Acceleration is not important in the twin paradox

[Iggy]

 

The results don't depend on acceleration.

 

This is the third time I am pointing to your erroneous claim.

 

 

I can keep quoting published sources repeating what I said if you like, eg...

 

Notice that in general relativity, the equations describing the proper time of a moving clock are expressed solely in terms of the instantaneous value of its velocity and the potentials of the gravitational field. It does not depend on acceleration and/or derivatives of the gravitational field as a consequence of the first clock postulate... The fact that atomic processes are not affected by acceleration has been verified experimentally by Pound and Rebka (1960) who measured the thermal dependence of the fractional frequency shift for samples of Fe. They confirmed an excellent agreement with the proper time delay equation up to extraordinarily high precision, excluding any dependence on acceleration being as much as 10¹⁷ m/s²

 

Relativistic Mechanics -- google book, p 290

 

I'm afraid substantive discussion is impossible, so that is really all I can do.

 

Edited June 5, 2013 by Iggy

[xyzt]

I can keep quoting published sources repeating what I said if you like, eg...

 

 

I'm afraid substantive discussion is impossible, so that is really all I can do.

 

You can answer the simple question you have been evading:

 

Acceleration is:

 

A. Important in the twins paradox

B. Not important in the twins paradox.

 

Which one is it, Iggy? A or B? Give a straight answer, stop hiding behind inapplicable quotes. Is the claim in the title of this thread TRUE or FALSE?

[md65536]

Which one is it, Iggy? A or B? Give a straight answer, stop hiding behind inapplicable quotes. Is the claim in the title of this thread TRUE or FALSE?

In post 206 you asked me to "do the honorable thing and admit that the claim in the title is false", which I did. I explained what I meant by the title and admitted that it was poorly worded and wrong by its literal meaning.

 

What's the point of doing an honorable thing for someone who does not honor it?

[xyzt]

I admit the claim in the title is false.

 

You're right, the experiment would be equivalent to a corresponding twin paradox even with different speeds.

Then why are you persisting, 100+ posts in the thread? You should be done with it.

[md65536]

Then why are you persisting, 100+ posts in the thread? You should be done with it.

Iggy's statements are correct. Ignoring them and attacking the thread title instead is attacking a strawman.

[xyzt]

Iggy's statements are correct. Ignoring them and attacking the thread title instead is attacking a strawman.

No, they are incorrect, Iggy thinks that he has created a scenario that proves that acceleration isn't the critical part in creating the paradox, thus agreeing with your original false claim. He also keeps claiming the the debate is about the clock hypothesis, I proved both his claims false.

BTW: you can lay off your cowardly practice of negging my posts, I am simply trying to teach you mainstream physics.

What Iggy has done is that he has applied the same acceleration value (2g) in a different manner to the two twins: the "carousel twin" has the acceleration normal to the direction of motion , thus having no influence on the speed involved in the evaluation of his elapsed proper time whereas for the other twin, Iggy applied the acceleration in the direction of motion , such that it has direct influence on the speed involved in the evaluation of his elapsed proper time. In other words, Iggy thinks that he has created a counter-example justifying his oft repeated fringe claim that the disparity in the elapsed proper time "doesn't depend on acceleration", when, in reality, he has created a disparity in the speeds of the twins based on applying the same value for the acceleration (2g) in a different manner to the two twins, orthogonal to the motion for the "carousel twin" and tangential to the motion to the other twin. So, he has proven exactly the opposite to his fringe claim, that the disparity in elapsed proper time between the twins, does depend on acceleration. Speed profile is a direct function of acceleration, as shown by numerous examples. Change the acceleration and the results change between the twins.

Edited June 5, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

He also keeps claiming the the debate is about the clock hypothesis, I proved both his claims false.

 

[...]

 

So, he has proven exactly the opposite to his fringe claim, that the disparity in elapsed proper time between the twins, does depend on acceleration.

'Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example]

 

You have done this several times in this and other threads.

