Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13 →

Contents 1 Proposed Update 2 2 Stationary in relation to which frame? 3 What To Do About Crackpot Edits 4 A more precise setup? 5 no original research

Proposed Update 2

Obviously, we would like to see the enhanced history section restored - with changes as discussed in our response above.

The only other major change to the article would be to insert the "Proposed Solutions and Associated Questions" section (see the "To: Wikipedia Twin Paradox Entry Administrators" entry above) after the current "Specific Example" section and before the current "Resolution of the paradox in special relativity" section.TwPx (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it obvious that TwPx is trying to sneak an originally researched essay into Wikipedia. The central thesis of the essay is that the twin paradox is an ongoing symmetric debate with no clear outcome, between those who think that special relativity is a valid theory and those who don't. As I already stated, this is false. There is no debate. There is a group of lay people failing to understand the basics of a somewhat advanced part of physics. Misguided by the trivial mathematics which is used in this part, they feel they should be able to understand this, but they just don't. Putting Herbert Dingle central in this (see removed sections "Dingle" and "Post Dingle") is putting heavy undue weight to a person who made an eternal fool of himself in his -sorry- pathetic "Science at the Crossroads". Clearly TwPx thinks that Dingle had a case. Dingle did not have a case. If TwPx thinks otherwise, then TwPx clearly is a member of the aforementioned group of lay people. Taking into account the fact that TwPx "studied the Twin Paradox in depth for around 40 years" and fails to see how, for example, Dingle's central theme is trivially refuted, and thus still fails to understand the basics of special relativity, my well-meant advice is that he should seek another hobby. Wikipedia is not a publishing service for essays.

There is no open debate with no clear outcome among biologists about whether religious fanatics have a point pushing creationism. They don't have a point.

There is no open debate with no clear outcome about whether some people have a point thinking that the 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 lottery combination is far less likely than any other combination. They don't have a point.

DVdm (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, DVdm's argument is based on perjorative words and unsupported statements, e.g., "sneak", "this is false", "There is no debate", "group of lay people failing to understand the basics", "Misguided by the trivial mathematics", "they should be able to understand this, but they just don't", "fails to see", "is trivially refuted", "fails to understand the basics of special relativity", "he should seek another hobby". I also don't see the last two paragraphs adding logic that supports DVDm's assertions.

I think that I've been clear in my comments about what I wanted to do and in the actual proposed sections. DVdm has not said why the proposed section should be considered as something inherently objectionable (e.g., "an essay") as opposed to what's currently written for this article or any other Wikipedia article. DVdm seems to have misread the proposed sections. I'm simply accurately recording what was said about the Twin Paradox. I wrote about what the literature contains as represented in summary form by the references given above.

I nowhere say that Dingle was correct. I mentioned his views including the fact that those views changed and that when he was asked for an alternative to special relativity, he had none. I also quoted what was the most recent indepth review of Dingle Twin Paradox debate . If DVdm thinks Prof. Hasok Chang "fails to understand the basics of special relativity" and "should seek another hobby", then DVdm should give a specific quote from the referenced paper and give the detailed logic that refutes what Chang has written. The Chang paper was one of 3 Notes already in the article when I first read the article, I did not add it. I think Chang is very intelligent, professional and objective who thoroughly analyzed all written material and wrote a well reasoned paper.

Personally, I'm not a Dingle-ite. I've always thought special relativity was a valid theory. I have not made any assertions that special relativity isn't valid. I have accurately stated the ideas in the literature whether or not those ideas were put forward by people whose opinions agreed with mine.

Twice DVdm has mockingly quoted that TwPx "studied the Twin Paradox in depth for around 40 years". Actually, that forty year in depth study of the Twin Paradox literature is relevant. From reading DVdm's objections (e.g., what he erroneously referred to as speculations), it seems that many of DVdm's objections stem from not having the same broad exposure to the literature and misinterpreting my review of the literature as my expressing my personal views.

(For the 2nd time above, I asked DVdm to give supporting logic or retract his claim that TwPx “fail[s] to understand the definitions of (and difference between) proper time and coordinate time”. There's still no answer from DVdm.)

