The Twins Paradox and the speed of light

Now hold on a minute, are you claiming there would be an age difference between the twins if there was acceleration involved in one of the twins velocity, or if there is no acceleration but just constant velocity or in both cases?Cavediver is supposed to be an expert in this field, and he can't seem to even answer this in English, so maybe you can.

I'm sorry, was I pitching my explanations a bit too high for you? Just say the word and I'll dumb it down to your level. Now, you were going to bring me some Einstein quotes, I believe...?

At first you come out saying that it is crap to suggest that Einstein wasn't satisfied with answering this problem, and now you meekly assert that yes, he may have had doubts at times, but that he answered it successfully many times, when in fact you know full well he had doubts about this issue up until his deathbed. I mean come on cavediver, if you call yourself a scientist, why don't you even attempt to discuss in an honest fashion. Einstein repeatedly stated that he wasn't sure that relativity could be applied to real life physical events. In 1921 he said:"The idea of the measuring rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics."The thing is you know this, of course. And yet you still feel the need to try to win your point by acting like its preposterous to suggest that Einstein wasn't comfortable with an answer to this. Its such a childish position you take, as if all you really care about it trying to appear correct, instead of trying to be truthful. Is your argument so weak, that you feel the need to create false ones. Do you seek to provide honest answers, or are you just here to try to show your manhood? Because its not very authentic or scientific of you. I think you just do it on purpose to be adversarial.

Then answer the question, will the twins have different ages if one is traveling only at a constant speed, or if one is traveling at an accelerated speed, or in both cases?Call it A, B, or C, which is it?

oh dear, you really need to work on that English comprehension. I was simply and facetiously pointing out that of course Einstein would not have had an answer before the actual question had arisen, and in the minutes before he had managed to actually understand the issue. Do try to keep up. Really? I know full well? Jesus, you must not only be a mind reader but you must be able to see deep into my subconscious mind, because my conscious mind has no such knoweldge and considers the idea that he had such doubts utterly laughable. See? --> No, he did not. Or certainly not that I have seen. Are you really so stupid as to think that the above quote suggests that "he wasn't sure that relativity could be applied to real life physical events"? Does it not occur to you, even for the briefest of moments, that Einstein is here talking of the unphysicality of idealised measuring devices? Something that any of us who have actually taught Relativity have stressed ourselves to our students.Jesus, Bolder-dash, if you are trying to convince us of your utter ineptitude, it is working wonderfully. Yep,. Bolder-dash, keep yapping... it is entertaining... for now.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

A, B, or C cavediver. Its multiple choice. A, B or C?

Your question is far too vague. State exactly what you mean. Constant speed does not mean the absence of acceleration; that would be constant velocity. If constant velocity, how are you bringing the two "twins" back into contact?

Far too vague? Its FAR too vague? Ok, how is this:I will make them numbers, since you are not as good with letters:1. The twin who sets out on a journey is at constant velocity, until he reaches his turn around point, he then suddenly stops is accelerated back to the same velocity which is near the speed of light, in approximately one half second, then he continues all the way back at a constant velocity back to the other twin.2. The twin accelerates the entire time to time a half way point, turns around and accelerates all the way back to the twin at the same speed as in the case of number one, near the speed of light. Always accelerating.In scenarios 1 or 2, are they the same age, or different ages when they meet up (not counting the half second that he accelerated to near the speed of light in case number 1) ?3. They each have a clock starting with the same time. One of the twins begins a journey at a constant velocity, near the speed of light, but they never meet again. Do the clocks remain the same from the standpoint of a third party observer with good eyes who always remains exactly half way between the two twins?

And here is another option:1. One of the twins remains on earth, while another twin is accelerated on a giant circle near the speed of light for ten years and ends up back at earth. When he returns are the twins the same age or different? If different who is younger?

Also I am very curious cavediver. In your initial answer to this question: You don't mention anything about acceleration, do you? Were you intentionally being far too vague? How could you answer this question without knowing if they were accelerating or not?

1) twin who stays home ages more2) twin who stays home ages more3) third party observer in the middle see both clocks running at same rate

1) the travelling twin is younger

No, because it's not really an important point other than when you approach Special Relativity from its limited historical persepctive. To create two different 4d paths through space-time between the same two space-time points, acceleration must be involved with one or both paths. This is a trvial consequence. The important point is the differing path-lengths, not the acceleration.

Here is a simple way to answer the question plot the distance from the starting point vs time for both travelers on a space time graph. The maximum duration possible is along a horizontal path between events. That is the path traveled by the stay at home twin. Any path deviating from that will show a smaller duration.1. Path is approximately an isoceles triangle. Duration is less than for stay at home twin. Let's assume that twin is not squished into jelly.2. Path consists of curved sections rather than straight lines. Duration is less than stay at home twin.3. Yes. But if we want to ask questions about ages, we will have difficulty specifying a time for a comparison because the participabts will disagree about whether given events are simultaneous.ABE:The convention space time graph has time along the vertical axis. I don't think it changes anything other than to say that the maximum duration between two events would be a vertical line which is the path for the stay at home twin.End of ABE Uncalled for. It's no big deal not to understand this stuff or to fail to follow the explanations. No need to lash out at people who do understand. Do you truly understand physics well enough so that your intuition that something makes no sense is something to be trusted? I know that such is not the case for me.You are right about one thing, Einstein did publish a paper in the late 1910s in which he made remarks about the twins paradox that are now known to be incorrect. But what of it? Is there any doubt now that the twin paradox is based on actual and observed physics? If so perhaps we can address your concerns by pointing to experimental evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : Address unconventional nature of my proposed space-time plot.

Can you point me to this, as I haven't come across this before. Admittedly, there was a whole host of arguments and counter-arguments in the SR early days and I have this picture of Minkowski simply banging his head against his desk, saying "please, just look at it my way". Of course, by 1910, he had sadly already died.