Symmetry Argument: Resolving the Twin Paradox Contradiction

[Gear300]

When your cruiser takes off, you SEE the reading equal to TL - 2 years. (Agreed?) When you arrive at the station, you see the reading of TL + 3.33, even though only 2.67 years have passed by your clock. So if you were to look at the station through the telescope during the trip, you'd SEE their clock ticking FASTER than yours ... but that would be because you're moving toward them - basic Doppler effect.

Alright...I'm seeing it now. That was a good explanation.
An additional question: Since the time-reading error was in the distance and speed of light, was this what allowed for the statement that information cannot travel faster than light?

It would be T_L - C, not + C...when you look through a telescope you don't see things as they will be in the future, but rather how things were in the past, since the light from past events is just reaching you now. So, just to have some specific numbers to work with, say that T_L = 10 years...in this case, at that moment you see the synchronized clock on the station reading 8 years in your telescope. But keep in mind that there's a difference between what you see visually and what's actually happening in your frame...in your frame immediately before takeoff, when you are still at rest relative to the station, both your clock and the station's clock "actually" read 10 years since they are synchronized in this frame, in spite of the fact that you only see the station clock reading 8 years. On the other hand, once you are in motion at 0.6c relative to the station you have a different rest frame, and because of the relativity of simultaneity it's no longer true in this second frame that the station clock was synchronized with your clock the moment after takeoff...specifically, the relativity of simultaneity says that if two clocks are synchronized and a distance D apart in their own rest frame, then in a frame where they are moving at speed v, they will be out-of-sync by vD/c^2.

I think I'm beginning to see how this would turn out...this would be an implied consequence of the principle of relativity, right?

 

[JesseM]

I think I'm beginning to see how this would turn out...this would be an implied consequence of the principle of relativity, right?

Don't quite understand what you mean...what specific aspect of what I was saying do you think would be an implied consequence of the principle of relativity?

 

[Gear300]

Don't quite understand what you mean...what specific aspect of what I was saying do you think would be an implied consequence of the principle of relativity?

It might be better not to give mind to that statement.