If the starcraft is moving away then he expects to receive a pulse every T = 1 + 0.95 = 1.95 sec
He wouldn't.
If he doesn't know about relativity, he'd expect light to travel with c-v = 0.05c.
That means he expects 20 seconds.
I've written the rest before.
I have tried to be as clear as possible in my post before, but perhaps it wasn't clear enough. Just a "I don't follow you" is hardly helpful to narrow down where things weren't clear. Could you be more precise?
~~~
I claimed that the paradox is true " Despite " the acceleration - turning - deceleration phases
Joey claimed ( at least this is what I understood ) " Thanks" to the acceleration - turning - deceleration phases
The problem is that "the twin paradox"
itself is ill-defined. What are we talking about?
- The fact that one twin ages more than the other?
(Everyone agreed on that this is true) - The idea that there is no "symmetry"?
(I.e.: One twin ages more than the other, which is because only one stays in an inertial system).
We all agreed on those points and how to solve them, I believe.
The different aging of two twin brothers is however a direct consequence of the relativism of time
If the time flows in a different way on the earth and on the starcraft, why should the two brother alwayes have the same age ?
Yes, but I don't think anyone disagreed on the fact that the twins are of different age.
We can agree on these points, I believe?
A) Twin A (on earth) is in an inertial system, and what we find calculating in "his" rest frame is valid
B) Twin B (on spaceship) is *NOT* in an inertial system (due to turnaround), and thus we cannot calculate things the same way as we did for Twin A.
The latter point is, I believe, the essence of what gave trouble for MOST of the thread.
~ ~
To summarize, I'm just not sure what we're arguing here.
