# Q&A with James R and Tony on the Twin Paradox Experiment

Tony:

I thought you said you were leaving us? But here you are, back again. Just couldn't stay away from the place, eh, Tony?
You can post your opinion on James R's answer. I'm here to learn from SR masters like James R.
I'm still waiting to see your own analysis of your scenario, Tony. I asked you for it back in post #2 of this thread. Do you remember?

Also, why haven't you responded to the dot points in my post #5? Are you going to do that, or not?

Are you still trolling, Tony?

If you can't do any better, I think perhaps it might be best to exclude you from this thread. That will free it up for the adults here to discuss things, without the distraction of your inane comments and baby-troll attempts at provocation.
James R believes that the final total time dilation of A and B is the same, and they will be equally young...
No. I don't "believe" that. I suggested that, after spending a minute or two thinking about the scenario, I thought that might be the case. I'm quite willing to listen to counterarguments, and to be corrected if I am wrong.
, that is to say, when B flies at a constant speed of 0.1c, it does not make B's time slower.
This is not what I said. This is your interpretation, added to what I told you. Don't misrepresent me, Tony.

B's time is never slower for B. Nobody ever thinks his own time is slowed down or speeded up. It is always the other guy's clocks that one perceives are running slow or fast.
That is to say, speed is not the main factor affecting time dilation, but acceleration is.
I have now corrected you on this error at least three times.

Speed and acceleration both have affects on time differences between reference frames. There is no "main factor". Either one can have a larger effect that the other, or both can have equal effects; it depends on the particular scenario.
It looks like your answer is also the exact opposite of James R's.
This is how science works, Tony. People can disagree with one another - even experts can disagree. When experts disagree, they have discussions with one another, and each tries to convince the other of his position and/or why the other position might be incorrect. At the end of the discussion, it is possible that one of the experts will change his or her mind, and both will then agree on the correct answer.

Science is a wonderful thing. It has built-in self-correction mechanisms. It weeds out errors. It converges on "truth" using many tried-and-tested methods. It encourages debate and the free sharing of knowledge. It exposes pseudoscience.
SR cannot withstand logical analysis.
Nothing you have ever written has suggested that SR cannot withstand logical analysis.

You have given no examples in which SR fails to withstand logical analysis.

Your claim is empty. You've got nothing, and I suspect you know it.
I started a dialogue with GPT, and GPT's initial views are completely consistent with SR's mainstream views.
Chat GPT is a large language model, Tony. It just draws upon the data it was trained on to produce responses, word by word. It knows nothing - zero, zilch, nada - about relativity.
But after my debate with it, GPT overturned the original point of view.
GPT gave you contradictory answers because you were unable to frame your questions to it clearly enough to make them unambiguous.
I can do the same thing to mess with the logic of James R and his apprentices...
When are you going to start doing that, Tony?

Let's see your analysis of the scenario, Tony. Go on. I dare you to post your analysis.

I don't think you can solve the problem you have posed. I don't think you understand very much about relativity at all.

Prove me wrong, Tony. Show us all what an expert you are.
..., and as you can see, James R's answer throws them into a mess.
Not at all. You just didn't understand their answers, Tony.
What you mean, I can simply understand that consciousness determines the final result.
Janus wrote no such thing. Don't misrepresent him, Tony.

When are you going to stop telling lies, Tony?
What do you think of James R's answer, his conclusion is different from yours.
I have already asked him, Tony. You probably won't be able to follow any conversation that Janus and myself have. You've given no sign that you've been able to follow the arguments put to you so far.
There's no fear of that happening any time soon, Tony.

You are quite unable to find any flaws in SR. You haven't posted a single one, so far.
Let's wait for the adults in the room to have a discussion about this, eh, Tony? I don't think you have anything useful to contribute.

Janus58:

My original, back-of-the-envelope guess at the answer to Tony's scenario relied on what I perceive as a symmetry between A and B. From a previous post:

As to the scenario in your opening post here, you have specified that A and B have exactly the same accelerations. To my mind, that means that the situation is symmetrical between A and B. We can consider A to remain stationary and B to move, or consider B to remain stationary and A to move. At different times, both A and B experience identical accelerations, so whatever the effects of those accelerations, in terms of time dilation, they must be the same in each frame of reference. Therefore, I conclude that the twins will, at the end of their trips, be the same age as one another once again. During the trips, they will each see the other aging faster or slower than themselves (at different times), but these effects are symmetrical for both of them.
Reading your analysis, I think you might be right and I might be wrong, but I'm still a little confused about where the asymmetry lies.

