I don’t think his clock is ticking normally. The sweep hand on the clock is supposed to be synchronized with the one on Earth. It’s supposed to move at the same speed as the one on Earth. But it’s lagging behind, isn’t it? Of course, the twin thinks the clock is ticking normally. I can’t deny that. But that’s merely what he thinks. It hinges upon the definition of what it means for a clock to work normally. I believe that, if a clock does not measure seconds, minutes and hours, that the clock isn’t work properly. That, in turn, hinges upon the definition of the word “second”. I don’t think the word “second” means “what someone thinks or feels is a second”. It has an objective meaning. That’s particularly true for units of time such as "year’ (which is the unit of time they use in that Einstein Online article.)
That’s where we disagree. The clock hasn’t worked perfectly normally throughout the journey. As soon as they got onto that rocket and started moving at an ultra speed, the clock stopped working as it should. Its hands no longer moved at the rate they are supposed to move.
I’m sorry, but I can only say you are confused. Clock hands do not have a rate that they are “supposed” to move at. The whole point is that the passage of time is relative to one’s state of motion. In the twin scenario, both the earth clock and the ship clock are absolutely correct in their findings. As I noted above, the ship clock shows less elapsed time because, in fact, the traveling twin traveled a shorter distance through time, than did the earthbound twin. The traveler’s clock fully and accurately notes this fact. The earthbound clock is also fully accurate since it measures the true fact that the earthbound twin moved a greater distance through time than did the travelling twin.
I think u got it. the clocks both accurate but need a near perfect clock in between to measure a non descript change of rate .
At least it seems impossible there is something wrong with 2 perfectly functioning clocks except s s the are perceived by an observer traveling or fixed
That’s not something to brag about. On a philosophy forum, there are really only two options when dealing with other participants. You can either 1) help the other person understand where they are wrong, or 2) you can restrain yourself from conversing with them for the time being.
As Motor Daddy said earlier:
Statements such as “You are confused” are 1) off-topic, 2) non-philosophical, and 3) a mild type of personal attack.
I don’t agree with you. I don’t agree with Sculptor. I don’t agree with Observer. I don’t agree with Phyllo. I don’t agree with Motor Daddy. I don’t agree with Ecmandu. But I never, at any time, told any of you that you’re confused (even though that’s what I unconsciously think.) It’s a completely redundant thing that people succumb to when they get frustrated.
That’s what I disagree with. The word “second” has a specific meaning. It’s not an arbitrary thing. You are not free to arbitrarily decide what’s a second. And that’s particularly obvious for units of time such as “year”. The word “year” means “the time it takes the Earth to orbit around the Sun”. That’s obviously not subjective. How many times did the Earth orbit around the Sun for the travelling twin? And how many times did it orbit around the Sun for the twin that remained on Earth? The same number of times, right? So Einstein Online can’t say that it orbited 2 times for the travelling twin and 30 times for everyone on Earth.
I hate when physicists talk about “objective frames for everyone” and use photons as the example.
Everytime I lay my head on my pillow to sleep, I am traveling many multiverses within the span of mere hours. Thought itself is the fastest thing in existence.
You’re like dinosaurs when you discuss this stuff.
I am trying to help you understand, and have devoted considerable effort in my posts to you, to do that very thing. But your confusion remains, and I am just noting that fact. It’s not a personal attack.
If you really want to understand the twin paradox in particular and special relativity in general, there are huge numbers of resources online. I suggest you consult them.
To finish up: if two clocks in the same inertial frame give different readings, then one or both is inaccurate. We are not talking about that. We are talking about clocks in two different frames. In the twin scenario, the traveler’s clock accurately measures the fact that the traveling twin traversed less time than the earthbound twin. You are not attending to anything I wrote, merely getting performatively huffy over my calling you confused, which you are.
Simples really, they both had clocks that were accurate. The stay at home clock changed nothing. The traveler clock changed rate, so it became a broken clock! It did not keep time at the standard rate!
