On 10/1/2025 2:32 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.


*It seems to me that the acceleration of the longer path must be larger than that of the shorter path because its turning angle is larger to get the two clocks to move in parallel for final juxtaposition. AG *
That's why I showed it as two increments of half the total angle each, just as Blue also makes two equal turns.

Brent






    *So, if there is acceleration, there is also gravity by applying
    the Equivalence Principle, *
    So did you apply gravitational time dilation to each twin above?

    *and clocks in gravitational fields slow down, and this applies
    solely to the traveling twin. Notice, I never used or applied the
    concept of force, *
    Above you seem to think the equivalence principle means
    acceleration implies gravity

    Brent
    *so claiming I did so, shows you didn't understand my solution
    (using GR!). 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/76159301-449d-4155-aee4-f94c1aa88a40n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/76159301-449d-4155-aee4-f94c1aa88a40n%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/a248d435-539f-4981-9f0b-b296acabb54b%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to