Ok, so the death toll is reduced to 10

What?

Page 2 and the confusion is still increasing instead of decreasing. What do you think others say should happen to the 10 slightly singed Earthbound twins? What have you, in your mind, just shown to be wrong?

You do know why the word "relative" is so prominently part of the names of the theories, right? Maybe not.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Duh, what? I think you have completely misunderstood the concept of relative velocities or else you're trying to express something I don't get.
I'll retract my previous statement that simultaneity is the problem and instead state that it's your understanding of the term relative velocity that's the problem.

As well as your understanding of where the so-called paradox is in the twin paradox. Hint, it isn't in them each seeing the other as moving at the same (opposite) relative velocities.

All the twins (I'll call them T₀) that have remained unaccelerated are at rest relative to each other, yes. So what?

Complete list of relative velocities of sets of twins as seen from the other sets of twins.
Where's the paradox?


All the twins that took off at .1c ((I'll call them T₁)), see the T₁ set as stationary relative to each other (note that this requires that they wait to look after they see the others taking off otherwise they'll see them as moving like T₀) and see the T₀ set as moving at .1c backwards. Note that based on when the light showing the takeoffs arrive to them they'll already have moved a bit so they will see all their fellow T₁'s as having taken off at different times, not as simultaneously.

All the twins that took off at .2c ((I'll call them T₂)), see the T₂ set as stationary relative to each other(note that this requires that they wait to look after they see the others taking off otherwise they'll see them as moving like T₀) and see the T₀ set as moving at .2c backwards. Note that based on when the light showing the takeoffs arrive to them they'll already have moved a bit so they will see all their fellow T₂'s as having taken off at different times, not as simultaneously.
Ditto, they'll see the T₁) twins(those they see as having taken off) moving backwards, in this case at 0.102040816c.
.
.
.
The T₈ twins will see the T₀ twins moving backwards at 0.8c, the T₁ twins moving backwards at 0.761c, the T₂ twins moving backwards at 0.714c, the T₃ twins moving backwards at 0.657c, the T₄ twins moving backwards at 0.588c, the T₅ twins moving backwards at 0.5c, the T₆ twins moving backwards at 0.385c, the T₇ twins moving backwards at 0.227c, the T₈ twins as stationary, and the T₉ twins as moving forward at 0.357c.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Spooky action at a distance? You are talking about the EPR problem. Don't see what that has to do with your SR scenario.

Once the twin in the spaceship is moving at a constant speed, then we have two inertial frames of reference. Each twin can consider him/herself at rest at the other twin moving.

The twins in the ten spaceships are in ten different inertial frames of references. Each will consider the earth to be moving at a different speed relative to the respective frame of reference.

The theory is called Special Relativity, all speeds are relative, there is no absolute inertial frame of reference. Everything is relative to an infinite number of frames of reference.

Where is the problem??

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

BTW, please have this not be a repeat of the other cases of SR threads that ends up boiling down to "I don't believe the speed of light is constant in all frames" or "I believe there is a special frame that is at rest relative to The Universe".

Or at least admit it up front if it is.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Hunh?

35A. What does it matter whether or not the other twin knows anything?
This seems to be a symptom of a mistake about relativity theory that too many people (even here) foster through their talk of observers. Relativity theory is not about observers, it is about reference frames. Observers can use whatever frames they would like.

Right now, there are an infinite number of reference frames that could be use to describe either one of us. But one does not use more than one at a time.
That should be funny.

Oh, and for good measure, I repeat my questions above that have not been addressed. The first one is particuarly important

3A. (35) What is a paradox?

3B. (35) What sequence goes 0.1, 0.2, ..., 0.999999999999999999999999. in ten steps?

3C. (35) Why is it impossible to consider the Earth to be in motion if we have ten other objects to consider?

3D. (35) Is it impossible to consider the Earth to be in motion if we have to consider the other planets, Pluto, and the Sun?

While agreeing with the gist of pretty much all the counter-posts here, I would mention that the principle of relativity predates special relativity by a long time. And I don't see anything here that particularly requires special relativity - the same "paradox" would fail to exist if the universe obeyed Newtonian mechanics instead. There is no time or space dilation here, relativity of simultaneity, or anything like this. All we have if disbelief that there could be any reference frame in which the football pitch is moving.

As nearly as I can tell, the problem is the apparent belief that if two objects are moving at different velocities relative to a third, then the third is clearly "stationary" and any reference frame in which the third object is moving is somehow invalid. This is blatantly self-contradictory, as illustrated by my example in which there are simultaneously football pitches on Earth and on Mars, each with ten sets of twins. So the paradox exists in the physics of the OP, and the principle of relativity resolves this paradox. But again, no special relativity is needed here - the lack of a paradox anywhere is clear even in Newtonian mechanics.

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

To reiterate my earlier comment, I don't think there is any need to appeal to special relativity to understand what has gone wrong here. Newtonian mechanics are perfectly adequate for the twins-on-a-football-pitch example. If we start to introduce torches or that sort of thing, then we might need special relativity . . .

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

Doesn't change anything in your word salad. So, where is the answer to Q1-9?

Q10: What is "spookie" action?
Q11: How does it relate to your OP?
Q12: How does it relate to the twins paradox?


If twin k has speed v_k with respect to the launcher and twin m has speed v_m , then, they can easily calculate their relative speed v_km. So, please answer :

Q13: What is the formula v_km of the relative speed between k and m if you know v_k and v_m?


This is just your confusion, this is not the statement of the TP. But, be is as it may, the answer is known and lies in your ability (or lack of thereof) of answering my question Q13.