Can you please explain it to me? Just where the asymmetry comes from; no need to work through the whole problem.

You can pretty much ignore Tony. Notice that he is completely unable to analyse this problem himself. He is entirely reliant on you, mike, exchemist and myself to solve it for him. I don't think he even accepts special relativity, and he has no idea about how acceleration might be handled in relativity.
In this scenario, where both A and B undergo the same accelerations, the asymmetry comes from the distance to the Earth when each does their "turnaround" towards Earth.

Let's assume that there are clocks placed at the turn around point for each ship, which are synchronized in the rest frame of the Earth. As the ships travel outward from Earth, Relativity of Simultaneity comes into play, and for the ships, these clocks are no longer synchronized. Both of them read ahead of the Earth clock, and since the clock at B's turnaround point is further it is the most ahead.

A reaches the turnaround and reverses course. For A, It's now the Earth clock that switches to be ahead of the turnaround clock. Since we assume that the turnaround took an infinitesimal amout of time, it is still next to the turnaround clock after changing direction, thus, the Earth clock "jumps forward" in time. But only a small amount because the distance between A's turnaround and Earth is so small.

Later, B reaches it turn around. Since the distance to the Earth is much larger, the "jump forward" in Earth's time is much larger for B than it was for A. ( If A traveled 0.01 lightseconds from Earth, the "jump" would be ~1 millisecond , but for B, it is ~ 1 year)
In both cases, the "jump forward" exceeds the difference caused by either A or B judging the Earth's clock as ticking slowly during most of their respective trips.

In this scenario, where both A and B undergo the same accelerations, the asymmetry comes from the distance to the Earth when each does their "turnaround" towards Earth.

Let's assume that there are clocks placed at the turn around point for each ship, which are synchronized in the rest frame of the Earth. As the ships travel outward from Earth, Relativity of Simultaneity comes into play, and for the ships, these clocks are no longer synchronized. Both of them read ahead of the Earth clock, and since the clock at B's turnaround point is further it is the most ahead.

A reaches the turnaround and reverses course. For A, It's now the Earth clock that switches to be ahead of the turnaround clock. Since we assume that the turnaround took an infinitesimal amout of time, it is still next to the turnaround clock after changing direction, thus, the Earth clock "jumps forward" in time. But only a small amount because the distance between A's turnaround and Earth is so small.

Later, B reaches it turn around. Since the distance to the Earth is much larger, the "jump forward" in Earth's time is much larger for B than it was for A. ( If A traveled 0.01 lightseconds from Earth, the "jump" would be ~1 millisecond , but for B, it is ~ 1 year)
In both cases, the "jump forward" exceeds the difference caused by either A or B judging the Earth's clock as ticking slowly during most of their respective trips.
A and B have exactly the same acceleration and deceleration process, the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.
Janus58, “the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.”, this is the root cause of the difference in time dilation between A and B. We already understand what you mean, and you can summarize it simply like this.

This is how science works, Tony. People can disagree with one another - even experts can disagree. When experts disagree, they have discussions with one another, and each tries to convince the other of his position and/or why the other position might be incorrect. At the end of the discussion, it is possible that one of the experts will change his or her mind, and both will then agree on the correct answer.

Science is a wonderful thing. It has built-in self-correction mechanisms. It weeds out errors. It converges on "truth" using many tried-and-tested methods. It encourages debate and the free sharing of knowledge. It exposes pseudoscience.
James R, Janus58 has already given a completely different answer from yours. You can discuss it with him. I look forward to your final answer.
My new twin paradox experiment is not complicated, but your completely different answers leave us in a state of confusion, who should we listen to? Don't tell us you're all right.

My new twin paradox experiment is not complicated, but your completely different answers leave us in a state of confusion, who should we listen to?
This thread (and Tony's other threads) have made it abundantly clear that when it comes to physics the one person we shouldn't listen to is TonyYuan!

This thread (and Tony's other threads) have made it abundantly clear that when it comes to physics the one person we shouldn't listen to is TonyYuan!
There is a Chinese saying: The eyes of the masses are discerning.
Those ministers who praise the emperor's new clothes will eventually be exposed by innocent children.

There is a saying in my country: Any idiot can post on the internet but that doesn't mean we should actually pay any attention to them. Oh, wait that's not a saying, that's just a fact.

