User talk:Dkapan

September 2023
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Twin paradox, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Dvdm,
 * I guess you are a specialist. The addition I made does not fall under the category of the ones that need corroborating citation. I would need to supply the formalism and calculate. A classical physicist would calculate that the twin would be receiving more blue shifts than red shifts along his journey anyway. So the discrepancy between the number of red and blue shifts in itself is no evidence that his brother on earth will be older upon return. Perhaps I am mistaken. Would you mind to say why?
 * Best,
 * Dkapan 2A02:85F:EC88:BB00:E5D6:90AA:9BE4:7585 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Dvdm,
 * I am curious as for why you do not address the question I posed. I am trying to keep this between you and me so that no one gets offended, after it has been made public.
 * Let me rephrase. Even In the Newtonian setting red shifts for the traveler are ALWAYS fewer than blue shifts. In any such trip! So, this particular formulation in this otherwise excellent entry is unfortunate. Again: The reason that the traveler will eventually realize that they have to take under account the turnaround CANNOT BE that the blue shifted emissions they receive are greater in number that the red shifted ones. It is not the asymmetry per se between these two that puts them on their guard.
 * Scenario: In a Newtonian world travelers A and B are at point d. B starts moving in one direction for 5 years with velocity 0,5c. Then they turn back at d and reunites with A with the same velocity. A sends a radio signal each year following B’s departure. In this Newtonian world, B will receive just one signal during the outbound trip and nine during the return trip. This causes no alarm there. No one will think “Oh, someone is younger than the other”. In the relativistic world, the REAL world, B will receive MUCH MORE signals during the inbound leg. These are explained by the jump in their plane of simultaneity at the turnaround. It’s not the asymmetry per se. It’s the unexpected (from the classical physicist) unproportionally big asymmetry.
 * This is a simple point. and I am respectfully awaiting for some response. I am afraid that if I do not get one, I will need to discuss your removing my editing more openly.
 * Cheers,
 * Dkapan 62.103.224.166 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Dvdm,
 * I am curious as for why you do not address the question I posed. I am trying to keep this between you and me so that no one gets offended, after it has been made public.
 * Let me rephrase. Even In the Newtonian setting red shifts for the traveler are ALWAYS fewer than blue shifts. In any such trip! So, this particular formulation in this otherwise excellent entry is unfortunate. Again: The reason that the traveler will eventually realize that they have to take under account the turnaround CANNOT BE that the blue shifted emissions they receive are greater in number that the red shifted ones. It is not the asymmetry per se between these two that puts them on their guard.
 * Scenario: In a Newtonian world travelers A and B are at point d. B starts moving in one direction for 5 years with velocity 0,5c. Then they turn back at d and reunites with A with the same velocity. A sends a radio signal each year following B’s departure. In this Newtonian world, B will receive just one signal during the outbound trip and nine during the return trip. This causes no alarm there. No one will think “Oh, someone is younger than the other”. In the relativistic world, the REAL world, B will receive MUCH MORE signals during the inbound leg. These are explained by the jump in their plane of simultaneity at the turnaround. It’s not the asymmetry per se. It’s the unexpected (from the classical physicist) unproportionally big asymmetry.
 * This is a simple point. and I am respectfully awaiting for some response. I am afraid that if I do not get one, I will need to discuss your removing my editing more openly.
 * Cheers,
 * Dkapan 62.103.224.166 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase. Even In the Newtonian setting red shifts for the traveler are ALWAYS fewer than blue shifts. In any such trip! So, this particular formulation in this otherwise excellent entry is unfortunate. Again: The reason that the traveler will eventually realize that they have to take under account the turnaround CANNOT BE that the blue shifted emissions they receive are greater in number that the red shifted ones. It is not the asymmetry per se between these two that puts them on their guard.
 * Scenario: In a Newtonian world travelers A and B are at point d. B starts moving in one direction for 5 years with velocity 0,5c. Then they turn back at d and reunites with A with the same velocity. A sends a radio signal each year following B’s departure. In this Newtonian world, B will receive just one signal during the outbound trip and nine during the return trip. This causes no alarm there. No one will think “Oh, someone is younger than the other”. In the relativistic world, the REAL world, B will receive MUCH MORE signals during the inbound leg. These are explained by the jump in their plane of simultaneity at the turnaround. It’s not the asymmetry per se. It’s the unexpected (from the classical physicist) unproportionally big asymmetry.
 * This is a simple point. and I am respectfully awaiting for some response. I am afraid that if I do not get one, I will need to discuss your removing my editing more openly.
 * Cheers,
 * Dkapan 62.103.224.166 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)