home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
- From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Twins Paradox Resolved
- Summary: direction has nothing to do with it
- Message-ID: <712252466@sheol.UUCP>
- Date: 27 Jul 92 23:30:57 GMT
- References: <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us>
- Lines: 26
-
- > From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
- > Message-ID: <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us>
- > In any frame, the apparent rate of progress of time (and distance) for
- > a fast-moving traveler is quite different when the traveler is moving
- > away, from what it is for an approaching traveler. Naturally, neither
- > the E-frame nor the T-frame runs systematically slower or faster than
- > the other, since they are equivalent. If we can agree on the
- > resolution of the paradox, then perhaps we can go on to discuss its
- > significance.
-
- This is so clearly wrong that I suspect I'm missing Tom's point
- altogether. The "rate of progress of time (and distance)" of
- a fast-moving traveler is identical whether "moving away" or
- "approaching". This is simple to see, because both are altered
- by the factor of (1-v^2)^.5, which is always the same factor
- regardless of the position of the traveler along a trajectory,
- and regardless of the direction of motion along that trajectory.
-
- It is true that neither the E-frame or the T-frame runs systematically
- slower or faster.... they BOTH run slower or faster, depending on
- who is measuring.
-
- So, no, we (at least I) can't agree on a "resolution" of the "paradox"
- that involves differing factors for approaching vs receeding objects.
- --
- Wayne Throop ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
-