Ah, so we are back to the point in my original post, it is the acceleration "felt" by the object that generates the asymmetry in the Twins Paradox.
However, even if we know that it is the Space traveller accelerating, according to the formulas for proper time and SR time dilation...
I think you misunderstood my question. Referring back to the original two graphs, why can we not just switch the reference frames so it is Earth that is moving away and then doing a return journey?
Same with the graph above, the blue curved line could equally be Earth from the frame of...
On those graphs why is Earth always on the straight line? Why can't we make a graph where the traveller is on the straight line and Earth reverses direction?
Well Minkowski must have derived the formula somehow. What experiment did he do to get this?
Also, it would seem that the formula above doesn't address the paradox because either side of the equation can equally be applied to either observer. Why is the twin on Earth not on a world line...
How do we derive the formula for proper time? Is it from our geometric understanding of the light clock thought experiment? We can't use proper time to resolve the Twin Paradox if we have not yet justified the premise on which it is based.
Is it possible to derive proper time without using...
Disagree. If C was at 1/2 the velocity of B (and also began his return to C at the same time) he would see both moving away from him (and then towards him) at the same speed.
Ok, I can agree on this, but as I said in my first post, the only asymmetry in the Twins Paradox comes from...
I still don't think you are justifying this. If all movement is relative, and A,B and C were all in inertial frames of reference, why has B gone through the longer path when he returns to A? Is it not equally valid to say that A (Earth) moved away from B then returned to B?
I don't understand this. An inertial observer moving at half the velocity of the traveller could legitimately see the traveller's and the Earth twin's path lengths as being the same.
Whilst this thread has gotten quite big, the point I am actually trying to bring out (as you are probably...
-This doesn't solve the twin paradox. If we pretend acceleration plays a negligible impact, using the light clock thought experiment then both observers will see the same amount of time dilation in the other observer.
-You are stating that time dilation over the course of the 10 years is...
Please explain this because every resolution of the Twin Paradox I have seen refers to acceleration. If both frames of reference are otherwise in relative inertial motion what is the difference between them qualitatively?
Why "light clock" is flawed.
I have been considering this thought experiment for some time, and the principle seems "broken". I'm wondering if by playing devil's advocate you can show me what is going wrong.
-In SR, the light clock was used to predict time dilation in a "moving" object...