I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if the travelling
twin undergoes time dilation when he is receding, but
he undergoes time contraction when he is returning home.
So, at the end of the trip, he will stay at rest near his twin,
and they would have aged equally.

On May 6, 9:38*am, Albertito wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if the travelling
twin undergoes time dilation when he is receding, but
he undergoes time contraction when he is returning home.
So, at the end of the trip, he will stay at rest near his twin,
and they would have aged equally.

We need clocks that can look out of the window and see which direction
and towards which destination are travelling.

Are you a troll Albertito?

Mike

On May 6, 6:38 am, Albert****o wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if the travelling
twin undergoes time dilation when he is receding, but
he undergoes time contraction when he is returning home.
So, at the end of the trip, he will stay at rest near his twin,
and they would have aged equally.



Alberth****o,

Time dilation is a function of v^2.
Twins paradox is explained as a function of trajectory thru
spacetime , thelonger the trajectory, the shorter the elapsed time,
little imbecile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_pa...et_calculation

Albertito wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if [...]

"Imagination" is useless -- I can IMAGINE the cow jumping over the moon.

What science requires is understanding the theory and then CALCULATING
what happens. Do this for SR and the twin scenario, and one obtains
agreement with experiments. Nothing more can be expected of a theory.


Tom Roberts

On May 6, 3:01 pm, Mike wrote:
On May 6, 9:38 am, Albertito wrote:

I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if the travelling
twin undergoes time dilation when he is receding, but
he undergoes time contraction when he is returning home.
So, at the end of the trip, he will stay at rest near his twin,
and they would have aged equally.

We need clocks that can look out of the window and see which direction
and towards which destination are travelling.

Are you a troll Albertito?

Mike

No, I'm not a troll, believe me.
No, we do not need that feature for clocks.
It suffices all the clocks had a universal origin
and were synchronized, say a "Big bang"
origin.

On May 6, 3:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Albertito wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if [...]

"Imagination" is useless -- I can IMAGINE the cow jumping over the moon.

What science requires is understanding the theory and then CALCULATING
what happens. Do this for SR and the twin scenario, and one obtains
agreement with experiments. Nothing more can be expected of a theory.

Tom Roberts

I don't agree. Einstein was overly imaginative

"Albertito" wrote in message ...
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if the travelling
twin undergoes time dilation when he is receding, but
he undergoes time contraction when he is returning home.
So, at the end of the trip, he will stay at rest near his twin,
and they would have aged equally.

Now look at how Pentcho Valev when he first came here
was wiped the floor with when he had conceived the same
thing. He called it "time constriction" though. He learned
nothing since then.
Note that Pentcho Valev is a real imbecile, so just imagine
what you must be then.

Dirk Vdm

Albertito wrote:
On May 6, 3:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Albertito wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if [...]
"Imagination" is useless -- I can IMAGINE the cow jumping over the moon.

What science requires is understanding the theory and then CALCULATING
what happens. Do this for SR and the twin scenario, and one obtains
agreement with experiments. Nothing more can be expected of a theory.

I don't agree. Einstein was overly imaginative

His imagination was guided by experimental evidence, not just flopping
around like yours. And he became famous because he turned his imaginings
into a real theory in which he CALCULATED things. Had he not done that,
he would not be remembered.


Tom Roberts

On May 6, 4:47 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On May 6, 3:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Albertito wrote:
I can imagine the twin paradox resolved if [...]
"Imagination" is useless -- I can IMAGINE the cow jumping over the moon.

What science requires is understanding the theory and then CALCULATING
what happens. Do this for SR and the twin scenario, and one obtains
agreement with experiments. Nothing more can be expected of a theory.

I don't agree. Einstein was overly imaginative

His imagination was guided by experimental evidence, not just flopping
around like yours.

My imagination is not flopping around. I know
very well Einstein's relativity is not the ultimate
theory. The problem is the people that worship it,
not the theory itself. Worshippers are the only
serious obstacle for the advance of science.
Worshipping is closing your eyes, and trying to
refute anything that sounds heretic.

And he became famous because he turned his imaginings
into a real theory in which he CALCULATED things. Had he not done that,
he would not be remembered.


What the hell is a "real theory"? I thought all tneories,
once they exist, are real. What do you mean by a
"real theory"? Are there theories more real than others?

Why are you so sure time contraction is not a real
phenomenon? Because Einstein said that's impossible?
Can you please tell at what rate a clock is running
in a distant galaxy wrt your clock?

On May 6, 7:40*am, Albert****o
Are you a troll Albertito?

Mike

No, I'm not a troll, believe me.


Heh-heh