Finding examples where acceleration plays a key role doesn't contradict cases where it doesn't, such as in post #1.

[xyzt]

'Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalization) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example]

...exactly what Iggy tried to do. What makes it worse, is he managed to prove exactly the opposite of what he intended to prove.

 

 

Finding examples where acceleration plays a key role doesn't contradict cases where it doesn't, such as in post #1.

Funny that you still maintain this fallacy: your post #1 scenario is based on acceleration just the same, the fact that you have been in denial throughout the thread doesn't change the facts.

[Iggy]

No, they are incorrect, Iggy thinks that he has created a scenario that proves that acceleration isn't the critical part in creating the paradox, thus agreeing with your original false claim.

 

I didn't create the scenario. YdoaPs did.

 

My exact claims was "The results don't depend on acceleration." I've given at least 3 sources echoing the claim.

 

 

He also keeps claiming the the debate is about the clock hypothesis...

But the clock postulate is not in discussion, I am pointing out your misconceptions in terms of how acceleration affects the total elapsed proper time.

 

Please follow particular attention to the words I bold:

Notice that in general relativity, the equations describing the proper time of a moving clock are expressed solely in terms of the instantaneous value of its velocity and the potentials of the gravitational field. It does not depend on acceleration and/or derivatives of the gravitational field as a consequence of the first clock postulate... The fact that atomic processes are not affected by acceleration has been verified experimentally by Pound and Rebka (1960) who measured the thermal dependence of the fractional frequency shift for samples of Fe. They confirmed an excellent agreement with the proper time delay equation up to extraordinarily high precision, excluding any dependence on acceleration being as much as 10¹⁷ m/s²

 

Relativistic Mechanics -- google book, p 290

 

Allow me to reiterate what the published sources are saying: As a consequence of the clock postulate, proper time of a moving clock does not depend on acceleration.

 

 

 

Also, consider Md's three twin version of the twin paradox. You reject it and nag like a child with broccoli on his plate, but it is well published in exactly the same context of this thread:

 

However, according to the so-called 'clock hypothesis' and the experiments which confirm it (see, for example, [55, p. 83]) the rate of an ideal clock is unaffected by its acceleration [56, p. 164], [57, p. 33], [58, p. 55].

Another argument that the acceleration does not cause the slowing down of B's time is the so-called three-clock version of the twin paradox shown in Fig. 5.11b (see for example [59]). Instead of twin B, who accelerates four times during his journey, consider two clocks B₁ and B₂ which move with constant velocities. At event D the readings of the clock B₁ and A's clock are set to zero (when B₁ passes A). When B₁ reaches the turning point at T, it is intercepted by the second clock B₂ and the readings of the two clocks are instantaneously synchronized. The readings of clock B₂ and A's clock are compared at M at the instant B₂ passes A. The calculations show that the difference in the readings of B₂ and A's clock at M will again be five years. As the acceleration does not cause the slowing down of B's time and since no other hypothesis for that slowing down has ever been proposed it appears virtually certain that the flow of B's time is not affected in any way.

As a third argument that the acceleration does not cause the slowing down of B's time, consider an additional...

 

Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime, p148

Md independently discovered the argument published above, and your nagging does nothing to diminish that.

 

The claims of this thread are very well established in the history of relativity. These are facts, and they are much more substantial and interesting than your vapid and arrogant opinion.

 

 

What Iggy has done is that he has applied the same acceleration value (2g) in a different manner to the two twins: the "carousel twin" has the acceleration normal to the direction of motion , thus having no influence on the speed involved in the evaluation of his elapsed proper time whereas for the other twin, Iggy applied the acceleration in the direction of motion , such that it has direct influence on the speed involved in the evaluation of his elapsed proper time.

 

The centrifuge is a useful tool. The stay-at-home twin could just as well pace back and forth over a distance of 20 meters constantly experiencing 2g proper acceleration. Linearly... if it matters to you. If you're objecting to circular motion now. You really can't run any faster with that goalpost, can you?

