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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373916 > unrolled thread

Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:08 -0800
    Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 04:57 -0800
      Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-01-14 14:53 +0100
        Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-01-14 08:12 -0700
        Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-01-14 08:17 -0700
          Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 17:20 +0100
          Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-01-14 13:28 -0700
            Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-01-14 22:06 +0100
        Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:13 -0800
    Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 05:48 -0800
      Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 06:07 -0800
      Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-15 18:03 -0800
    Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-14 09:47 -0600
      Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 10:23 -0800
        Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 11:45 -0800
    Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 07:58 -0800
    Re: Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-14 08:31 -0800

#373916 — Einstein Explains the Twin Paradox

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that "the calculation" based on the turning-around acceleration shows that the traveling twin is younger at the end of the trip:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Today's Einsteinians don't accuse Einstein of fraud but still suggest that there is no such "calculation". They claim either that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial or that it matters but the calculation is not based on it:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
 Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
 Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." 

Was Einstein a liar? If not, why are today's Einsteinians implicitly denying the existence of his "calculation"?

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#373922

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:08:14 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Regurgitated baloney]

Prevaricating Pentcho is incapable of rational thought.  His abysmally-
stupid claim that the twin paradox cannot be "calculated" is dead
wrong.  In fact, it can be calculated two different ways:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html

Only the blithering fools that infest this board would side with Puerile Pentcho.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373927

On 14.01.2016 13:57, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:08:14 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> [Regurgitated baloney]
>
> Prevaricating Pentcho is incapable of rational thought.  His abysmally-
> stupid claim that the twin paradox cannot be "calculated" is dead
> wrong.  In fact, it can be calculated two different ways:
>
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html
>
> Only the blithering fools that infest this board would side with Puerile Pentcho.
>

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
https://paulba.no/twins.html

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373934

On 1/14/16 6:53 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> In fact, it [the Twin Paradox result] can be calculated two different ways:
>>
>> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html
>>
>

That's a very well-written reference.

But there is an interesting and important issue regarding the twin 
paradox that goes beyond the question of which twin has aged by the end 
of the trip.  That additional issue is whether the twin who accelerates 
can determine the current age of the unaccelerating twin at each of his 
own ages during his trip.  And if so, how is that done?  And does the 
unaccelerating twin agree with the accelerating twin's conclusions?

The answers to these (and other) questions are answered in

   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

  "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, 
December 1999, p629.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373935

(This is a repeat of my post of a few minutes ago, with the addition of 
an important word that I accidentally omitted before):

On 1/14/16 6:53 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
 >
 > In fact, it [the Twin Paradox result] can be calculated two different 
ways:
 >>
 >> http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html
 >>
 >

That's a very well-written reference.

But there is an interesting and important issue regarding the twin 
paradox that goes beyond the question of which twin has aged less by the 
end of the trip.  That additional issue is whether the twin who 
accelerates can determine the current age of the unaccelerating twin at 
each of his own ages during his trip.  And if so, how is that done?  And 
does the unaccelerating twin agree with the accelerating twin's conclusions?

The answers to these (and other) questions are answered in

   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

  "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, 
December 1999, p629.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373951

Użytkownik "Mike Fontenot"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5697BBF1.9010207@comcast.net...

|But there is an interesting and important issue regarding the twin
|paradox that goes beyond the question of which twin has aged less by the
|end of the trip.

You pathetic bunch of idiots didn't even notice, that clocks
are useless in age determining, and your pathetic question
are a simple consequence of this fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373981

On 1/14/16 8:17 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> [...]
>  That additional issue is whether the twin who
> accelerates can determine the current age of the unaccelerating twin at
> each of his own ages during his trip.
>

The common answer to the question "Why doesn't the "traveling twin" 
conclude that the home twin will be the younger one when they are 
reunited" is that the fact that the "traveling twin" accelerates at the 
turnaround breaks the symmetry between the two twins.  Although this 
answer is correct, it still understandably leaves many people 
dissatisfied, and feeling that there must be more to the story than 
that.  A more complete answer is that the "traveling twin" DOES conclude 
that the home twin is ageing more slowly during all portions of the trip 
where the "traveler" isn't accelerating (which, in the usual scenario is 
ALMOST ALL of the trip).  But during the turnaround (no matter how 
brief), the accelerating twin will conclude that the home twin suddenly 
ages by a very large amount.  That sudden ageing is so great that it 
makes the total ageing of the home twin at the end of the trip be much 
greater than the "traveler's" total ageing.  The two twins will always 
agree about their corresponding ages at the end of the trip, even though 
they completely disagree about the correspondence between their ages at 
(most) other times during the trip.

