🚀 go-pugleaf

aguirre@wigner.physics.upenn.edu (Anthony Aguirre) writes:

> I don't quite understand what the difference in approaching vs. receding
> travelers has to do with it.  I still claim that there really is no
> asymmetry.

     We agree there is no asymmetry.  The version given was a symmetric
version of the twins paradox.  The main point to note is that the
differential aging effect does not depend on turn-arounds or accelerations or
frame changes.  There is "differential aging" in a one-way trip because of
lack of distant simultaneity.  T1 ages 7 months while traveling between
events "T1 encounters E1" and "T1 encounters AC".  At the first event, E1 is
age zero.  At the second event, E2 on AC (who is synchronized with E1 in the
E-frame) is aged 4 years.  There is no problem in the math here, everybody
agrees.  But people who argue that somebody needs to turn around to produce a
differential aging effect should now be able to see that is unnecessary.

     As for logical problems, one must give up totally on the concept of
distant simultaneity; and one must accept that *apparent* aging depends upon
direction of travel, approach or receding.  There is a way to avoid both of
these considerable logical compromises.  But I do not argue that they cannot
be possible, only that one must make a sacrifice (unnecessarily, it turns
out) of "common sense" to accept this interpretation of the experimental
data.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.