 

In other words, Iggy thinks that he has created a counter-example justifying his oft repeated fringe claim that the disparity in the elapsed proper time "doesn't depend on acceleration"

 

When both twins have identical acceleration (their accelerometers match at the beginning and end of the experiment) but their clocks do not match (one ages less) then clearly the results do not depend on acceleration. I've given a number of sources saying that it doesn't depend on acceleration. I'm sorry if you don't like the idea, but it is well published and you have no meaningful objection to it.

 

Speed profile is a direct function of acceleration

 

No, acceleration is a function of velocity and time.

 

 

Let's try an analogy... Acceleration is the derivative of velocity and velocity is the derivative of position.

 

If I am in the ocean I am wet. If I am on land then I am dry. My position determines my wetness. Velocity (being the time derivative of position) does not determine my wetness. If I tell you "I am traveling 3 m/s", that doesn't tell you if I am wet or dry.

 

If I have a velocity relative to X then I'm time dilated relative to X. My velocity determines my time dilation. Acceleration (being the time derivative of velocity) does not determine my time dilation. If I tell you "I am accelerating 3 m/s²", that doesn't tell you my time dilation.

 

 

Position and velocity are related. Altitude sickness doesn't depend on your "velocity profile". It depends on your position (ie relative to the earth's surface).

Velocity and acceleration are related. Time dilation doesn't depend on your "acceleration profile". It depends on your velocity (ie relative to your twin).

[xyzt]

 

I didn't create the scenario. YdoaPs did.

Doesn't matter, you took the trouble to explain it in mathematical terms (albeit not very well) and I debunked it by pointing out your misconceptions.

 

So, please answer this simple question:

 

Acceleration is:

 

A. Important in the twins paradox

B. Not important in the twins paradox.

 

Which one is it, Iggy? A or B? Give a straight answer, stop hiding behind inapplicable quotes. Is the claim in the title of this thread .

When both twins have identical acceleration (their accelerometers match at the beginning and end of the experiment) but their clocks do not match (one ages less) then clearly the results do not depend on acceleration. I've given a number of sources saying that it doesn't depend on acceleration. I'm sorry if you don't like the idea, but it is well published and you have no meaningful objection to it.

I have already shown the fallacy in your above statement, in simple words , you are using a cheap trick, very easy to debunk, you try to apply one acceleration normal to the direction of motion while you are applying the other acceleration tangential to the motion, so their effects are obviously different. From the above sleigh of hand you declare that the effect "doesn't depend on acceleration. "

The centrifuge is a useful tool. The stay-at-home twin could just as well pace back and forth over a distance of 20 meters constantly experiencing 2g proper acceleration. Linearly... if it matters to you. If you're objecting to circular motion now.

I have already proven you wrong on this subject, if the 2g acceleration is tangential , instead of your sleigh of hand attempt at making it normal to the direction of motion, the twins age, contrary to your incorrect claims, the same.

 

The total elapsed times for the twins will be :

 

[math]\Delta \tau1 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a1 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a1 \ \text{arsinh}( a1 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

[math]\Delta \tau2 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a2 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a2 \ \text{arsinh}( a2 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

Making [math]a1=a2=2g[/math] one gets:

 

[math]\Delta \tau1=\Delta \tau2[/math]

No, acceleration is a function of velocity and time.

Not when you try to calculate total elapsed time, see here (you can also check the references). Your error of thinking becomes even more obvious when the calculation is done from the perspective of an accelerated twin. See here.

 

You know, earlier you have suggested in a very arrogant manner that I submit to peer reviewed journals my "findings". I did much more than that, I published not one but three papers on related subjects in mainstream physics journals (in addition to writing the two wiki paragraphs that I keep referring you to). So, perhaps you could drop the attitude and start really taking in the information that is being provided on the subject.

Edited June 5, 2013 by xyzt

[Iggy]

Acceleration is:

 

 

A. Important in the twins paradox

 

B. Not important in the twins paradox.

 

nonexistent when measured with 3 clocks.

