Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 12:18:03 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 76 Message-ID: <6293C6EB.2DA5@ix.netcom.com> References: <485d0c89-3bfd-431b-aac6-e700a1595720n@googlegroups.com> <6cebb3f4-08cb-4050-a563-b8b95c392479n@googlegroups.com> <40e97f86-7355-45e6-94fb-2e8c58c82c7en@googlegroups.com> <7983cfdc-7e47-4936-9def-857c1f0705dfn@googlegroups.com> <37f94bac-b4e7-48f2-b199-6896aa546f35n@googlegroups.com> <8cd748e9-6af2-4d3e-840a-bf8bb0a252bbn@googlegroups.com> <50050665-781c-4278-9ffb-c2a9bfa5f4e7n@googlegroups.com> <5f0916e5-dcc9-44ae-ba1d-c0a18fe00d5dn@googlegroups.com> <0b89798d-2fdd-4eb4-8748-41c88073f52cn@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e92c8193e82eb107f0abd74af39f7557"; logging-data="752"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K6NIgCjIwbMO12vtuyTvgqb7/lYBXF94=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:MfEYFjSnEm11QCHh1ZLBLifUzCs= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220529-2, 05/29/2022), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:586085 Ed Lake wrote: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, escribió: > > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > Nonsense. You should read it again. It clearly says (see above): "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A". There are TWO clocks. One of them is moved at constant speed in a closed trajectory (a circle). Therefore, what they compared after the clock A returns to its initial point is the ELAPSED time of the moving clock compared with the elapsed time of the not moving clock!!!! > > > > > > > > > Okay. Your basic problem is that you cannot comprehend that "elapsed time" is > > > > > merely a comparison of accumulated times. And the way you "accumulate time" > > > > > is by counting seconds. You start a stop watch, and one minute later you stop > > > > > the stop watch. You have accumulated 60 seconds. > > > > > > > > > It is not that simple. The moving clock follows a path through spacetime and that path is shorter (the moving clock ticks at the same rate the stationary clock but the spacetime path of the moving clock is SHORTER). This is basic spacetime geometry. > > > > > If so, it is IDIOTICALLY WRONG. A moving clock follows a path that is LONGER > > > than the path of a stationary clock. The path of a truly stationary clock has a > > > length of ZERO. > > Well, that is no the case. Read for example the solution of the twin paradox, available with spacetime graphs at https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparad > > > > In the (t,x) spacetime graph of the Earth twin (the left graph), the traveling twin follows a path trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration. > > > > However, when the twins reunite, the path the traveling twin took an elapsed time of 8 years, while the Earth twin took an elapsed time of 10 years. > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, > therefore, two years younger at the reunion." > > The difference in "elapsed time" is due to the fact that time ran slower for the > traveling twin. "the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 " > > How can you not understand that? > > Ed I understand it is only a ...web page. I understand the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." and the webpage owner is also an ...Outlaw, meaning a criminal, blackhat, outcast, etc https://polycentric.cpp.edu/images/ex-centric/daily_pics/picture_of_day_640x480_744.jpg One's persons opinion???? FUCK HIM! TAKE THAT GUITAR AND SHOVE IT UP HIS FUCKIN ASS!!! Maybe Ed Lake you need to Learn English... opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. The Starmaker (the smartest guy in the room) -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.