/sci/ - Science & Math

OH SHIT

OP IS RIGHT

QUICK CALL NATURE OR SCIENCE

>>5400803

why would the one travelling at a faster speed expect the other one to be younger than himself?

>>5400812

Relative to the travelling one, the "stationary" one is moving at a very high speed.

OP doesn't realize the travelling one has to decelerate or stop somehow.

>>5400817
Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity. (Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be de minimis.

Lifted from conservapedia. Every thread like this erodes my faith in /sci/ because there will be dozens of retarded posts with zero argument in them.

>>5400819
Have you worked the minkowski diagrams yourself?

The twin, upon arrival, would see something really weird happen.
They would view their twin as the age the lorentz equations would "predict", but as they decelerated, they would see them rapidly age.

Relativity is really weird.

>>5400826
Relativity contradicts the Word of God.

And if you want a more "scientific" answer, I will tell you that Minkowsky made a flawed assumption by assuming Relativity.

>>5400855

>>5400855
Stop replying, hide, and report.

>>5400855
I can't tell if this is a troll post or a reply to a troll post.
Math major here, the way I was taught was that one twin ultimately will decelerate relative to the other. Either way I don't give a shit

>>5400872
Wouldn't they both decelerate relative to the other? How could it be one but not the other?

>>5400874
Wait! I just remember the explanation.
Think about it this way, if you are in a moving car and you hold a pendulum up, when the car brakes, the pendulum will move forward.
Same as the twin example, even though on a simple ddx/dt^2 graph they will both be "decelerating relative to each other", the one in the spaceship is the one truly decelerating because he/she will experience the fictitious force.

>>5400803
No, they should both expect the twin that accelerated to a significant percentage of light speed and then accelerated back down to zero relative to the Earth to have experienced the time dilation.

>>5400880

Stated in the more standard way, velocity is relative, change in velocity is not. If a rogue planet passes though a star system, one can equally say that a star system passes by the rogue planet. But when a rocket accelerates away from earth and toward pluto, one cannot equally say that the universe accelerates from the direction of pluto toward earth.

>>5400803
sorry, but OP
>both twins should expect the other to be younger
Youre entire arguement is undermined by the fact that we are not based on the perspectives of other fleshy robots
it would be relatable to that experient that Neuton did where the twins would function in a shared vacuum of spacetime.

OP special relativity applies to inertial reference frames.
The twin that accelerates and decelerates leaves one reference frame and enters another when they return to earth.
There are more complicated calculations that show there is no paradox.

But if you want to keep things simple and use plain ol special relativity then you must use the reference frame of the twin who stayed on earth.