The alternative was entered into the Discussion on 10/30/07 (I since suggested it be broken into two sections and added (the first section as an enhanced History) to the current document.) You can read DVdm's comments. Everyone, including wwoods and Gscshoyru, should make his views known below as to whether they agree or disagree with DVdm's (and Tim Shuba's) content and style. (I see by DVdm's insightful comment following Tin Shuba's remarks that he's in agreement with Shuba.) If DVdm/Shuba don't represent the consensus view, then we can move on. If DVdm/Shuba do indeed represent the consensus view, it looks like we will go to Arbitration and we would like to be efficient and just go once so all who agree with DVdm/Shuba can be dealt with collectively. ThanksTwPx (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Above, in this section, I proposed an addition. DVdm objected. I noted that DVdm's assertions could not be supported and then asked if anyone agreed with DVdm. No support has been given for DVdm's position. I will therefore add the section.TwPx (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No one agreed with your additions. No support has been given for your position. There is no consensus. The fact that no-one replied to your proposal does not imply that "DVdm/Shuba don't represent the consensus view".

Reverted back for reasons already stated. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a publishing service for originally researched essays. Try a private publisher or a blog on your personal website. Good luck, DVdm (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The reasons DVdm gave above were clearly rebutted. No reply was given. DVdm continues to make unsubstantiated claims. DVdm has routinely deleted additions made in good faith by others. The deletion is not consistent with Wikepedia guidelines - see WP:Revert.TwPx (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeat: No one agreed with your additions. No support has been given for your position. There is no consensus. The fact that no-one replied to your proposal does not imply that "DVdm/Shuba don't represent the consensus view". DVdm (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

DVdm continues to avoid the points raised and gives no substance. The reasons DVdm gave above were clearly rebutted. No reply was given. DVdm continues to make unsubstantiated claims. DVdm has routinely deleted additions made in good faith by others. The deletion is not consistent with Wikepedia guidelines - see WP:Revert.TwPx (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Two applicable Wikipedia policies in this situation are the prohibitions against original research and constructing novel narratives from available sources. In addition, many of your statements are simply mis-representations of the alleged sources. For example, Einstein's 1905 paper does not say what you say it says. Your entire proposed section consists of original research, novel narrative, and misrepresented sources. Granted, the fact that your original research is idiotic drivel and your novel narrative is pure crackpotism may prejudice some editors against your proposal, but those facts are irrelevant. Simply by virture of being original research and novel narratives and misrepresentation, your proposal must be rejected. There's no need for (and no point in) any detailed rebuttal of your research and narrative.Lumpy27 (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lumpy27 follows the standard mode of DVdm of citing this or that Wikipedia policy as the reason for deleting contributions from others - in this case, "Original Research". At the same time, you and DVdm have consistently shown total disregard for following Wikipedia policy. For example, being rude and insulting (e.g., "idiotic drivel", "pure crackpotism"). Regarding the "Original Research" charge, I've already rebutted that above. Again, if you were familiar with the literature, you'd be aware that it's an accurate portrayal of the Twin Paradox Debate. You conclude, "There's no need for (and no point in) any detailed rebuttal of your research and narrative." That's a very convenient position since you unable to point out specific problems.

The one specific charge was "Einstein's 1905 paper does not say what you say it says." Please give the details. What did I write that was "wrong" and what specific statements in the 1905 paper do you think it contradicts - no generalities, be specific. ThanksTwPx (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd that you object to people basing their rejection of your edits on Wikipedia policy, rather than by giving explanations of the specific errors in your proposed material. Wikipedia policy is supposed to be the basis for evaluating edits. Editors are explicitly prohibited from basing their edits on anything else. For example, the "no original research" policy was formulated explicitly to deal with physics cranks, because the founders of wikipedia realized that it is impossible to ever convince a physics crank of the erroneousness of his beliefs. That's more or less the definition of a crank. So, rather than allowing wikipedia to lapse into a giant forum for endless arguments with physics cranks over content, the "no original research" and "no novel narrative" policies were created. Here is some relevant excerpts from official wikipedia policy explanations:

Just been reading the link to your page "A trivial refutation of one of Dingle's Fumbles". Wasn't clock A synced (using Einstein's method for clocks stationary to each other) to clock H, therefore making rate of A identical to rate of H? Ditto clocks B and N? I think Dingle tried to explain this on page 229.

--Jimbo2x (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

What counts as a reputable publication?

Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."

