(Go away for the weekend and the thread falls off the front page for the first time in who knows how long, "only" 4 pages to catch up on)
No, you are wrong
The answer is much simpler. I'm an idiot.
I was referring to time dilation, and I was claiming that the equation was wrong (well, the values were wrong, due to time dilation). But, like I said, I appear to have had my head up my own backside. See, for some reason I'm having trouble understanding now, I applied the time dilation in such a way as to reduce the amount of time the Generation Ships had been flying. I've duly rep'ed the offended parties as part of my punishment
And as I've said here before, I never really liked it. I think a large part of it was the way we were taught it. SR is extremely exciting and I had expected (and still expect) to like it. Concepts I only learned later on would have been extremely helpful at the time and probably enabled me to enjoy SR as much as I felt I should have. Fundamentally, I still don't feel any SR textbook I've ever seen handles the "clock postulate", instead resorting to a whole lot of handwaving.
In this particular context, which is pretty much (half) the classic Twin (non-)Paradox, for example, pretty much every SR text will completely handwave what happens during the acceleration and deceleration. Neither of the two "original" underpinning postulates of SR cover, for example, what the speed of light is during acceleration. (For reference, the two postulates are: 1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. 2) The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference.). Some texts even claim that the clock postulate (or, indeed, the invariance of the Minkowski line element) is a result of General Relativity, while it is in fact an assumption upon which it is based (wherefore using it to derive such an invariance is circular logic at its best).
No, SR was never really my cup of tea. I can honestly say that I've always found quantum physics much more intuitive.
Yeah, I was always under the impression that the twin paradox and accelerating frames and all that were sort of resolved by GR.
Also, if you ever want to do some QM work for me for fun I'll send it your way.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
There's a rather good book called Einstein's Mirror, which is a solid introduction to Special (and a little bit of General) Relativity aimed mainly at an undergrad/2nd year A-level audience.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Einsteins-Mirror-Tony-Hey/dp/0521435323
I highly recommend it for anyone who'd like to study more about SR without ploughing through an entire physics degree or a TV special with Dara O'Brien and Brian Cox.
I've actually been watching the Leonard Susskind GR lectures in my spare time. They go from zero to difficult pretty quickly and I had to put them aside as life happened for the last few months (sort of like ED). I would really like to put on the lectures and take notes while I'm cruising toward Sag A*. Soon... soon...