Difference between revisions of "Moving Clock Does not Run Slow"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | This note is not intended to show that the time dilation formula in special relativity is wrong. Instead, I will show that the formula has been misinterpreted. In particular, I will show that the time dilation formula does not imply a moving clock runs slower compared to a stationary clock. As a corollary, there is no twin paradox. | + | This note is not intended to show that the time dilation formula in special relativity is wrong. Instead, I will show that the formula has been misinterpreted. In particular, I will show that the time dilation formula does not imply a moving clock runs slower compared to a stationary clock. As a corollary, there is no twin paradox. |
| − | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|moving clock does run slow]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Relativity|moving clock does run slow]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:43, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Moving Clock Does not Run Slow |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Boon Leong Lan |
| Keywords | special relativity, clocks, time |
| Published | 2009 |
| Journal | None |
| No. of pages | 3 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
This note is not intended to show that the time dilation formula in special relativity is wrong. Instead, I will show that the formula has been misinterpreted. In particular, I will show that the time dilation formula does not imply a moving clock runs slower compared to a stationary clock. As a corollary, there is no twin paradox.