There IS NO STANDARD RATE! You are simply defining the earth rest frame as the standard rate — i.e., an absolute rest frame, which it is not, as YOU YOURSELF noted earlier! Talk about logical confusion!
Time travel occurs. Even going to the moon and back changes the clocks by 1/4 a second. It’s a fact, not a theory or hypothesis.
There’s a lot to unpack here though.
Even without acceleration, beings with a larger mass have more gravity and they are bending space-time relative to beings with lower mass.
Mass is actually not just acceleration (it has none), but it produces the same result as acceleration - think, black holes.
All of us are dilating time through mass and acceleration. If you’re a human who weighs 1000 pounds, you’re warping space-time (by mass alone) relative to a child who weighs only 60 pounds.
…and I guess I have to answer my own question, since nobody dared to come close to it.
The stop watches are started when the traveler returns home from his journey.
The light returns to their position when the stop watches read 1 minute.
So the stay at home twin says that it took 2 minutes for the light to travel to the mirror and back, exactly as they measured many times prior.
The traveling twin says that the light made it to the mirror and back in 1 minute and 51 seconds. Hence he is saying light takes 1 minute and 51 seconds for light to travel the distance of 2 light minutes.
The traveling twin is so wrapped up in Einstein’s BS, he forgets everything he knows to be true, that it takes 2 minutes for the light to travel to the mirror and back.
His clock failed him, and he’s standing firm that it takes 1 minute and 51 seconds for light to travel the distance of 2 light minutes. He says light travels at a greater rate than c! LOL
Philosophy ILP style: the irresistible force fulminating fanatic meets the immovable object fulminating fanatic.
Only what makes the collision particularly intriguing here is that the debate revolves around relationships that seem to unfold in the either/or world.
In other words, there is one optimal or only rational argument but the topic is so far out on the Really Big Question limb that even science itself is unable to pin it down given both The Gap and Rummy’s Rule.
Still, these insufferably arrogant sorts here go after each other as though anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is a goddamn fool.
As always it’s less what is right here given The Gap and Rummy’s Rule and more how each becomes the other’s Stooge for stupidly refusing to share their own conclusion.
And, to the best of my knowledge, only two of them appear to have a “condition”.
And [believe it or not] some of them even take this arrogant, dogmatic, authoritarian stance over to the is/ought world as well!!!
And the seconds ticking on the traveler’s clock are exactly the same for him, as they are for the ground observer. As I have explained, both clocks are accurate, but the traveler’s motion is divided between space and time, whereas the ground observer, WITH RESPECT TO the traveler, has all his motion through time and none through space. Hence it is logically necessary that less time will have elapsed for the traveler, and his clock will read slow compared with the earthbound observer, when they reunite.
That’s how it starts. People try to help other peeople understand certain things, and after a number of tries, when they get tired of it, they get frustrated and personally attack the other person (instead of simply ending the conversation.)
In your case, you merely said “You’re confused”. Compared to what many other people do, that’s a rather mild personal attack. That much I can say in your defense. But it’s a personal attack nonetheless. In the last resort, it’s needless and unproductive. It distracts from the topic at hand.
I would also say that it’s a bad habit to make statements such as “That’s a fact”. It’s a needless repetition of what you believe is a fact. Your job is to convince the other person of it, not merely restate your beliefs in a cocky manner. Of course, you don’t have to do that. You always have the freedom to leave the debate and save yourself a headache or two. Noone is holding a gun against your head.
Thanks for the advice. But that’s not what I’m looking for. What I’m looking for is for someone to explain to me what’s wrong with my argument. So far, that hasn’t happened.
That’s the point, you see. When you personally attack your interlocutors, they can no longer concetrate. They become huffy, as you say, and end up responding in a suboptimal manner.
Exactly.
And the Einstein Online article is speaking in terms of years. The word “year” has a very specific meaning.