 

 

I have already shown the fallacy in your above statement, in simple words , you are using a cheap trick, very easy to debunk, you try to apply one acceleration normal to the direction of motion while you are applying the other acceleration tangential to the motion, so their effects are obviously different.

 

See my last post about linear acceleration for the stay-at-home twin.

 

I fear I'm serving your purpose to obstruct the thread, so I'll wish you the best of luck.

[xyzt]

 

nonexistent when measured with 3 clocks*.

This is false, I already debunked this claim. So did Markus.

 

See my last post about linear acceleration for the stay-at-home twin.

I did, I already pointed out your mistakes.

Here it is again, for the fourth time:

 

I have already proven you wrong on this subject, if the 2g acceleration is tangential , instead of your sleigh of hand attempt at making it normal to the direction of motion, the twins age, contrary to your incorrect claims, the same.

 

The total elapsed times for the twins will be :

 

[math]\Delta \tau1 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a1 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a1 \ \text{arsinh}( a1 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

[math]\Delta \tau2 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a2 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a2 \ \text{arsinh}( a2 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

Making [math]a1=a2=2g[/math] one gets:

 

[math]\Delta \tau1=\Delta \tau2[/math]

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Vesselin Petkov, I know this guy, he is a well known crackpot, a not so subtle relativity denier. Congratulations, you found a really good reference!

Edited June 5, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

see here (you can also check the references).

Sure. From [16], E. Minguzzi (2005) - Differential aging from acceleration: An explicit formula - Am. J. Phys. 73: 876-880 arXiv:physics/0411233

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411233

 

From the first paragraph:

"The old question as to whether acceleration could be consid-

ered responsible for differential aging receives a simple

answer by noticing that proper and inertial time are re-

lated in the time dilation effect; since relative velocity

enters there so does acceleration changing the velocity.

The acceleration, however, is not the ultimate source of

differential aging as the twin paradox in non-trivial space-

time topologies can be reformulated without any need of

accelerated observers."

[Iggy]

I did, I already pointed out your mistakes.

Here it is again, for the fourth time:

 

I have already proven you wrong on this subject, if the 2g acceleration is tangential , instead of your sleigh of hand attempt at making it normal to the direction of motion, the twins age, contrary to your incorrect claims, the same.

 

The total elapsed times for the twins will be :

 

[math]\Delta \tau1 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a1 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a1 \ \text{arsinh}( a1 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

[math]\Delta \tau2 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a2 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a2 \ \text{arsinh}( a2 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

Making [math]a1=a2=2g[/math] one gets:

 

[math]\Delta \tau1=\Delta \tau2[/math]

 

Do you mean that someone accelerating and decelerating back and forth at 2g, over a distance of 100 meters (back and forth, back and forth, over and over) ages the same as someone who accelerates and decelerates back and forth once at 2g over a much larger distance? When they reunite their clocks would be equal?

 

I'm curious if I understand you correctly.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Iggy

[xyzt]

Do you mean that someone accelerating and decelerating back and forth at 2g, over a distance of 100 meters (back and forth, back and forth, over and over) ages the same as someone who accelerates and decelerates back and forth once at 2g over a much larger distance? When they reunite their clocks would be equal?

 

I'm curious if I understand you correctly.

Yep, the distance plays no role. Something else does, do you know how to do this calculation all by yourself?

You still haven't answered my basic question:

 

Acceleration is:

 

A. Important in the twins paradox

B. Not important in the twins paradox.

 

Please do so.

Sure. From [16], E. Minguzzi (2005) - Differential aging from acceleration: An explicit formula - Am. J. Phys. 73: 876-880 arXiv:physics/0411233

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411233

 

From the first paragraph:

"The old question as to whether acceleration could be consid-

ered responsible for differential aging receives a simple

answer by noticing that proper and inertial time are re-

lated in the time dilation effect; since relative velocity

enters there so does acceleration changing the velocity.