So, you see, the question is not whether your proposed research and narrative is "true", the question is whether it reflects the point of view of more than just a very small minority of individuals, and this question is to be answered by citing reputable sources, and those sources must be presented in proportionate fashion. In other words, if 1000 reputable sources say X, and 3 reputable sources say Y, then Y deserves only about 3/1000 as much attention in the article as X, and since most articles are of a length that 3/1000 would be virtually nothing, there is an effective lower bound on viewpoints held by extremely small minorities. Such viewpoints do not belong in wikipedia, per the editing guidelines. You are trying to insert into this wikipedia article material that is explicitly prohibited by wikipedia policy. You should stop trying to do that.Lumpy27 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the statements in bold and agree with them completely. However, as you should know, it's not relevant to what I wrote. I'm not proposing anything new. I'm simply, as you should know, recounting what was written about in the Twin Paradox Debate. I've gone into this, including the rationale, in great detail above.

If I tried to discuss Lorentz Aether Theory (LAT) in the Special Relativity article, then what you wrote would be relevant. However, this topic is different as discussed in detail above. I'm glad you brought up the point about reputable sources as virtually all the literature on the Twin Paradox discusses the "Proposed Solutions and Associated Questions" I discuss. Few if any have the main topic that there never was a Twin Paradox debate.TwPx (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed addition is entirely original research and novel narrative. Just to give one simple example so you have some idea what I'm talking about, we need go no further than the second sentence in your essay. (The first sentence is rather poor as well, but might be passable.) Your second sentence is

"In that paper, he derived the (special relativity) time dilation equation that said that all inertial (i.e., non-accelerating) observers would observe all other inertial observers’ clocks to be running slow by the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. So the greater the relative velocity between two inertial observers the slower they would observe each other’s clock to be running."

Presumably your source for this sentence is Einstein's 1905 paper, but you have not quoted the paper, you have instead offered your paraphrase, which unfortunately embodies the very ambiguities and misconceptions that underlie the fallacies in all crackpot "reasoning" about special relativity. The paper nowhere says "inertial observers would observe all other inertial observers’ clocks to be running slow". That's a meaningless assertion as it stands, because it doesn't define what it means for an observer to observe a moving clock. The paper refers, instead, to the rate of a clock when viewed from (i.e., in terms of) "the stationary SYSTEM" or from any "SYSTEM in uniform motion". The crucial word there is 'system'. This word has been defined previously and very carefully in the earlier section of the paper. Anyone who grasps the difference between what Einstein wrote in the cited paper and how you paraphrased it will also understand all the fallacies and non sequiturs in the remainder of the proposed alternative version of this article. And this is just the second sentence. Each of the subsequent sentences is crammed full of just as much (or more) misrepresentation and original research and novel narrative.

As a constructive suggestion, I recommend that you withdraw your current proposal, and re-write it, this time without paraphrasing. When you want to tell the reader what Einstein said, tell the reader what Einstein said, verbatim. I also suggest that you focus on presenting the history of the subject as it is presented in any of the numerous reputable sources that are widely available. Do not go back and dig up letters to the editors of Nature in 1956 and string them together with your own interpretations, and then claim that you are not engaging in original research or novel narrative. If you base your summary on the 99.99% consensus views expressed in reputable sources, rather than your own interpretation of the 0.01% views of a couple of retired engineers and armchair philosophers, I think the result will be more likely to be accepted here in Wikipedia.Lumpy27 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Einstein's 1905 paper, for reference:

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time τ when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time τ. What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?

Between the quantities x, t, and τ, which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and

Therefore,

whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by seconds per second, or--neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher order--by .

From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock⁷ at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.

--Jimbo2x (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stationary in relation to which frame?

In section 3 (Resolution of the paradox in special relativity), it is stated that "his position is constant in space, moving only in time" (that is the position of the first, Earth bound twin).

Can the frame of reference to which twin one is not moving here be explicitly mentioned? Is the the Earth frame of reference? Or the "absolute" frame of reference? Surely, it cannot be the frame of reference of the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo2x (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited the sentence to clarify. Timb66 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would it be possible for someone that is familiar with Minkowski's diagrams to prepare a set of diagrams for the twin in the space ship (i.e. for all x' coordinates). It would make the "no symmetry" point clearer. --Jimbo2x (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you have in mind there. Minkowski diagrams are not "for someone". They show events as points, and objects and observers as wordlines. One cannot draw a diagram "for the twin in the spaceship". One can draw a diagram that shows both twins. On such a diagram, the stay-at-home twin will live on a single straight line, and the travelling twin will either live on a curve (if the situation is modelled with accelerations), or on three different straight line segments (if we model it with 'frame jumping'):

• before departure and after return, on the line of the stay-at-home twin,
• while receding, on a tilted line (outbound),
• after turnaround, while approaching, on another tilted line (inbound),

Now you can choose one of those 3 lines (or yet another one) as the "vertical" line (and consequently orthogonal with the spatial axis) - see here. Is this what you have in mind?

