G

#### Guest

##### Guest

It goes to the issue of time dilation I posted earlier and it is obvious I overlooked something.

Following is the exchange in its entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. _____:

]

] I have submitted the following scenario to several people in the field

] of Relativistic Study and as yet have received no answer for what

] appears to me to be a paradoxical situation in time dilation. It's a

] twist on the old "Twins" paradox but goes a bit further in a way the

] original does not address.

]

] Can you help?

] --

] An astronaut leaves Earth for a journey circling our solar system at a

] velocity significantly near enough the speed of light to cause a very

] noticeable dilation in time, relative to his counterparts on Earth. He

] makes many circumnavigations of the Sun and is always in view from Earth

] at least by telescope. He also has a telescope aboard and is always able

] to view the Earth. This does not have to be an orbital flight in the

] classic Newtonian sense as that would require a very large Solar orbit

] radius at said velocity. We can allow it to be if you wish however, if

] we stipulate that the telescopes are very powerful. Suffice to say that

] our astronaut has a powered craft such as Boussard Ramjet or any

] hypothetical propulsion method you choose that is capable of sustaining

] a lengthy journey. The only condition is that the astronaut is always

] directly visible from Earth and vice versa, and is travelling at near c

] velocities. It follows then that if he can observe the Earth, he can

] likewise observe the Sun.

]

] He returns to Earth after we have monitored his progress for, say, 50

] years. Due to time dilation, the journey only lasted 10 years for him

] however and his age reflects this.

]

] During this period, we obviously witnessed ourselves revolve around the

] Sun 50 times. How many revolutions of the Sun did our astronaut witness

] the Earth perform?

{The good Dr.'s response.}

50.

That is an invariant answer, and all observers will agree. Now if you

want to DEFINE a year by the number of revolutions of the earth around

the sun, then by definition, he is 50 years old. However, if he takes a

clock with him ( and his own biology is a type of clock), then he will

find that for him, each orbit of the earth around the sun takes much

less that the 3X10^7 seconds that an earthbound observer will claim each

revolution takes. Since they take much less time, he can still fit 50 of

them into the 10 years that he is travelling.

] {Lee again}

] Regardless of the answer, how can this be?

]

] Even further, we were able to count the number of revolutions he made

] around the Sun. (Obviously a GREAT number at c during "our" 50 years.)

] How many did he count for HIMSELF, relatively speaking?

{The Dr.}

The same number. Again the length of time that each revolution took

would be different for him and for the earth bound observer.

--------------------------------------------------------

End of exchange.

How easily we (I) forget the simple details when setting up a hypothetical scenario.

Enjoy.