it's "your way or the highway", meaning that alternate solutions are unacceptable for you. *Not at all. You think it depends on acceleration. Fine, then here's an alternate version with acceleration. The twins each accelerates exactly the same level for exactly the same duration. But Red is still younger than Blue for exactly the same reason; his path is longer in space and therefore shorter in spacetime. * * *The problem with your "solution" is the assumption that the path lengths can be different with the same acceleration. *It's not an assumption. It's calculus 101. *I don't doubt the path lengths are different. I do dispute that the accelerations are the same. The standard TP, with one twin at rest, is a limiting case of this result. Where have you used calculus to prove the accelerations are identical? This seems to be your assumption, not something you're calculating. AG **For the clock on the longer path, it must accelerate MORE than the other clock, for the two clocks to travel in parallel to be juxtaposed at the final event. I called it "my opinion", but it's really an application of logic, not opinion. AG*
Brent
*Drawing a diagram which claims that is not a proof. *If you could recognize a proof, you could write on yourself.*IMO, the longer path length requires more spatial acceleration than the path you assume is shorter. *In your opinion!! LOL*So, you haven't dispensed with acceleration being required for the cause of clock rare differences.*Yes, I have, */In My Opinion!/** Moreover, in order to compare the two paths, you must invoke the fact that everything moves at light speed in spacetime, which is nowhere in sight. AG*It's nowhere in sight because I didn't use it. * *Brent --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/51f6653e-c597-4eb8-8b78-c97f6a06c464n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51f6653e-c597-4eb8-8b78-c97f6a06c464n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
-- 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/7031f376-8502-4e12-8c72-3074296af329%40gmail.com.