Or are you thinking about a fancier version of a drawing like this? DVdm (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant the first set of diagrams you pointed to (GIF) --Jimbo2x (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but don't you think that all four 'views' show the asymmetry of the situation equally well as the little diagram in the bottom right of the section? After all, the stationary twin clearly lives on the straight line, whereas the travelling twin lives on the broken line,

so what kind of additional diagram would you like to see? DVdm (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, actually. One drawing seems sufficient. --Jimbo2x (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody picked up on it, but I proposed a diagram like this a few months ago, showing the events in all three reference frames:

v = c/√3   (γ = √1.5)

• O is the point at which the traveling twin leaves the stay-at-home.
• E is the point at which the traveling twin reverses course.
• D is the point at which the traveling twin returns home.

• A is the point simultaneous with turnover, in the outbound twin's rest frame.
• B is the point simultaneous with turnover, in the stay-at-home twin's rest frame.
• C is the point simultaneous with turnover, in the returning twin's rest frame.

The three frames of reference are the rest frames of the stay-at-home twin, the outbound twin, and the returning twin. The third is translated so that the traveling twin has the same coordinates after turnover as before. The arrows are the twins' worldlines, the thin lines are their lines of simultaneity at turnover. The dashed diagonal lines show the light cone from the start.

—WWoods (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks excellent, but I'm afraid it's going to require a lot of supporting text and explanation, don't you think? And don't forget to include a 4th view where none of the frames coincides with the (- not too confused yet? -) lay reader :-) DVdm (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh sure, the purpose of the picture would be to illuminate the text.
• Does it really need a view from a none-of-the-above frame? This article doesn't have to explain the general concepts of inertial reference frame, the Lorentz transformation, or the relativity of simultaneity, though it needs enough to explain why the twin paradox is counterintuitive but not self-contradictory.

—WWoods (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really need that 4th view indeed, but while you're at it, I don't think it would be harmful. I recall a long Usenet exchange which only came to an end when that 4th view was shown. It sort of gives an attractive aerial view, at least i.m.o.

Feel free to download the "new" version here. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be better with the x and t axes for that frame, and the event coordinates need to be recalculated. What velocity relative to the others would be best? Halfway between those of the stay-at-home and the outgoing twins? Put the origin at the start as in the first two, or offset as in the third?

—WWoods (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take halfway. Rather something like 2/3 vs 1/3, something that looks not too symmetric, and the origin as in the first two.

I also would -definitely- replace "point at which" with "event where" or "event when" or (ultimately) "event when/where", and -perhaps- "turnover" with "turnaround", but the latter is a matter of personal taste. DVdm (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What To Do About Crackpot Edits

It appears that TwPx is reverting every attempt to remove his POV essay from the article, and it flagrantly violating the 3rr rule. Multiple editors have explained why his essay is not suitable for this Wikipedia article, since it consists of original research and a novel narrative (along with numerous flat-out misrepresentations of alleged sources). I tried to make a constructive suggestion (see above) for how he might try to make his essay conform to Wikipedia policy, but he doesn't seem interested in making any changes to his crackpot essay. Maybe we should just place a banner at the top of the article stating that it has been taken over by a crackpot and should be ignored until further notice. Is there such a banner? If there isn't, there ought to be. This sort of situation will (I'm afraid) crop up more and more often. There needs to be some more efficient way of coping with determined physics cranks.Lumpy27 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any special action is called for at this moment. TwPx seems to have been blocked for a while and the article has been reverted to its original state, so it certainly is not taken over. Regarding such a banner... perhaps... but then of course, insertion and removal should be restricted to admins, and they already have everything at their disposal to deal with this kind of disruption, provided they can base their judgment on properly documented reverts and 'sec' user page warnings. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A more precise setup?

My impression is, that many discussions suffer from disputable experimental setups. A clock could be embodied by a counter, which counts the frequency of a certain emission mof a simple atom, e.g. hydrogen. Two clocks in relative movement compare their own radiation to the other ones. This is a undisputable setup, as I suppose. Undoubtly, with speed zero, the ratio observed/own frequency will be one. But what, if there is speed <> 0. Will the ratio be <1, >1, and will it be the same for both observers? ErNa (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When clocks are considered in this article, they are always taken to be identical and as ideal as engineeringly possible.

