[pzkpfw]

Especially the bolded part - you never accept any answer, it is very frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone like that.

It's the contrary. I accept every answer, including those which disagree with yours. I just want to go one step further, which is finding out the most effective and efficient one.

It's extremely easy to keep coming up with more and more convoluted scenarios, but a lot of work then for someone like halc to do all the calculations for you.

Why not research (from good sources like University papers, not pop sci youtube videos) how to do the calculations - and work through them yourself? Doing the work, then asking for review would be way more useful.

[Origin]

It's the contrary. I accept every answer

That is my point and that is the problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's extremely easy to keep coming up with more and more convoluted scenarios, but a lot of work then for someone like halc to do all the calculations for you.

I don't think the calculation is especially hard. You can do it easily using a spreadsheet, as long as you know which formula to use in each part of the scenario.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's the contrary. I accept every answer

That is my point and that is the problem.

That becomes a problem because you don't follow through the next step, which is evaluating every answer that you have accepted previously to find the best answer in terms of generality and simplicity.

[Origin]

which is evaluating every answer that you have accepted previously to find the best answer in terms of generality and simplicity.

You never do this, you just have threads that never end, they just go round and round without ever reaching a conclusion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

which is evaluating every answer that you have accepted previously to find the best answer in terms of generality and simplicity.

You never do this, you just have threads that never end, they just go round and round without ever reaching a conclusion.

I'm giving other members the chance to use their best explanation to answer my questions. When the time is up and  no one comes up with the best possible answer, I might have to answer them myself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why twin's paradox is NOT about acceleration?

Chapters:
00:00 What is the twin's paradox?
00:48 Why acceleration doesn't solve twin's paradox
2:24 Twin's paradox without acceleration (Earth's frame)
4:42 The traveling frame
7:13 My new website - floatheadphysics (ad)
8:48 Earth's frame again - with the flag
11:38 Travelling frame again - with the flag
13:30 The resolution!
14:45 Relativity of simultaneity
17:02 Isn't the root cause the acceleration?
18:20 What do they 'see'?

In this video, we'll intuitively resolve the twin's paradox. This version of the twin's paradox involves no acceleration. And no, you don't need equivalence principle, and you don't need general relativity to solve it. Twin's paradox can be completely solved using special theory of relativity and the correct usage of relativity of simultaneity.

Let's see if anyone has objection to the explanation given in this video, which is an improvement of previous video by the same authorauthor, Mahesh Shenoy from Floatheadphysics.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Let's see if anyone has objection to the explanation given in this video,

   Comment #1:    It's about half an hour,  few people will watch it.
   Comment #2:   At a glance, it's not significantly different to some of the earlier explanations.

Best Wishes.

[alancalverd]

Why would anyone want to watch a video about a paradox that doesn't exist? Better to spend a few minutes learning about relativity (where there's no paradox) and how it degenerates to classical mechanics at very low relative velocities.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hi.

Let's see if anyone has objection to the explanation given in this video,

   Comment #1:    It's about half an hour,  few people will watch it.
   Comment #2:   At a glance, it's not significantly different to some of the earlier explanations.

Best Wishes.

It has been viewed 33 thousand times since it was uploaded 3 weeks ago. I don't think it's few, although it's relative.
This one shows some details which are omitted by many earlier videos on twin paradox. Those details let us evaluate the explanation when applied in some different variations of the twin paradox.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why would anyone want to watch a video about a paradox that doesn't exist? Better to spend a few minutes learning about relativity (where there's no paradox) and how it degenerates to classical mechanics at very low relative velocities.

The fact that experts in physics have expressed their disagreements in solving the paradox may trigger curiosity in the mind of some people who still have some level of critical thinking. If you think it's too demanding to watch a 22 minutes video, perhaps this problem is really not for you.

[alancalverd]

The problem lies with people who persist in calling something a paradox when the explanation has been obvious for almost 100 years.

Simultaneity and synchronism are only observed when v_rel → 0.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The problem lies with people who persist in calling something a paradox when the explanation has been obvious for almost 100 years.

Simultaneity and synchronism are only observed when v_rel → 0.

They can also be achieved when relative position=zero to the observer.

[alancalverd]

No. If A is moving relative to B you can't establish synchronism because the next time the clock ticks, Δx ≠ 0!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No. If A is moving relative to B you can't establish synchronism because the next time the clock ticks, Δx ≠ 0!

When Δx ≠ 0, it doesn't qualify my previous statement.

They can also be achieved when relative position=zero to the observer.

[alancalverd]

You miss the point. Two identical clocks might agree at some time, but if they are moving relative to one another, they won't do so before or after that time. Synchronism means continuously agreeing, which is not possible.

[pzkpfw]

((I suspect if x is really 0, then neither clock will tick afterwards.))

[alancalverd]

I have a clock and a watch, both radio-controlled. Immediately after the radio sync phase, if I'm standing still, they can remain mutually synchronised because Δx = 0.If I move, so Δx ≠ 0, I will have accelerated  the wristwatch and imposed a relative velocity, so I can't expect them to remain synchronised.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You miss the point. Two identical clocks might agree at some time, but if they are moving relative to one another, they won't do so before or after that time. Synchronism means continuously agreeing, which is not possible.

Are you suggesting that GPS won't work?

[alancalverd]

Thanks to our understanding of relativity, it works very well.