A and B have exactly the same acceleration and deceleration process, the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.
Janus58, “the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.”, this is the root cause of the difference in time dilation between A and B. We already understand what you mean, and you can summarize it simply like this.
Again, time dilation reflects the difference in tick rate at a given moment, and while the time dilation is a factor in determining the final total time difference, it's not the only one. Saying that it is, misrepresents Relativity.
To use an analogy, time dilation is like comparing the moment by moment speed difference between two cars. And while this does contribute to the final distance separating the cars over a period of time, it alone is not enough. If one car drives a meandering path, and the other a straight one, just knowing their relative speeds doesn't give you enough information.
With this scenario, relying on time dilation alone only works from the rest frame of the Earth. But if you want include the determinations of both A and B, and how they come to the same conclusion, you must take length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity into account.
Just saying that “the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.”, misses the important fact as to how this factors into the determinations of not only the Earth, but A an B as well. ( for example, As I already noted, B will determine that the maximum distance it gets from Earth will be not be 10 ly, but less than that.)

Thanks for the explanation, Janus58.

Tony:
James R, Janus58 has already given a completely different answer from yours. You can discuss it with him. I look forward to your final answer.
Following his explanation to me, I believe Janus58's answer is correct. I was wrong.

This is a lovely illustration of how educated people can have a discussion and come to a consensus view on something. In the process, one or both can learn something.
My new twin paradox experiment is not complicated, but your completely different answers leave us in a state of confusion, who should we listen to? Don't tell us you're all right.
Nobody has seen your analysis yet, Tony.

The "relativists" here now have a consensus position, but we still don't know what your position is on your own scenario.

You say your scenario is not complicated. Show us your analysis, then. Or do you agree with Janus58 and (now) myself, based on Janus58's explanations?

I don't think you can solve the problem you posed, Tony. Can you? Or are you way out of your depth when surrounded by experts?

James;

Don’t know if Tony meant 10 yr when he said 10 ly, but that is irrelevant.
That's why Janus58 gets answers in 100's of yr instead of 10's of yr.
Staying with 10 yr,
the difference is the path traveled.
A took a longer path than E for 2t1 yr.
B took a longer path than B for 20-2t1 yr.
Assume the A and B clocks have the same rate.
If the B clock separates from the A clock and reunites at a later A time, the B clock would have to move faster than the A clock for some portion of the trip to compensate for the additional distance, resulting in additional time dilation. Since velocity is relative, the B clock lost more time than the A clock, because the A clock slowed after rejoining E. The difference, A time minus B time = .2 yr.
------------------------
There is no 'time jump'.
Prior to B's reversal at 4, he receives 2 A ticks in his 4.
After reversal he receives 8 A ticks in his 4.
That is Doppler shift, a perceived change in frequency due to relative motion.
B's motion cannot alter the A clock rate, but can alter B's perception of A's clock rate.
After reversal, B still receives the A ticks in the same order with none missing.
A calculates event B4 happens at At=5, a time dilation of 4/5=.8.
B calculates event A2 happens at Bt=2.5, a time dilation of 2/2.5=.8.
Td is reciprocal.

Those ministers who praise the emperor's new clothes will eventually be exposed by innocent children.
Agreed. And they now see that you have no clothes on.

Following his explanation to me, I believe Janus58's answer is correct. I was wrong.

This is a lovely illustration of how educated people can have a discussion and come to a consensus view on something. In the process, one or both can learn something.
GOOD. James R must be commended for recognizing his mistakes. Just like GPT, SR cannot withstand logical scrutiny. The great James R is also in chaos, it's not his fault, he is also a victim of SR.

Again, time dilation reflects the difference in tick rate at a given moment, and while the time dilation is a factor in determining the final total time difference, it's not the only one. Saying that it is, misrepresents Relativity.
To use an analogy, time dilation is like comparing the moment by moment speed difference between two cars. And while this does contribute to the final distance separating the cars over a period of time, it alone is not enough. If one car drives a meandering path, and the other a straight one, just knowing their relative speeds doesn't give you enough information.
With this scenario, relying on time dilation alone only works from the rest frame of the Earth. But if you want include the determinations of both A and B, and how they come to the same conclusion, you must take length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity into account.
Just saying that “the only difference is that B flies 20 ly more than A at a constant speed.”, misses the important fact as to how this factors into the determinations of not only the Earth, but A an B as well. ( for example, As I already noted, B will determine that the maximum distance it gets from Earth will be not be 10 ly, but less than that.)
Janus58 believes that with the earth as the reference system, A is stationary relative to the earth, and B is flying at a speed of v relative to the earth, so the time of B relative to A will be slower, thus making B younger.
What about taking B as the frame of reference? B is stationary relative to B, and A is flying at a speed of v relative to B, so the time of A relative to B will be slower, and A will be younger.
That is to say, from A's point of view, B will be younger when B is flying at a constant speed relative to A. From B's point of view, A will be younger when A keeps a constant speed away from B.
Janus58, do you agree with the above statement?