The acceleration, however, is not the ultimate source of

differential aging as the twin paradox in non-trivial space-

time topologies can be reformulated without any need of

accelerated observers."

Yet, Minguzzi's answer is a direct function of proper acceleration. Fancy that! The explanation is that, in SR, "accelerated observer" and "acceleration" are not one and the same thing: "accelerated observers" are prohibited in SR, by definition, whereas SR deal with acceleration just fine. You can't perform physics by cherry picking quotes, you need to learn it. So far, you are just cherry picking quotes. You can stop the cowardly act of negging me, I am just trying to teach you physics.

Edited June 6, 2013 by xyzt

[Iggy]

Yep, the distance plays no role. Something else does, do you know how to do this calculation all by yourself?

 

Excellent. I propose we split this up into a few posts and see if you agree with me.

 

Your formula:

 

[math]\Delta \tau1 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a1 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a1 \ \text{arsinh}( a1 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

assumes that the traveling twin coasts between accelerating and decelerating. I propose we stick to the agreed upon scenario and just have him accelerate then immediately decelerate.

 

Let's have a stationary observer (person A) who just does bookkeeping. He can sit in one spot and figure the proper time of both the traveling twin and the pacing twin. Starting with the traveling twin....

 

Person A sits for four years. The first year, person B (the traveling twin) accelerates away at 2g, the second year B decelerates then turns around, the third B accelerates towards A, and the fourth B decelerates and lands next to A.

 

[math]\tau_A = 4 \ \mbox{years}[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{c}{a} \mbox{arcsinh} \left( \frac{at}{c} \right)[/math]

 

c = 1 lightyear / year

a = 2.06314646 lightyears / year²

t = 1 year (A's proper time for one segment of the trip)

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{1}{2.06314646} \mbox{arcsinh} \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} \right)[/math]

 

(or, by the definition of arcsinh)...

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{c}{a} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{at}{c} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{at}{c} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{1}{2.06314646} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 2.853 \ \mbox{years}[/math]

 

Is this acceptable? I know we aren't finished, but I wanted to stop and see if we're good.

 

A is stationary and spends 4 years watching B accelerate away then back at 2g. The round trip takes B 2.853 years.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Iggy

[xyzt]

 

Excellent. I propose we split this up into a few posts and see if you agree with me.

 

Your formula:

 

[math]\Delta \tau1 = 2 T_c / \sqrt{ 1 + (a1 \ T_a/c)^2 } + 4 c / a1 \ \text{arsinh}( a1 \ T_a/c )[/math]

 

assumes that the traveling twin coasts between accelerating and decelerating. I propose we stick to the agreed upon scenario and just have him accelerate then immediately decelerate.

 

Let's have a stationary observer (person A) who just does bookkeeping. He can sit in one spot and figure the proper time of both the traveling twin and the pacing twin. Starting with the traveling twin....

 

Person A sits for four years. The first year, person B (the traveling twin) accelerates away at 2g, the second year B decelerates then turns around, the third B accelerates towards A, and the fourth B decelerates and lands next to A.

 

[math]\tau_A = 4 \ \mbox{years}[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{c}{a} \mbox{arcsinh} \left( \frac{at}{c} \right)[/math]

 

c = 1 lightyear / year

a = 2.06314646 lightyears / year²

t = 1 year (A's proper time for one segment of the trip)

 

[math]\tau_B = 4 \frac{1}{2.06314646} \mbox{arcsinh} \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} \right)[/math]

 

(or, by the definition of arcsinh)...

 

[math]\tau = \frac{c}{a} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{at}{c} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{at}{c} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau = \frac{1}{2.06314646} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 2.853 \ \mbox{years}[/math]

 

Is this acceptable? I know we aren't finished, but I wanted to stop and see if we're good.

 

A is stationary and spends 4 years watching B accelerate away then back at 2g. The round trip takes B 2.853 years.

