View Single Post
Tantalos
Tantalos is offline
#25
Mar7-12, 12:04 PM
P: 46
Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
I really dislike this terminology. It is sloppy language and almost always coincides with sloppy thinking and incorrect conclusions. I agree with ghwellsjr in his suggestion and recommendation. I also would point out that if you ever find yourself or someone else using the term "jumping into" or "jumping out of" a reference frame you can be very confident that a mistake has been made or is about to be made.
Which conclusions are sloppy and incorrect (and why)?

Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
You cannot "jump into" a reference frame. An inertial reference frame has infinite spatial and temporal extent. You may be at rest in it or you may be moving in it. If you are non-inertial then over time whether or not you are at rest in a given inertial reference frame can change.
Ok, then don't jump, but you can change your speed and/or direction in your original reference frame to a speed that just happens to be the same as of an another third reference frame.

Quote Quote by DaleSpam View Post
In one inertial frame the home twin is at rest, in this frame the travelling twin is never at rest. This frame concludes that the travelling twin is younger at the reunion.

In another inertial frame the travelling twin is initially at rest, in this frame the home twin is never at rest and the travelling twin is not at rest in the final leg. This frame concludes that the travelling twin is younger at the reunion.

In a third inertial frame the travelling twin is at rest on the final leg, in this frame the home twin is never at rest and the travelling twin is not initially at rest. This frame concludes that the travelling twin is younger at the reunion.
When the travelling twin turns does he take the clock with him or he leaves it in his reference frame which is still moving forward?