Janus58, whose consciousness do you think will be stronger in the end? Sorry, I shouldn't ask this question, because A and B are not the conclusions given by one's own consciousness, but the results obtained according to the great SR calculation.

Janus58 believes that with the earth as the reference system, A is stationary relative to the earth, and B is flying at a speed of v relative to the earth, so the time of B relative to A will be slower, thus making B younger.
What about taking B as the frame of reference? B is stationary relative to B, and A is flying at a speed of v relative to B, so the time of A relative to B will be slower, and A will be younger.
That is to say, from A's point of view, B will be younger when B is flying at a constant speed relative to A. From B's point of view, A will be younger when A keeps a constant speed away from B.
Janus58, do you agree with the above statement?

Janus58, whose consciousness do you think will be stronger in the end? Sorry, I shouldn't ask this question, because A and B are not the conclusions given by one's own consciousness, but the results obtained according to the great SR calculation.
You have been told consciousness does not come into this.

results obtained according to the great SR calculation
Yes, the theory of relativity is pretty great. It is an amazing theory that revolutionized physics. Your arm waving objections are silly and make you look foolish. I suggest you learn some physics and try to understand relativity, but I fear you won't, you will just continue to deny the obvious. It's your loss.

Please do not troll. Try to support your claims. Do not insult other members.
Yes, the theory of relativity is pretty great. It is an amazing theory that revolutionized physics. Your arm waving objections are silly and make you look foolish. I suggest you learn some physics and try to understand relativity, but I fear you won't, you will just continue to deny the obvious. It's your loss.
Chinese relativity believers also often make similar remarks, oh, besides this, they will also tell you that the theory of relativity has been accurately verified. Neither the West nor China is short of ministers praising the emperor's new clothes. Thank you for your invitation, I will not join in the fun.

This is pointless. Clearly, TonyYuan is either incapable of analysing his own scenario, or else is unwilling to do so, or both.

Contentless swipes at the theory of relativity are a waste of everybody's time.

Tony:

Please don't post again in this thread unless it is to agree with the analysis somebody else posted here, or to post your own analysis. Further trolling from you will not be tolerated.

If you think that relativity is wrong, please start a thread on what you think is wrong with it and, most importantly, why. Don't forget to include your disproof of relativity.

Nobody is interested in how much you dislike the theory of relativity. We are only interested in whether you can disprove the theory or demonstrate some sort of fatal flaw in it.

Do not expect other people to do your work for you, Tony. Don't be lazy. Show us all why relativity is wrong, if you can. Show us that you can actually do some physics, if you can.

Last edited:
Moderator note: TonyYuan has been warned for trolling.

Due to accumulated warning points, Tony will be spending some time away from sciforums.

forum;

I see Tony will be out for a bit, but offer this in defense of Relativity.

A child draws a very abstract stick figure to represent a person.
The simple 'twins' triangle is similar to the 'stick' figure, representing the essence of the idea without all the detail.
In fig.1 B accelerates to (or is already in motion and passes at) .87c.
In order to measure the A clock rate, B needs to send a blue light signal to A which triggers a time encoded signal that returns to B. B assigns At=5.3 to Bt(20+1.4)/2=10.7. This establishes the green Bx axis aka axis of simultaneity. That is the last measurement before B reversal. After reversal the Bx axis would instantaneously point forward 69.4 time units, if it was a magical axis that existed independently of the observer. In reality it is a procedure that relies on propagation of light signals. B could not verify At=74.7 until Bt=38.6, i.e. it's a future event. The A clock events observed by B depend on the success of planned events. Even in this oversimplified example, if B continues to measure A clock events, such as At=30, and applies the clock synch method of calculation, the Bx axis rotates cw.

In fig.2, the curved transition between outbound and inbound motion removes the 'time jump', and results in a continuous transition of Bx.

Fig.3 is B's perception of A's motion. B experiences, a phantom g-field during reversal. With periodic measurements, B observes A's arc flattened while the clock rate increases. B associates the flattening with the g-field, since they are simultaneous. The reality (without observer interpretation) is, B sent signals while moving in the +x direction and received their return while moving in the -x direction, decreasing roundtrip time thus decreasing distance, i.e. his motion altered his perception. B would not observe any large mass beyond his reversal.