Altough this is not really the place for the other question, for the ratio, take a look at the time dilation overview. Whether they are the same for both observers, you should be able to decide from the carefully explained meanings of the variables in the equation. DVdm (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the twin paradox, the persons measure time by aging and twins stands for ideal engineered. But to be carefull with identical: if there are two identical clocks, there has to be an observer to state this identity. In the twin paradox, there is no observer, but the twins observe themselves. That is, there has to be a first comparing mechanism as an integral part of the twin, which can compare a inner property (the own age) to an outer property (the twins age) and a second mechanism, that can compares the first results. The outcome of this second comparison tells us, whatever we are, which twin (clock) passes more time in between a period, determined by two events. We should or can debate the TP only after reaching an agreement about such an experimental setup. Anything else is just shouting to the wind. ErNa (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget that one also cannot really start to debate the TP after reaching an agreement about the size and the colour of their underwear, and, by extension, about the gender of their guardian angels. And of course, don't forget that there has to be an additional observer to state and verify the latter. DVdm (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but please don't devaluate my efforts to be more precise by making jokes, even good ones. To make the scenario most simple and unambiguous, we define, which abilities the "twins" have. A twin has a clock, creating ticks. A measure for the amount of time, that passes for this twin, is embodied by a counter, incremented with every tick. A possible mechanism for the clock is a resonator, tuned to the radiation of certain arrangement of elementary particles :-), lets say, hydrogen atom. This can be seen as a laser, and by tuning the resonator, the frequency and the wavelength can be determined. Now we have to presumtions: proton and electron will have certain energy levels and the speed of light is invariant. These presumptions give us scales to measure time and space. True for every single twin. Now there is need for an instrument to compare the radiation, generated by to occurances of such twins. This can be reached by broadening the capabilities: it take a grating and a detector to determine the deflection of an light beam (and a beam former too). To twins are situated in a distance with relative velocity 0 (We suppose, we can agree, who this is defined). The twin can measure the deflection of his own beam and of the beam, received from the other one and he can calculate the ratio of deflection of these two beams. Is this setup a mutual basis for exchanging arguments? ErNa (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Since you didn't use a smiley with your previous reply, I didn't use one either, and I had assumed that we would understand each other. So, in case you are not joking around, feel free to read my previous reply as if I was not either. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

When I try to follow discussions on the field of relativity, I have the impression, that words are most inappropriate to guide a conversation. So, why should it be different here. True: a clock should be as ideal as engineeringly possible. But that says nothing about an engineers skills. And not, what a clock is! Therefore, the discussion goes round and round for years and ages. ;-) Einstein discovered the theory of (special) relativity. Since that time, space and time are no longer separate items, but entangled. One presumption was: the speed of light is invariant, therefore time and space can no longer be absolute. And this fact confuses many people. And very early some fought against this theory by creating a paradox from what Einstein said to be "eigentümliche Konsequenz". And we should help to make this paradox and the misuse of the SRT more obvious and easier to understand.ErNa (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the article needs a more rigorous definition of clocks and/or the biological aging process? It seems to me that the notion of a clock and an aging biological organism is fairly unambiguous in these circumtances. We're obviously not talking about sun-dials or hour-glasses. Take average wrist watches and average human beings. Is there some ambiguity here that you think has a significant effect on the description of the twins paradox?

