Disproof of Special Relativity

>>9142287
>what is the twin paradox?

If you're going to run something like this, you have to also disprove the resolution to the paradox. I.e. relativistic doppler shift.

>>9142305
Any possible argument implying it should be A>B can be reversed in the same way that to imply that B>A. This is really what it means that "the laws of physics apply to all references frames"

>>9142287
>Disproof of
Stopped reading

>>9142372
Thanks for the bump nontheless

I'm not an expert on relativity but the way I have always though about this was that the difference is because the reference frames are not identical. The person in the spaceship actually feels an acceleration when they leave the planets reference frame while the person on earth does not, and the person on the space ship is now moving on a different path through spacetime.

>>9142345
nope one frame is inertial, the other isn't

>>9142399
nope one frame isn't inertial, the other is

>>9142397
Fine, instead of a spaceship leaving a planet, use two masses driven apart by a spring, then pulled back together by another spring.

Now both reference frames "feel acceleration" and the paradox still applies.

>>9142430
Can anyone refute this? I've never seen the twin paradox argument with two non-intertial frames before. As the two frames in this case are symmetric there seems to be no way to have it one way but not the other.

File: IMG_0807.png (528KB, 750x1334px)

528KB, 750x1334px

>>9142287
Hey I actually just read through this part in the Feynman lectures. Here ya go OP. Its a good read, you should check it out. It does wonders for not making yourself look like a brainlet on /sci/.

>>9142651
What if both frames are non-inertial? I bet Feynman never thought of that

>>9142287

you are a retard.
your brain is that of a frogs.

>>9142660
Read: >>9142430

>>9142430
If they are both moving at the same speed their clocks would read an identical amount of time dialation. That is, when they met up and compared they would have the same time. A clock placed in the middle of the spring would have read more time had passed than both spring propelled clocks. An interesting thought experiment that may clear this paradox up for you: Lets say Peter and Paul live on a planet that is moving .75c(relative to a "stationary" third party observer) in the +y direction. Peter gets in a spaceraft and travels .999c(relative to Paul, ~.25c relative to a "stationary" third party) in the -y direction. Peter stops and uses imaginary FTL communications, to tell Paul what his clock reads. Peter is still younger than Paul despite our imaginary "stationary" third party observer seeing that Peter was moving much slower than Paul. Why do you think that is?

>>9142673
The two reference frames are symmetric as they are both non-inertial. It must be that both end up with the same time passed assuming no time dilation or both A>B and B<A with time dilation. Which is it?

>>9142687
Their travels away from each other take the exact same amount of time, so there is no paradox to be resolved.

>>9142430
>>9142554

Paradox does not apply in that case and both will be the same age in the end since they both moved equally.


The core idea behind the paradox is to realize that the situation is NOT symmetrical. The planet stays still but the ship moves when compared to the initial=final frame of reference.

>>9142722
But time dilation still applies - from the perspective of one twin the other is moving away and therefore would not experience time passing at the same rate, right? But in this case both frames are non-inertial.

>>9142687
Define an inertial frame of reference.