I really don't like your continuing intent on using numerical calculations, physicists use symbolic calculations.

It is very simple , really:

 

A watches B and C following the same profile, for time [math]T[/math] (accelerate, coast, decelerate with the same proper acceleration on each segment of the trip). B makes a linear trip while C runs in circles. (your scenario from #297) . Therefore [math]\tau_B=\tau_C=\int_0^T{\sqrt{1-v^2(t)}dt}[/math]

 

Please stop evading and answer my question:

 

Acceleration is:

 

A. Important in the twins paradox

B. Not important in the twins paradox.

Edited June 6, 2013 by xyzt

[Iggy]

I really don't like your continuing intent on using numerical calculations, physicists use symbolic calculations.

It is very simple , really:

 

A watches B and C following the same profile, for time [math]T[/math] (accelerate, coast, decelerate). Therefore [math]\tau_B=\tau_C[/math]

 

Please stop evading and answer my question:

 

 

I think acceleration can be important to the twin paradox. I think it can affect the results, but that the results don't depend on acceleration. I'd really not like to bicker over semantics.

 

The numbers are important. I'd really like to know if you agree with them. One twin has made a trip at 2g and it took him 2.853 years. I'm about to calculate the pacing twin, and if you are correct then he should also age 2.853 years.

 

Can I go ahead with the pacing twin as if everything is correct?

[xyzt]

I think acceleration can be important to the twin paradox. I think it can affect the results, but that the results don't depend on acceleration. I'd really not like to bicker over semantics

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question, so what is the answer?

 

Can I go ahead with the pacing twin as if everything is correct?

I already did it for you. Look up.

[Iggy]

This is a simple "yes" or "no" question, so what is the answer?

 

Acceleration is important in the classical twin paradox. Can I proceed with the pacing twin as if the numbers thus far are correct? The trip took the first twin 2.853 years? The one pacing back and forth is expected to take the same?

[xyzt]

 

 

Acceleration is important in the classical twin paradox.

Then we are done

Can I proceed with the pacing twin as if the numbers thus far are correct? The trip took the first twin 2.853 years? The one pacing back and forth is expected to take the same?

For the second time, I already did it for you. Can you look up?

Edited June 6, 2013 by xyzt

[Iggy]

For the second time, I already did it for you. Can you look up?

 

I can point out the error you made when giving those equations, but it will be too easy for you to dissemble and obfuscate. I need to pin you down with numbers.

 

Can I proceed as if I have calculated the proper time of B correctly?

[xyzt]

I can point out the error you made when giving those equations, but it will be too easy for you to dissemble and obfuscate. I need to pin you down with numbers.

 

Can I proceed as if I have calculated the proper time of B correctly?

Not really, you seem to have difficulty in understanding the basic fact that [math]\tau_B=\tau_C=\int_0^T{\sqrt{1-v^2}dt}[/math] for identical [math]v[/math] profiles. Of course, you will attempt another sleigh of hand and say that you made the [math]v[/math] profiles to be different, right? Even if you do that, the answer is, contrary to your oft repeated claims, a function of acceleration and its duration. This is basic stuff, how much do you plan to keep up this charade?

 

 

[math]\tau_B = \frac{c}{a} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{at}{c} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{at}{c} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = \frac{1}{2.06314646} \mbox{ln} \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} + \sqrt{1+ \left( \frac{(2.06314646)(1)}{1} \right)^2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\tau_B = 2.853 \ \mbox{years}[/math]

So, according to you, [math]\tau_B[/math] is not a function of the proper acceleration, [math]a[/math], right?

Edited June 6, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

You can't perform physics by cherry picking quotes, you need to learn it.

Then we are done

Not even an hour later, a great example of cherry picking quotes.

[Iggy]

All I did was use the relativistic rocket equation to solve the easiest acceleration / deceleration time dilation problem known to man.

 

Is the number 2.853 correct? If not, please correctly calculate. If so, please say so. If you don't know, please say you don't know.