Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 255 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-26 22:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-26 23:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 00:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 13:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 12:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-27 19:09 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-05-28 14:13 +0000
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:14 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-27 12:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 13:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 22:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 07:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 09:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-07 19:19 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-08 11:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 20:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-09 13:30 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 07:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 10:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 10:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 13:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-05-31 14:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:51 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 13:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 13:22 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 19:45 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 20:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 09:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 12:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 15:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 11:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 13:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-28 14:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 10:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 14:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 09:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-30 13:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 13:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-31 00:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 17:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 20:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 21:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Aldo <aldo.mayme.11084@cap.edu.mx> - 2022-05-29 21:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 02:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-31 12:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2022-05-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 12:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 15:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-06-02 19:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 06:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 07:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:05 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 19:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:43 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 22:43 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 11:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 07:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 08:54 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 11:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 09:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:25 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 13:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-01 14:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-02 07:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-02 14:55 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 21:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 08:08 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-03 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-03 10:51 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 09:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-04 12:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 13:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:47 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-03 23:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 07:26 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-06-04 08:50 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 10:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 11:17 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:20 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 14:00 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 14:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 14:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:27 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 08:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 19:52 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 11:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:47 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-08 13:21 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 21:30 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Al Coe <coeal5136@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 12:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 14:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-09 05:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-09 22:36 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-04 15:12 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 19:25 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 17:40 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-04 21:00 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 21:13 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 07:41 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 12:48 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 20:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-06-05 23:07 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-06-06 16:53 -0700
Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-04 12:58 -0700
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-07-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 08:20 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-07-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Ed Lake's confusions (was: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again.) RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-16 15:49 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-06-04 18:36 -0400
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 22:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-06-05 09:47 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-05 08:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 09:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-06-05 21:41 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-06-05 13:15 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-06-03 13:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-31 21:35 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 09:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 12:03 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:46 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 23:05 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 23:42 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:24 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-05-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-28 23:53 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-30 11:44 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-30 11:52 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 18:11 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:18 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-05-29 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 07:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:23 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:14 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:33 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 10:35 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 11:10 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-05-27 21:49 +0200
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-05-27 12:38 -0500
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-05-29 11:02 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-29 11:37 -0700
Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-01 07:51 -0700
Absolute time Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-06-01 15:43 +0000
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Absolute time whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-06-02 12:05 -0500
Re: Absolute time Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-06-02 20:58 -0700
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 11:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <50050665-781c-4278-9ffb-c2a9bfa5f4e7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586012 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > A quote from page 11: > > > > > > > > > > ------------ quote ----------- > > > > > If one of two synchronous > > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > > > > > otherwise identical conditions. > > > > > --------- end quote ----- > > > > > > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. > > > > > Don't you understand English at all???? > > > > > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time! > > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole. > > 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 you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are > stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem > to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations > were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock. > > Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS > TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore > that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time. > The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions". Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere. > How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between > a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked > slower that the stationary clock? > We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation: "In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity. After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 12:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <d1543029-f9ba-4ab7-b27b-d9c32fadd60an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586018 |
We sense time by cycles of motion. Time is the temporal. The temporal is the temporary and is the order of change. We sense change. We sense time. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 13:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <e22d858b-3924-4348-8e97-49465dc0c993n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586018 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 13:24:32 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A quote from page 11: > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ quote ----------- > > > > > > If one of two synchronous > > > > > > clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to > > > > > > A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest > > > > > > the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv2/c2 second slow. Thence we > > > > > > conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very > > > > > > small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under > > > > > > otherwise identical conditions. > > > > > > --------- end quote ----- > > > > > > > > > > > That quote is talking about the ELAPSED TIME between events and that has nothing to do with the clock proper ticking. > > > > > > > Don't you understand English at all???? > > > > > > > > "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly" is NOT about elapsed time! > > > > It says the clock at the equator ticks slower than the clock at the pole. > > > > 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. > > If you are moving, it takes longer to accumulate 60 seconds than if you are > > stationary. The "elapsed time" is 60 seconds for both clocks. You seem > > to understand that, but you cannot understand that WHILE the accumulations > > were being performed, one clock was ticking slower than the other clock. > > > > Einstein stated that in the quote I provided about clocks at the equator. CLOCKS > > TICK SLOWER AT THE EQUATOR THAN AT ONE OF THE POLES. You ignore > > that quote and only look at the part that involves ELAPSED time. > > > The actual quote is: "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions". Correct. Different words, same meaning. > Unfortunately, this is the only error in Einstein's paper. He did not know in 1905 that Earth is not a perfect sphere. That doesn't change the fact that a clock at the equator ticks slower than a clock at one of the poles DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN VELOCITY. It only affects GRAVITATIONAL Relativity, because it changes the DISTANCE to the center of the earth from the equator. > > How can you not understand that, if the "elapsed times" are different between > > a moving clock and a stationary clock, that is BECAUSE the moving clock ticked > > slower that the stationary clock? > > > We understand, unlike you, quite well the difference between a ticking rate and an elapsed time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation: > > "In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity. > > After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. In addition, a clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential)". That's true, but it is also misleading. Relative velocity between two clocks MUST KNOW which clock is stationary and which is moving (or which is moving faster than the other). That quote does NOT say that you can just pick which observer you want to be moving and which you want to be stationary. Mathematicians just MISINTERPRET it that way. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-28 18:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5f0916e5-dcc9-44ae-ba1d-c0a18fe00d5dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586026 |
El sábado, 28 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:18:41 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com 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/twinparadox.html 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 09:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <0b89798d-2fdd-4eb4-8748-41c88073f52cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586043 |
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/twinparadox.html > > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 12:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <60baecae-62e5-4a2c-adbf-2ac43a456640n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586072 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:53:22 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > 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/twinparadox.html > > > > 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? > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0). Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again. Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth. As the traveling twin speed is v=3/5 c, he reaches the turning point (at 3 light years) after 4 years of traveling. All this exercise uses only Special Relativity and the Lorentz equations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 13:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <c59b8ef2-01c2-4357-a781-5f285fe3b8b4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586084 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:53:22 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:03:52 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > 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/twinparadox.html > > > > > > 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? > > > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0). > > Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again. > > Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth. That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation. If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will reach you more frequently than once per year. That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance the signals have to travel to reach you. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-29 16:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <b806c52c-5ae0-4995-bbf5-f31534335ad2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586094 |
El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:09:50 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > How can you not understand that? > > > > > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0). > > > > Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again. > > > > Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth. > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation. > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will > reach you more frequently than once per year. > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph. > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance > the signals have to travel to reach you. See above
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 09:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <5a070585-55f4-43c7-8e71-d126e17c528en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586101 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:09:50 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > How can you not understand that? > > > > > > > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0). > > > > > > Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again. > > > > > > Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth. > > > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation. > > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once > > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving > > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will > > reach you more frequently than once per year. > > > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph. > > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance > > the signals have to travel to reach you. > See above The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <0a2c00dc-6d89-45b7-9ded-cc1b2b54061bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586130 |
El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:00:28 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation. > > > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once > > > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving > > > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will > > > reach you more frequently than once per year. > > > > > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph. > > > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance > > > the signals have to travel to reach you. > > See above > > The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do > with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to > understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning > bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different > distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times. > Sure, but you see when the traveling twin has been traveling for one year, the line of simultaneity at the Earth twin is only 0.8 years. Read the page again: "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". and "Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame to another". This is my last post in this subject
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 09:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <7566b359-b87a-4924-9904-e723c442ae15n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586132 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:00:28 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation. > > > > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once > > > > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving > > > > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will > > > > reach you more frequently than once per year. > > > > > > > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph. > > > > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance > > > > the signals have to travel to reach you. > > > See above > > > > The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do > > with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to > > understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning > > bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different > > distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times. > > > Sure, but you see when the traveling twin has been traveling for one year, the line of simultaneity at the Earth twin is only 0.8 years. Read the page again: > > "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". > > and > > "Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame to another". > > This is my last post in this subject When I stop responding, others usually start posting "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and refuses to look at facts and evidence. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 11:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62950ABF.7DB4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586133 |
Ed Lake wrote: > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > refuses to look at facts and evidence. But you point to websites that the the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 13:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <59b50b1b-9731-40f7-8405-6077e17f6b6dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586136 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > But you point to websites that the > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 14:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629531A6.39EC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586153 |
Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > But you point to websites that the > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > Ed What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! You wrote: > 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." That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 14:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <4793e201-09bd-4e68-95f1-2b5cd6c02e70n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586158 |
El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ed Lake wrote: > > > > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence. > > > But you point to websites that the > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..." > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence??? > > > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about? > > > > Ed > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website! > > You wrote: > > > 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." > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html > > > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.." > > > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. > -- Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document): "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies". This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 15:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <629547CD.14D0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586161 |
Paparios wrote:
>
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > >
> > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > 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."
> > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> >
> >
> > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> >
> >
> > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > --
>
> Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):
>
> "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
>
> This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff
another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ...
I forgot the copyright notice!
©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
ajm at cpp.edu
Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality
beavers the whole website!!!!
A. John Mallinckrodt Professor Emeritus of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
The so-called "Twin Paradox"
An explanation using spacetime diagrams of how the so-called "twin
paradox" of special relativity is resolved.
Home
Schedule
Classes
Materials
Interactive Physics
Professional
Personal/Music
Links
Previous Page
Time dilation: The basis for the so-called "twin paradox"
Early in the study of special relativity students learn about the
phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that "moving clocks run slow." Those
who have properly appreciated the fact that all motion is relative and
who have properly appreciated that clocks measure the passage of
physical (including biological) time, ought necessarily to experience
some mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass
each other, the prediction is that both will find the other's clocks to
run slower than their own. This might well seem to be impossible on its
face and, therefore, to invalidate the entire theory. Nevertheless, a
detailed analysis that properly takes into account two other equally
peculiar relativistic effects—the Lorentz contraction and the relativity
of simultaneity—shows that one can build a perfectly sensible
relativistic world in which all observers agree on the only things that
they must agree on including the details of local events (e.g., what
everybody's watches read in a group picture) and the temporal order of
causal sequences (e.g., which came first, the lightning or the thunder?)
The statement of the so-called "twin paradox"
The confusion caused by the phenomenon of time dilation has long been
encapsulated in the so-called "twin paradox" stated as follows*:
One of a pair of twins (the "traveling twin") travels to and returns
from a very distant destination at a speed approaching that of light the
other (the "Earth-bound twin") stays home. Since both twins observe the
other twin to be moving, both find that the other is aging less quickly.
Thus, upon their reunion, both twins will expect—and find!—the other
twin to be younger. This result violates the requirements of a rational
world and, therefore, special relativity is wrong.
* Because much confusion persists to this day about the implications of
the so-called "twin paradox," I hasten to emphasize unequivocally that
the so-called "twin paradox" is not a paradox, that there is no
controversy about its resolution (as we will see), and that it does not
in any way cast suspicion on—let alone invalidate—the theory of special
relativity.
Why there is no paradox
The so-called "twin paradox" is easily resolved by noting that there is
a physically meaningful disinction between the experiences of the two
twins during the trip. The Earth-bound twin remains in a single constant
velocity reference frame the entire time while the traveling twin must
accelerate to turn around and come home. The acceleration causes the
traveling twin to change from one constant velocity reference frame to
another and produces effects that can be measured locally by the
traveling twin in the form of inertial forces that can knock things
over, compress springs, and generally endow objects with weight. As a
result of the fact that their experiences are different, there is no a
priori reason for them to come to the same conclusion.
NB: The "same conclusion" I refer to here—the one they do not come
to!—is the one referred to in the penultimate sentence of the statement
of the so-called "twin paradox" above, that the other twin will be found
to be younger. Indeed, it would be intolerable for special relativity or
any other physical theory to predict that utterly incomprehensible
finding. On the other hand, because both twins, in fact, must agree on
what they find, we demand that any successful theory should be able to
account for that finding from either point of view.
As it turns out, the result is that the traveling twin is younger upon
return than the Earth-bound twin. This is readily understood from the
point of view of the Earth-bound twin who remains at all time in a
single, constant velocity reference frame with respect to which the
traveling twin's clocks are always (except for one instant during the
turnaround) running slow. But how do we understand that conclusion from
the point of view of the traveling twin?
Spacetime diagrams
One of the most illuminating ways of understanding the resolution of the
so-called "twin paradox" is by analyzing carefully drawn, detailed
spacetime diagrams for specific choices of trip distance and velocity. I
have done so below for a trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed
of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor ? = 5/4) in both directions and
with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration. (The approximation of
negligible turnaround time may very well lead to anatomically
unrealistic "g forces" (!) and can be relaxed at the expense of
additional computational complexity, but it makes no qualititative
difference in the result.)
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/? = 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 view from the reference frame of the Earth
The left panel of the figure below (which you can click on to open a
larger version in a new window), shows the worldlines of the EBT and the
TT in the reference frame of Earth. Note that the TT reaches the
destination at a distance of three lightyears after an elapsed time of
five years in this frame and that the TT has aged only four years at
that point. Note also that the scale of the x and t axes are such that
light travels along lines at a 45 degree angle, i.e., 1 year per light
year, and that the TT's worldlines have a larger slope (representing a
lower speed) of 5/3 years per light year.
Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth,
horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same
time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also,
however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of
the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of simultaneity,
these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the
outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg.
In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline,
3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines
indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the
TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected
since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running
slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the
turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg.
They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame
jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the
TT moves from one reference frame to another.
Both the EBT and the TT send light signals to each other at yearly
intervals as shown by the red and blue lines respectively and each
transmission is marked with the number of the year at which it was sent.
Note that the TT receives only the first two signals from the EBT on the
outbound leg and recieves all eight remaining signals on the inbound leg
with the final, tenth, signal received at the moment of the reunion.
Note also that the EBT receives the last of the four outbound signals
(including the fourth at the turnaround point) at year eight and
receives the four inbound signals during only the last two years.
Thus, we see that the EBT receives signals at the rate of one every two
years for the first eight years and then at a rate of two per year for
the final two years. This amounts to a total of (1/2)*8 + (2)*2 = 8
signals received from the TT. On the other hand the TT receives signals
also at the rate of one every two years for only the first four years
and then at a rate of two per year for the final four years. This
amounts to a total of (1/2)*4 + (2)*4 = 10 signals received from the
EBT.
It is well worth noting the fact that both twins agree that they receive
signals at a rate of 1/2 per year (low frequency) when those signals
reflect relative motion away from each other and both twins also agree
that they receive signals at a rate of 2 per year (high frequency) when
those signals reflect relative motion toward each from each other. The
difference is that, for the TT, the low and high frequency signals
occupy equal portions of the trip while, for the EBT, the low frequency
signals are observed during 80% of the trip.
The view from the reference frame of the outbound traveler
The right panel of the figure, shows the worldlines of the EBT and the
TT in the outbound reference frame. Note that, in this reference frame,
the reunion takes place 12.5 years after the departure in keeping with
the fact that the EBT's clocks run slow the entire time. The TT,
however, leaves this reference frame at the turnaraound point four years
into the trip when the EBT's clock reads 3.2 years as previously noted.
Note also that the EBT is 2.4 lightyears away at this time, the largest
separation of the trip in this frame, properly reflecting the Lorentz
contraction of the 3 lightyear distance observed in the reference frame
of Earth.
On the inbound leg, the TT moves at a speed of -15/17 c as obtained from
the relativistic addition of the speeds -3/5 c and -3/5 c. During this
time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/? = 17/8, which is
reflected in the fact that it takes just over two years for the TT's
clock to advance each additional year. The worldlines for the light
signals are again shown along with the lines of simultaneity for the TT
and they confirm every feature previously noted in the spacetime diagram
for the reference frame of Earth.
Relationship to the relativistic Doppler effect and another way to
predict the amount of differential aging
It is most interesting to note that, no matter what speed is used for
the outbound and inbound legs, the TT will receive signals at a rate of
fout < fo (the transmission frequency) for half the trip and at a rate
of fin = 1/fout > fo for the other half. Thus, the average frequency is
(fout+fin)/2 which is readily shown to be greater than fo. This insures
that the TT will receive more signals during the trip then he sends and
will, therefore, expect to find the EBT to be older at the reunion, in
perfect harmony with what the EBT expects to find.
Indeed, one can use the relativistic Doppler formula fout = fo
[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]1/2 directly to predict the relative age differential.
For instance, at a speed of 12/13 c, fout = fo [(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]1/2 =
(1/5)fo. Accordingly, the average frequency received by the TT is
(1/5+5)fo/2 = (13/5)fo implying (correctly) that the EBT will have aged
13/5 as much as the TT.
©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
ajm at cpp.edu
http://www.cpp.edu/~ajm
The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to
its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and
do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take
full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate
being informed of errors or inaccuracies.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 16:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <acdd32b2-f8ea-423e-ac43-8e7f003479c1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586164 |
El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 18:40:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió: > Paparios wrote: > > Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document): > > > > "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies". > > > > This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff > another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ... > > I forgot the copyright notice! > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt > ajm at cpp.edu > > > Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality > beavers the whole website!!!! > And your point being what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-30 20:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62958FBA.7572@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586176 |
Paparios wrote:
>
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 18:40:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Paparios wrote:
>
> > > Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):
> > >
> > > "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
> > >
> > > This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff
> > another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ...
> >
> > I forgot the copyright notice!
> > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
> > ajm at cpp.edu
> >
> >
> > Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality
> > beavers the whole website!!!!
> >
>
> And your point being what?
Not 'detailed' enough?
Here is the source code to the page also:
<html><!-- #BeginTemplate "/Templates/basic.dwt" --><!-- DW6 -->
<head>
<!-- #BeginEditable "doctitle" -->
<title>The Twin Paradox - Spacetime diagrams</title>
<!-- #EndEditable -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#990000" vlink="#990000"
alink="#003366">
<table width="95%" border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="100%" nowrap align="left"> <!--
#BeginLibraryItem "/Library/Heading.lbi" --><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="5" color="#000033">A.
John Mallinckrodt </font><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#000033" size="3"><i>Professor
Emeritus of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona</i></font><!-- #EndLibraryItem
--></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#003366" width="100" valign="middle"><!--
#BeginEditable "Title" -->
<div align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" color="#FFFFFF" size="4"><b>The <em>so-called
"</em>Twin Paradox" </b></font>
</div>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
<td bgcolor="#FFCC99" width="1000" valign="middle"> <!--
#BeginEditable "Remarks" -->
<div align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" size="2">An explanation using spacetime diagrams of how the
<em>so-called</em> "twin paradox" of special relativity is
resolved.</font></div>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#33CCCC" valign="top"><!-- #BeginLibraryItem
"/Library/Navigation.lbi" --><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" size="1">
<a href="../index.html">Home</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../schedule.html">Schedule</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../classes.html">Classes</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../materials.html">Materials</a> <br>
<br>
<a href="../ip.html">Interactive Physics</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../professional.html">Professional</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../personal.html">Personal/Music</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../links.html">Links</a><br>
<br>
</font><a href="javascript:history.go(-1)"><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">
<i>Previous Page</i></font></a><!-- #EndLibraryItem --></td>
<td valign="top"><!-- #BeginEditable "Content" -->
<p><strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="3">Time dilation: The basis for the
<em><strong>so-called</strong></em> <strong>"twin
paradox"</strong></font> </strong><p><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Early in the study of special relativity
students learn about the phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that
"moving clocks run slow." Those who have properly appreciated
the fact that all motion is relative <em>and</em> who have properly
appreciated that clocks measure the passage of physical (including
<em>biological</em>) time, ought <em>necessarily </em>to experience some
mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass each
other, the prediction is that <em>both</em> will find the
<em>other</em>'s clocks to run slower than their own. This might well
<em>seem</em> to be impossible on its face and, therefore, to invalidate
the entire theory. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis that properly takes
into account two other equally peculiar relativistic effects—the
Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity—shows that
one can build a perfectly sensible relativistic world in which all
observers agree on the only things that they <em>must</em> agree on
including the details of local events (e.g., what everybody's watches
read in a group picture) and the temporal order of causal sequences
(e.g., which came first, the lightning or the thunder?)</font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>The statement of the
</strong><em><strong>so-called</strong></em> <strong>"twin
paradox"</strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
confusion caused by the phenomenon of time dilation has long been
encapsulated in the <em>so-called</em> "twin paradox" stated
as follows*:</font> <blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">One of a pair of twins (the "traveling twin")
travels to and returns from a very distant destination at a speed
approaching that of light the other (the "Earth-bound twin")
stays home. Since both twins observe the other twin to be moving, both
find that the other is aging less quickly. Thus, upon their reunion,
<em>both</em> twins will expect—<em>and find!—</em>the
<em>other</em> twin to be younger. This result violates the requirements
of a rational world and, therefore, special relativity is
wrong.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">*
Because much confusion persists to this day about the implications of
the <em>so-called</em> "twin paradox," I hasten to emphasize
<em>unequivocally</em> that the <em>so-called</em> "twin
paradox" is <strong><em>not </em></strong>a paradox, that there is
<em><strong>no</strong></em> controversy about its resolution (as we
will see), and that it does <em><strong>not </strong></em>in any way
cast suspicion on—let alone invalidate—the theory of special
relativity. </font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>Why there is no paradox </strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
<em>so-called</em> "twin paradox" is easily resolved by noting
that there <em>is</em> a physically meaningful disinction between the
experiences of the two twins during the trip. The Earth-bound twin
remains in a single constant velocity reference frame the entire time
while the traveling twin must accelerate to turn around and come home.
The acceleration causes the traveling twin to change from one constant
velocity reference frame to another and produces effects that can be
measured <em>locally</em> by the traveling twin in the form of inertial
forces that can knock things over, compress springs, and generally endow
objects with weight. As a result of the fact that their experiences
<em>are</em> different, there is no <em>a priori</em> reason for them to
come to the same conclusion. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NB:
The "same conclusion" I refer to here—the one they do
<em>not</em> come to!—is the one referred to in the penultimate
sentence of the statement of the <em>so-called </em>"twin
paradox" above, that the <em>other</em> twin will be found to be
<em>younger</em>. Indeed, it would be intolerable for special relativity
or any other physical theory to predict that utterly incomprehensible
finding. On the other hand, because both twins, in fact, <em>must</em>
agree on what they find, we demand that any successful theory should be
able to <em>account</em> for that finding from either point of
view.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
it turns out, the result is that the <em>traveling twin</em> is younger
upon return than the Earth-bound twin. This is readily understood from
the point of view of the Earth-bound twin who remains at all time in a
single, constant velocity reference frame with respect to which the
traveling twin's clocks are always (except for one instant during the
turnaround) running slow. But how do we understand that conclusion from
the point of view of the traveling twin?</font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>Spacetime diagrams</strong> </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One
of the most illuminating ways of understanding the resolution of the
<em>so-called</em> "twin paradox" is by analyzing carefully
drawn, detailed spacetime diagrams for specific choices of trip
distance and velocity. I have done so below for a trip of three
lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 <em>c</em> (giving a
relativistic factor γ = 5/4) in both directions and with a
"turnaround time" of negligible duration. (The approximation
of negligible turnaround time may very well lead to anatomically
unrealistic "g forces" (!) and can be relaxed at the expense
of additional computational complexity, but it makes no qualititative
difference in the result.)</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><em>The view from the reference frame of the
Earth</em></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
left panel of the figure below (which you can click on to open a larger
version in a new window), shows the worldlines of the EBT and the TT in
the reference frame of Earth. Note that the TT reaches the destination
at a distance of three lightyears after an elapsed time of five years in
this frame and that the TT has aged only four years at that point. Note
also that the scale of the <em>x</em> and <em>t</em> axes are such that
light travels along lines at a 45 degree angle, i.e., 1 year per light
year, and that the TT's worldlines have a <em>larger</em> slope
(representing a lower speed) of 5/3 years per light year. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of
Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at
the same time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The
figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the
reference frame of the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of
simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper
right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during
the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the
TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of
these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly
signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should
be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and,
therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of
simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and
one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of
simultaneity <em>in the TT's frame</em> jumps quickly from 3.2 years to
6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame
to another. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Both the EBT and the TT send light signals to each other at yearly
intervals as shown by the red and blue lines respectively and each
transmission is marked with the number of the year at which it was sent.
Note that the TT receives only the first two signals from the EBT on the
outbound leg and recieves all eight remaining signals on the inbound leg
with the final, tenth, signal received at the moment of the reunion.
Note also that the EBT receives the last of the four outbound signals
(including the fourth at the turnaround point) at year eight and
receives the four inbound signals during only the last two
years.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Thus, we see that the EBT receives signals at the rate of
one every two years for the first eight years and then at a rate of two
per year for the final two years. This amounts to a total of (1/2)*8 +
(2)*2 = 8 signals received from the TT. On the other hand the TT
receives signals <em>also</em> at the rate of one every two years for
only the first four years and then at a rate of two per year for the
final four years. This amounts to a total of (1/2)*4 + (2)*4 = 10
signals received from the EBT.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It
is well worth noting the fact that <em>both</em> twins agree that they
receive signals at a rate of 1/2 per year (low frequency) when those
signals reflect relative motion away from each other and both twins
<em>also</em> agree that they receive signals at a rate of 2 per year
(high frequency) when </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">those signals reflect relative motion toward each
from each other. The difference is that, for the TT, the low and high
frequency signals occupy equal portions of the trip while, for the EBT,
the low frequency signals are observed during 80% of the trip.</font><a
href="twinparadox/twins.jpg" target="_blank"><img
src="twinparadox/twins_small.jpg" width="800" height="640"
border="0"></a>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><em>The view from the reference frame of the outbound
traveler </em></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
right panel of the figure, shows the worldlines of the EBT and the TT in
the outbound reference frame. Note that, in this reference frame, the
reunion takes place 12.5 years after the departure in keeping with the
fact that the EBT's clocks run slow the entire time. The TT, however,
leaves this reference frame at the turnaraound point four years into the
trip when the EBT's clock reads 3.2 years as previously noted. Note
also that the EBT is 2.4 lightyears away at this time, the largest
separation of the trip in this frame, properly reflecting the Lorentz
contraction of the 3 lightyear distance observed in the reference frame
of Earth.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On
the inbound leg, the TT moves at a speed of -15/17<em> c</em> as
obtained from the relativistic addition of the speeds -3/5 <em>c</em>
and -3/5 <em>c</em>. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a
factor of 1/γ = 17/8, which is reflected in the fact that it takes
just over two years for the TT's clock to advance each additional year.
The worldlines for the light signals are again shown along with the
lines of simultaneity for the TT and they confirm every feature
previously noted in the spacetime diagram for the reference frame of
Earth</font>.
<p><font size="3"><strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Relationship to the relativistic Doppler effect and another
way to predict the amount of differential aging</font></strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It
is most interesting to note that, <em>no matter what</em> speed is used
for the outbound and inbound legs, the TT will receive signals at a rate
of <em>f</em><sub>out</sub> < <em>f</em><sub>o</sub> (the
transmission frequency) for half the trip and at a rate of
<em>f</em><sub>in</sub> = 1/<em>f</em><sub>out</sub> >
<em>f</em><sub>o</sub> for the other half. Thus, the average frequency
is (<em>f</em><sub>out</sub>+<em>f</em><sub>in</sub>)/2 which is readily
shown to be greater than <em>f</em><sub>o</sub>. This insures that the
TT will <em>receive</em> more signals during the trip then he
<em>sends</em> and will, therefore, expect to find the EBT to be
<em>older</em> at the reunion, in perfect harmony with what the EBT
expects to find.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Indeed, one can use the relativistic Doppler formula
<em>f</em><sub>out</sub> = <em>f</em><sub>o</sub>
[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]<sup>1/2</sup> <em>directly</em> to predict the
relative age differential. For instance, at a speed of 12/13 <em>c</em>,
<em>f</em><sub>out</sub> = <em>f</em><sub>o</sub>
[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]<sup>1/2</sup> = (1/5)<em>f</em><sub>o</sub>.
Accordingly, the average frequency received by the TT is
(1/5+5)<em>f</em><sub>o</sub>/2 = (13/5)<em>f</em><sub>o</sub> implying
(correctly) that the EBT will have aged 13/5 as much as the
TT.</font>
<p>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor="#FFCC99" valign="top"><!--
#BeginLibraryItem "/Library/Footer.lbi" -->
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
height="39">
<tr>
<td width="234" valign="top">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">©2001
by A. John Mallinckrodt<br>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">ajm
at cpp.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.cpp.edu/%7Eajm">http://www.cpp.edu/~ajm
</a> </font></p>
</td>
<td width="20"> </td>
<td width="100%" valign="top">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">The
space
for this page is provided by <a href="http://www.cpp.edu">Cal
Poly
Pomona</a> and is subject to its policies.
Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not
necessarily
represent official policy of the University. I take full
responsibility
for the information presented and will appreciate being informed
of errors
or inaccuracies.</font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"><img height="1" width="234" src="file:///Macintosh
HD/Desktop Folder/John's Stuff/My New Site/images/spacer.gif"></td>
<td><img height="1" width="20" src="file:///Macintosh HD/Desktop
Folder/John's Stuff/My New Site/images/spacer.gif"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- #EndLibraryItem --></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
<!-- #EndTemplate --></html>
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 00:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <cc6e7393-c6d1-47fc-b464-f8c4c94f167en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #586164 |
On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > I forgot the copyright notice! > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt > ajm at cpp.edu You violated copyright law by positing the entire article here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-31 10:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Do you feel the pass of time? Really? Think again. |
| Message-ID | <62964A35.829@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #586193 |
Stan Fultoni wrote: > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > I forgot the copyright notice! > > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt > > ajm at cpp.edu > > You violated copyright law by positing the entire article here. Right now I'm parked at the red zone. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web