As you may know, special relativity takes clocks and measuring rods as primitive entities. Einstein pointed out that this was not entirely satisfactory, since ideally the phenomena that we identify as clocks and rulers should emerge from the theory, rather than being the basis of the theory. But he also believed that physics was far from being able to give a fundamental theory of the most primitive aspects of nature, so in order to make any progress it is necessary to adopt some provisional concepts, and the ideas clocks and rulers are fairly basic. The fact that co-located atomic clocks seem to keep time consistenly with biological aging and wrist watches, etc., is not too surprising to most people, so I'm not convinced the article needs to dwell on this. I haven't checked, but there are probably Wikipedia articles on the more general subjects of time (and clocks) and space (and measuring rods), so those articles might be more suitable places for a philosophical consideration of the intelligibility of those concepts.130.76.32.182 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I know, special relativity is a framework, that leaves physical laws unchanged when switching between different inertal frames of reference. Clocks or rods are just used to describe physical properties. Using the word clock we imply, what a clock does, but not, what it is and how it is done. Therefore I'm looking to find a setup, that has only the features, that are needed and, on the other hand, is physically existing and correctly described. So: two (flat) mirrors form a kind of resonator. Somehow a electromagnetic wave is exited in between these mirrors.... This description is incomplete, as long as we do not really know, what every object "is". The fact that co-located atomic clocks seem to keep time consistenly with biological aging and wrist watches, etc., is not too surprising to most people. That is true. But when discussion the twin paradox, then we HAVE TO aggree, that atomic clocks measure time. AND: two co-located atomic clocks measure time to the same amount. So, time is a quality and a quantity. And that is not clear to everybody. How can You determine, that every (lasting?/running?passing?)) second of an inertial moving clock (in a world without gravity, to make it more simple) represents the same amount of time? This is not as clear, as it seems! But it is true by definition! and coinsides with my private observation (only of statistical relevance ;-) ). That is the reason, why I think, we have to have this very elementary and undisputed setup. First: co-located elementary particles cannot be discriminated by properties. They are equal, wherever they came from and however they were "created". Second: For example, a proton and an electron, brought together, alway for a atom of hydrogen. Atoms of H can be exitated and emit electromagnetic radiation. Third: This radiation can create a standing em-wave between to mirrors if and only if the distance of this mirrors has certain values. And again, it is not obvious, how we can measure this distance! All these aspects have to be defined and aggreed on, before! we can discuss, what the twin paradox is and why! If not, it leads to endless discussions, frustration, people called crackpots, and, and, and. Suppose, I know a truth. And I am not able, to convince other people, that this will always be my fault, for I am not able, to express myself in a way, that other people can understand. The same is true for everyone. And we all know, even twins can be differently talented teachers. ;-] ErNa (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the "twins paradox" concerns certain consequences of a particular theory, namely, special relativity. As mentioned above, special relativity takes clocks and measuring rods as primitive entities, so your comments about the underlying nature of time, space, and the inexplicable intelligibility of the world are not really relevant to this article. If you wish to add to Wikipedia some published ideas (from reputable sources) on the general philosophical topic of why the world is as comprehensible as it (apparently) is, it would be more suitable for an article dedicated to that subject. Again, the twins paradox concerns consequences of special relativity, which takes clocks and measuring rods as primitive elements, so your comments are not relevant to this article.

If I may add one other comment, I notice that you haven't cited any reputable sources for your philosophical ideas. If you have no sources, and are simply expressing your own ideas, then I'm afraid there is no place in Wikipedia for them. Any original ideas you have on the subject that you're talking about are explicitly excluded from Wikipedia, per the prohibition against original research. So I want to stress that you should only be trying to convey ideas that are already published and accepted. If you cite the reputable references whose ideas you are trying to convey, we might be able to suggest suitable articles to include them.63.24.100.132 (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

no original research

There is no need for a source, when I show, that it is not a priori clear, that every second takes the same amount of time. That is a integral part of SR and follows from invariance of speed of light. Seconds measured -or, more precise, counted periods of an oscillator- by a single, inertal clock, are equal by definition. That is, how time is defined. And the setup, I try to describe, should use a physical clock, embodied by a system, counting the oscillation of a very simple arrangement. Whilst clock and rod are philosophical items, not physically defined. A big advantage of this arrangement is, that the oscillator automatically generates a signal (a light), that can interchange information with a second, identical osci. Again, I do no OR, but just show, that it is very difficult to express something exactly. My only OR is, that I found, that all the misunderstanding of SR comes from implied settings, when using "normal" words. ErNa (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What you've written above strongly confirms that you are, in fact, advocating "original research" and a "novel narrative", both of which are excluded by Wikipedia policy. Remember, the policy against original research says it doesn't matter whether what you say is true, or even whether you can prove it to be true. The only acceptable material for Wikipedia articles are views that have been previously published in reputable sources. It doesn't matter at all whether what you are saying is true, even if you can PROVE it to be true. All that matters is that you can cite a reputable source that conveys whatever it is you are trying to say. All your comments (and actions) imply that the point of view you are trying to express is not (as far as you know) expressed in any reputable published source. Therefore, the point of view you are trying to express is prohibited from Wikipedia.63.24.43.71 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)