Harry wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Gerald
No everybody doesn't know that there appears to be paradox in
relativity There are no paradox in relativity regardless of books
you've read. If you think your misunderstanding of the theory,
constitutes a problem for the theory, you are mistaken.

I'll translate it to you with slightly polarised words:

- Almost everyone here rejects Einstein's explanation of what he called
the
Twin Paradox (one likely exception : Ken Tucker).

Yup, thanks Harry, I think GR is needed to explain
why clocks become asynchonized because a bit of
relative acceleration is required.

Ken, thanks for the confirmation. Although we disagree on the solution,
apparently we agree with Einstein on the problem!
But I'm not sure that you fully accept Einstein's "real induced
gravitational fields".

If two clocks t and s are synchronized then

dt/ds = constant ,

and then the change in that constant is zero,

d/ds (dt/ds) = 0 == synchronized

What GR does is to define when

d/ds (dt/ds) =/=0 == asynchronization,

I don't think that it really works, as there is a timing problem from those
"induced gravitational fields"

It goes well with Planck's constant

"h" ~ 6.625*10^-27 ergs*secs.

h = e*s = E*t

which is the same in all CS's. If s/t changes
the e/E changes, so there is a required change
in relative energy.

which requires some form of change in the relative
energy of clocks t and s, which is quite simple to
imagine, but somewhat difficult to write in equations.
Like it's easy to imagine carrying a clock up a flight
of stairs, well you guy's know...

:-)

Ken

Cheers,
Harald

Cheers