MacM:As usual you're making a basic, childish mistake.
Consider three points on a straight road: A, B and C. Suppose the distance from A to B is 100 km and the distance from B to C is 100 km. Suppose a car drives from A to C at 100 km/hr.
The time taken to travel from A to B is then 1 hour, and there's another hour from B to C, making the total trip time from A to C equal to 2 hours.
Now suppose that 2 cars drive along this road, starting from A. Both travel at 100 km/hr. Car 1 stops at point B, while car 2 drives on to point C. The trip time for Car 1 is then 1 hour and the trip time for Car 2 is 2 hours. Car 1 traveled half the distance that Car 2 traveled, and it took half the time. The "clocks" in cars 1 and 2 ticked at the same rate (note: I am ignoring the very very small time dilation effect at 100 km/hr here.
This is kindergarten physics for your benefit. We'll get to relativity later.)
Right. No surprise here.
I would like to alter your case just slightly. We have points 'A' & 'B' and 'C' but there is a 'c' which is the same physical location as 'C'.
Now if you want to claim relativity and Car 1 reaches 'c' in 1 hour then Car 2 is just now at 'B' but must stop his clock because Car 1 has completed the trip to 'C' and his clock will also show just 1 hour when Car 1 arrived at 'c'
Hmmmmm. This is kindergarten physics for your benefit. We'll get to relativity later.
Are you with me so far? Do you want to disagree with any of the above analysis?
Ditto. Did you notice your scenario has no merit?
Now, we could draw a diagram for this. It would look something like this:
Here, the times measured on clocks in the two cars are marked off in minutes.Code:Space: A.......................B.......................C Car 1 time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60 Car 2 time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120
Still with me?
Now, it seems that the above is your argument for the twin paradox situation as well - that one twin travels half the distance of the other in half the time, so the clocks must tick at the same rate.
Your basic misunderstanding - the misunderstanding of a small child - is that in the example above, there are TWO DIFFERENT TRIPS! Car 1 drives from A to B. Car 2 drives from A to C.
Yes see my clarifying text above. Still no time dilation.
Now we turn to the twin paradox situation. That looks something like this:
Code:Stationary twin space: A.......................B.......................A Stationary twin time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120 Travelling twin space: A...........B...........A Travelling twin time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60
Here, the stationary twin measures the travelling twin as travelling (say), 200 km in 120 minutes, at a speed of 100 km/hr. The travelling twin measures the distance as 100 km and the trip takes 60 minutes at 100 km/hr.
Now can you see the crucial point of difference between this example and the kindergarten example above, boys and girls?
Yes I see you duplicating my diagrams but failing to acknowledge the truth.
Your diagram (as well as mine) show that if you assert lorentz spatial contraction both clocks must tick in sync which you have already said is impossible.
Further since they tick in sync when the traveling clock reaches 'A' in 1 hour the resting clock must also register 1 hour and stop his clock.
You are still trying to talk in circles and ignore the physical realities. Your post does not alter anything. The only thing that works is for clocks to physically dilate if accelerated and distance to remain fixed.
Code:
Stationary twin space: A.......................B.......................A
Stationary twin time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120
Travelling twin space: A.......................B.......................A
Travelling twin time:.. 0......10......20......30......40......50......60
Yes, that's right kiddies! In the twin paradox example, we're not talking about two DIFFERENT trips any more, but THE SAME TRIP!
Thats right Kiddies nobody ever said anything about two different trips. This is James R's own fantasy. Just like his fantasy that clocks can't tick in sync between frames but then he turns around and claims in his scenario they do.
Got to watch James he is clever at switching things around when he needs to.
Posted by James R:" The "clocks" in cars 1 and 2 ticked at the same rate
In the twin example, BOTH observers watch the traveller go from A to B to A. In the stationary observer's frame, the traveller does NOT cover any ground that the traveller does not also cover in the traveller's frame. ALL points passed through on this trip are passed through in both frames.
Precisely and lets not forget that clocks are ticking in sync and that as your diagram shows the traveler has arrived in 1 hour while the resting twin thinks he is still only half way there and the resting clock is still at 1 hour also.
So what is your explanation the traveling twin is behind some event horizon and invisible for an hour - LOL :bugeye:
This is quite OBVIOUSLY different to the situation where car 1 never reaches point C, while car 2 does get to point C.
The difference is most obvious. Unfortunately the first case has nothing to do with the issue raised and your second is not a resolution.
Now, MacM. The question is: are you still going to act like a big baby about this, or give in an admit your kindergarten mistake?
Now,James R. The question is: are you still going to act like a big baby about this, or give in an admit your kindergarten mistake?
A dilated clock matches prediction if there is NO spatial contraction. Spatial contraction applied to a trip proves clocks must tick in sync and no time dialtion can exist.
Hmmmmm. I wonder if it will ever sink into James R's thick skull.
Last edited: