Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #415839

Re: Twin paradox

Path csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:17:34 -0500
Message-ID <58EC6720.2758@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:18:24 -0700
From The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version 1.0
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Twin paradox
References <84b17e46-6e16-425b-a222-a8afdd5d2e58@googlegroups.com> <23af20fa-caff-4748-9f77-52380f7848d3@googlegroups.com> <5sOdnUnPi6z8QUDFnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> <675f7919-686e-45c3-8ce4-d3d6332b02b6@googlegroups.com> <g4OdnVFhKcszjkLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <433427ff-c5d4-4ed9-abd7-0257e1a3a31e@googlegroups.com> <doKdndbX34ZHW0LFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <58E081C5.37CA@ix.netcom.com> <58E1F41E.624E@ix.netcom.com> <58E1F997.401A@ix.netcom.com> <58E22EB3.43E7@ix.netcom.com> <5964d0f2-0905-4b7f-ad6f-64416de2d944@googlegroups.com> <58E3EA32.202C@ix.netcom.com> <e2f34089-7318-4a46-8382-906c24a46fd4@googlegroups.com> <58E49D84.1301@ix.netcom.com> <04d8354a-0c24-4499-bc18-5c7c294f7a45@googlegroups.com> <58E867D7.610D@ix.netcom.com> <ef9d87ee-d4b5-4665-b863-f3f017f5d6e4@googlegroups.com> <G-qdnVIEWdb5n3TFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <7444fdcf-5611-4f63-8893-67f6ce61eb7e@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit
X-Antivirus Avast (VPS 170410-2, 04/10/2017), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status Clean
Lines 102
X-Usenet-Provider http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host 108.219.229.47
X-Trace sv3-7n6cmF5nPRkzXT0j5m8405QR2htAEwdb5BIZ9lO2z+8HaQ6D1lfX69cz0liEXVawCYSAhWDyASGC1Yu!ukmWEcpuhOWf4SHv9aIiba52IGZc5qpeAVHL94u/+1izec9aoNQnOqC51k+sYmqnE2zcsEw/fIXC!jf3c8vRkbOY=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes 7897
Xref csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:415839

Show key headers only | View raw

Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 4/8/17 4/8/17   9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the
> > > beginning of his journey.  And that will be the same whether you look at his
> > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock.
> > >
> > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than
> > > he was when the traveling twin left.  And that will be the same whether you
> > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock.
> > >
> > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by
> > > which the stay-at-home twin aged.
> > >
> > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling
> > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin.
> >
> > All that is correct.
> >
> > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get
> > > younger.  If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you
> > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed
> > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper.
> > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html
> >
> > The abstract of that paper is WRONG,
> 
> No, it is not wrong.
> 
> > as is your brief summary of it. This does
> > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the
> > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot
> > advocates.
> >
> >       Fontenot's CADO is not wrong,
> 
> Right, it is not wrong.
> 
> > but it also is not useful. IMHO
> >       it is more important to point out that the age of a distant
> >       object "now" is AMBIGUOUS,
> 
> No.  In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined.
> 
> > and also IRRELEVANT to physics
> 
> I'd agree with that.  That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer.
> 
> >       (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics).
> >
> > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly
> > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through
> > -- IT IS WRONG.
> 
> There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper.  All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object."
> 
> > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant
> > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the
> > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting
> > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO --
> > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are
> > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how
> > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object.
> >
> 
> The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate"
> 
> My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation.  The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect.
> 
> If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning.  And it would also be an incorrect statement.
> 
> But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement.
> 
> Now I  prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger".  But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant."
> 
> > >  However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you
> > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting.  It is when the traveling twin
> > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to
> > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end.
> >
> > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that
> > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only
> > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling
> > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how
> > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is
> > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding
> > observation that can be made.
> >
> > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to
> > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically
> > copied it.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations.
> 
> And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline.



i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:04 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 09:09 -0600
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:12 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:32 -0600
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:08 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:47 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 09:15 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:23 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-05 11:42 +1100
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:55 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-14 22:31 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 18:39 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 13:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 22:54 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-18 18:16 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 08:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-19 23:09 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-19 13:05 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:44 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-19 22:38 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-19 19:30 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:41 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-20 00:29 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:59 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-21 10:53 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-21 18:59 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-22 17:45 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-22 11:25 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:42 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 00:26 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-22 19:30 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 07:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:17 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 08:20 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:08 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:41 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:51 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 12:02 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 07:06 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 11:24 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-27 13:50 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 06:18 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-28 12:13 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox dickorrich@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 10:45 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 11:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-30 00:17 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 06:02 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-03 12:31 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-04 02:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:21 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-04 10:37 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 08:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 18:51 +0200
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:39 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:36 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-20 17:27 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 10:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-20 21:10 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:59 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-21 12:37 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 06:13 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 08:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:03 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-03-04 06:20 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-04 09:41 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 14:59 -0600
      Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-05 13:23 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-03-07 09:46 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:10 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-03-07 12:13 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:32 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 07:58 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 09:09 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 23:04 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 16:19 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 11:23 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 14:02 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:05 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:34 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-07 12:57 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 20:29 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 22:13 -0600
    Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 12:58 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:25 -0600
      Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-10 13:21 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:44 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:03 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 18:02 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:15 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-05 21:31 +0100
    Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:09 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:18 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-06 23:10 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:39 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 09:53 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 08:33 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 10:50 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 00:43 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 04:08 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-16 16:48 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 01:01 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:40 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-18 14:16 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 20:05 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-20 13:55 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:34 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-21 10:56 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-19 21:38 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-21 00:14 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-21 13:43 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 01:39 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 01:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:12 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:56 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 12:06 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 04:16 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 09:34 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-06 15:09 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:49 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:04 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-08 10:40 +0100
            Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 07:11 -0800
              Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-08 15:04 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 14:30 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-09 10:39 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:20 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:27 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-10 06:05 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:45 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-14 13:19 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-10 11:49 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 17:37 +0100
            Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-19 21:33 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:05 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:12 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox Otplate Yuugaku <yu@yotwaglwt.pa> - 2017-03-09 22:50 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-03-10 11:01 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:14 -0800
              Re: Twin paradox Priscilla Groll <lloi@wgnprlw.sl> - 2017-03-11 17:27 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 06:13 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 15:10 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 08:36 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 17:51 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-05 17:17 +0000
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 13:31 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-08 14:17 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 14:34 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-08 15:32 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:20 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 13:35 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:07 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox ronjresnick@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 13:58 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 10:28 -0500
      Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:31 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 22:11 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 22:34 -0500
          Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 00:46 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 00:53 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:19 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-16 23:50 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-16 23:54 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-17 08:15 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-17 09:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-18 18:37 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-19 00:20 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:15 -0500
            Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:54 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-15 02:53 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-15 15:18 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:43 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 03:22 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-15 21:31 +0000
          Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-16 16:56 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 00:41 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Ron Resnick <ronjresnick@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:09 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 08:02 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 22:10 +0000
    Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:41 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:02 -0500
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 11:19 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 11:51 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 14:13 -0700
  Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:26 -0700
    Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:53 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 12:59 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 10:29 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:40 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:44 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:32 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 09:27 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-30 23:34 -0500
      Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 00:33 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 02:43 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-31 21:43 -0500
          Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-01 00:52 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 01:41 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Domonique Corle <oreuni@wwerwo.co> - 2017-04-01 13:01 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-01 10:27 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-01 20:44 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 00:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 00:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 04:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:15 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-04 11:47 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 05:57 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 07:43 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-04 09:20 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-04 09:58 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:25 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-05 04:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-05 06:23 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:58 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-05 10:21 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:36 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 15:01 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-05 00:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:55 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-07 21:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 07:38 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-08 10:31 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-08 08:42 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 14:29 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-10 22:18 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:11 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-12 00:13 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:00 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-12 14:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-13 09:44 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 06:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-13 20:40 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-14 10:42 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:27 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-16 05:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Nocasto Aboyar <oocaao@syeoby.ao> - 2017-04-17 15:36 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 09:08 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-17 10:45 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-17 10:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 08:48 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-17 08:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-08 09:51 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-08 12:28 -0700

csiph-web