Recent content by Histspec

In Scenario 2, clock C indicates 0 at the start, advances by interval 2 during motion and therefore indicates time C=2 when it meets B; and clock B indicates 1.7 at the start and advances by interval 1.3 during motion, thus B indicates B=1.7+1.3=3 when it meets C. What's the problem?

As you can see on the images, in both scenarios the clock indications of B and C when they meet are B=3 and C=2, thus $$C=2<B=3$$ But time dilation is about intervals, which gives (as explained above) $$\Delta C=2 < \Delta B=3$$ in scenario 1, and $$\Delta B=1.3 < \Delta C=2$$ in scenario 2 .

You may have a look at the images in the German Wikipedia that precisely describe, and solve, your scenarios: In scenario 1 (rest frame of Earth), there is a rocket C traveling between synchronized clocks A and B. When C reaches B the clocks were advanced by ##\Delta C=2## and ##\Delta B=3##...

In defense of Laue it should be clarified that he was talking about changing frames in which the clocks were at rest (in The principle of relativity, 1913), p.43:

Pretty much everything related to the twin paradox has already been discussed and solved between 1910 and 1921. History of the twin paradox

You may be interested in the following paper: Relativity for Retired Engineers https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21660

This came after Rutherford in 1919 managed to make the first observation of an induced nuclear reaction, which was big news in the papers ("splitting the atom" or "Atomzertrümmerung"). For instance, the German newspaper Berliner Tageblatt devoted an article on 25 July 1920, including an expert...

As the others already pointed out, the answer is yes. You find a more detailed description in https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411233 where you find the formula ##T=\frac{4}{g}\sinh\frac{g\tau}{4}## (case c). In case not everything is symmetric, you can use a more general formula that also...

All of which was already explained by Laue in 1911: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Two_Objections_Against_the_Theory_of_Relativity_and_their_Refutation Hopefully we don't have to wait another 110+ years before everybody understands this.

Probably similar to the old suggestion of Clifford (1871), according to which matter is just Riemannian curvature of space. Even Einstein said something in that direction. See the following paper that gives a sketchy overview of that idea in relation to general relativity...

I guess you describe the same events A and B from the viewpoint of two different frames: In the first frame (upper image), the light clock moves to the right, in the second frame (lower image) it moves to the left. If that's the case, then event B on the lower image is located in the middle of...

As far as I know from reading Einstein's collected papers, there is only one published paper of Einstein in which he used the EP to discuss the twin paradox (besides some letters from 1917-1918 in which he also sketched that solution). It's in his popular article (without equations) from 1918...

When people refer to spacetime as hyperbolic, they usually mean that parts of spacetime can be described by certain models of hyperbolic space. For instance, relativistic velocity space inside $$u_{x}^{2}+u_{y}^{2}+u_{z}^{2}=1$$ can be described in terms of the Beltrami–Klein model or Poincaré...

That's the emission (or ballistic) theory of light. While it is consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment, it was refuted by many other experiments that use moving light sources.

The theory says that only "inertial" motions are relative (or symmetric), whereas accelerated motions - as indicated by comoving accelerometers - are "absolute". They don't need anything to know about their past movements, they only need an accelerometer - an indication of zero means they can...