Just to be clear here, RussT, you do know that the term Velocity of B Relative to A is used to mean the velocity an observer moving with A sees¹ B move at, right?

1) Important word here is sees, we're talking about when light emitted from B reaches A. If light showing B as 50 km away and light showing B as 100 km away arrives at A with an interval of 1 second, then the velocity of B relative to A is 50km/s. The only extra thing to remember is that the light has a velocity of c seen from A regardless of the movements of either A or B.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

"No less failed" and "just as likely" are 2 different things. My speculation that invisible pink winged unicorns set the SMBH there is no less failed then any other but since my speculation has no evidence for it then it is far less likely.

Please don't fall for the trap of discussing his secondary ATM previous to it having its own established 30 day limit.
If I was to attribute underhand motives, I'd call this an attempt at giving him 60 days to discuss it, don't give him that.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

By the way, RussT, could you please answer the questions regarding your understanding of relative velocity?
Until we have a clear idea of what you mean by those words we're unlikely to be able to help you figure out why there's no paradox in your setup when we use them in the usual sense.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Hmmmm.... two posts by RussT causing a total of 42 posts in response to date...

Well, typically ATM I guess...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Well, my puter is running slower than usual, guess I will have to clear some memory, and I usually like to post between 1 and 4 am But have lost several posts now in the 2 to 2:30am BAUT server 'updating'(?) where I can't get BAUT to even load.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

The main problem is that no one is actually addressing the OP...you all just keep jumping around or just making fun of the set up, and in fact tusenfem is even denying the very point of the OP.

"Spooky effects from a distance" is not something that belongs in a SR thread.

In the SR Twin Paradox, one twin stays home, at "Rest" on planet Earth.

In Relativity when one observer is 'at rest' and the other is in motion, as all the rockets with their twins onboard are, either observer can consider the other 'at rest', with the other in motion...and 'somehow'..... *magically* the 'at rest' observer is 'automatically deemed' to be at that same speed, and moving in the same line as the traveling twin was, and toward him.

SO, what 'force' in our Universe "CAUSES" the observer(s) on the fifty yard line to move anywhere at all at ANY speed, just because that rocket is considered, by ad hoc determination to now be 'stopped'/'at rest'? And, aqainst Gravity?

That is most definitely "Spookie Action/Motion at a distance"

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Thank you for your clarification, it helps to show where your mistake lies.

You're basically saying that if A is moving away from B at a speed of X, then B shouldn't see A receding at a speed of X.
Is that it?

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

The twin that stays home is at rest in respect to his/her inertial frame of reference on Earth, yes.
When one twin stays home and the other twin is on a spaceship moving at a constant velocity, both will consider themselves to be a rest in respect to their inertial (i.e. non-accelerated) frames of reference, and will consider their counterpart to be moving in respect to them, yes.

No magic here. What you term as the "at rest" observer, i.e. the one that remained on earth, appears to be moving from the point of view of the twin on the spaceship.
There is no force involved here. The twins on the rocket ship see whole Earth moving away from them, and their respective twins along with them. The rocket is not really stopped, it just appears so to the twin on board. It appears not to be moving, since it is not undergoing any acceleation.

Nothing spooky going on here...

Just that because there is no absolute inertial frame of reference in the universe against which measurements can be made, all inertial (non-accelerated) frames of reference are valid. Everything is "relative"...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

This is something caused by the continued use of "observer" in these discussions. Observers do not matter. We identify multiple reference frames in the standard twin scenario. One of these is co-moving with the stay-at-home twin. If we start the scenario off with the rocket twin in motion, then we have a scenario where the stay-at-home twin has always been in motion, it's simply one of the realities of that frame.

The only thing moved is the point of view things are considered from, not a physical observer.

We aren't moving the observer from one rocket to another, we're asking "what would an(other) observer see if he was on that other rocket (and had been there all the time)".

"Put yourself in his place" does not mean you should walk over to his chair, haul him out and sit there yourself.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Well put :-)

It seems to me a big part of the problem in these relativity threads is failure to distinguish between inertial and non-inertial frames. I once heard someone (not on the internet, a real person) try to argue that if you were in a lift in a tall building, and the cable snapped and the safety failed, you wouldn't be hurt when the lift crashed to the ground, because relative to the lift, you're not moving at all

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

By that logic I should be able to jump safely off the Empire State Building just so long as I land on my shoes, which, of course, never move relative to me

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

It works for Bugs Bunny....

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

RussT, please note that despite the light bantering, we are genuinely trying to make you understand what the fundamental mainstream ideas of relativity are so you're able to understand our arguments and can explain your own in a language we can all understand.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Change your experiment. Just before launch, give each of the twins in the rockets an injection that will keep them knocked out for 1 minute. When they wake up they're in a rocket. When they wake up they have no idea if the rocket is moving, or not. They're weightless, and might as well consider themselves to be at rest. How would they know they're moving? They "slept" through the launch. Each individual twin in his individual rocket can consider his rocket to be at rest, and look out the window and see 9 moving rockets and one moving planet. Each twin in the rocket will see the planet moving away with a different speed.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

This has nothing to do with the regular twin "paradox". It doesn't even really have anything to do with SR. You appear to have a problem with the concept of inertial frames, which have been an integral part of physics since the time of Galileo. Try googling "galilean relativity".

...and for Road Runner :-)

I recommend against trying, but I think you know what's wrong with this argument already

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

I agree, the same issue (or non-issue) arises just as well in a Newtonian universe.

__________________
Principal Principle Offender