-- 
   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

   "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, 
December 1999, p629.

   All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373982

Użytkownik "Mike Fontenot"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:569804D0.4030107@comcast.net...

On 1/14/16 8:17 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>
> [...]
>  That additional issue is whether the twin who
> accelerates can determine the current age of the unaccelerating twin at
> each of his own ages during his trip.
>

|The common answer to the question "Why doesn't the "traveling twin"
|conclude that the home twin will be the younger one when they are
|reunited" is that the fact that the "traveling twin" accelerates at the
|turnaround breaks the symmetry between the two twins.

Less common, but correct answer to this question is: because
whole this paradox exists only in the imagination of relativistic
moron, that have no clue about age, clocks, observers or
concluding. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373958

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:53:55 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf
> https://paulba.no/twins.html

Paul's mystic view points on spacetime is debunked by the following.  <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373926

Einsteinians even go as far as to PROVE that the turning-around acceleration ("gravitational field"), crucial for the explanation of the twin paradox according to Einstein, is actually immaterial:

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=26847 
 Don Lincoln: "A common explanation of this paradox is that the travelling twin experienced acceleration to slow down and reverse velocity. While it is clearly true that a single person must experience this acceleration, you can show that the acceleration is not crucial. What is crucial is that the travelling twin experienced time in two reference frames, while the homebody experienced time in one. We can demonstrate this by a modification of the problem. In the modification, there is still a homebody and a person travelling to a distant star. The modification is that there is a third person even farther away than the distant star. This person travels at the same speed as the original traveler, but in the opposite direction. The third person's trajectory is timed so that both of them pass the distant star at the same time. As the two travelers pass, the Earthbound person reads the clock of the outbound traveler. He then adds the time he experiences travelling from the distant star to Earth to the duration experienced by the outbound person. The sum of these times is the transit time. Note that no acceleration occurs in this problem...just three people experiencing relative inertial motion." 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373929

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:48:59 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [More regurgitated complete bullcrap]

Prevaricating Pentcho is incapable of rational thought.  His abysmally- 
stupid claim that the twin paradox cannot be "calculated" is dead 
wrong.  In fact, it can be calculated two different ways: 

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html 

Only the blithering fools that infest this board would side with Puerile Pentcho.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374103

The missing part of the twin paradox:

A train is at rest and a clock is moving to and fro between two clocks situated at the front and back ends of the train. The speed of the moving clock is constant except for the turn-arounds where the clock suffers sharp acceleration. This is the official relativistic scenario - Einstein's relativity predicts that the moving clock runs slower than (lags behind) the two clocks on the train.

In a complementary scenario (which is missing in the relativistic literature), the single clock is on the ground, at rest, but the train is moving to and fro, at constant speed, so that the clock on the ground formally commutes between the front and back ends of the train. Will the clock on the ground run slower or faster than the two clocks on the moving train? What does relativity say? 

A clue: 

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
 Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373942

On 1/14/16 1/14/16 - 6:08 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that "the calculation" based on
> the turning-around acceleration shows that the traveling twin is younger at
> the end of the trip:
>
> http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm Albert Einstein 1918: "A
> homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive
> x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until
> it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again.
> An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis
> prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...)
> According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the
> higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and
> during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational
> potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes
> exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2
> and 4."
>
> Today's Einsteinians don't accuse Einstein of fraud but still suggest that
> there is no such "calculation". They claim either that the turning-around
> acceleration is immaterial or that it matters but the calculation is not
> based on it:
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html

As usual, Valev did not even bother to read his reference, which does NOT 
support his statement. His claim is complete nonsense, and the elapsed proper 
times of the twins can easily be calculated as Einstein suggests.


     Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
     around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
     without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
     I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
     not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
     and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373960

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:47:26 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears,
> > that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is
> > accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has
> > reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears
> > again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction
> > of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the
> > gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of
> > relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational
> > potential of the location where it is located, and during partial
> > process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational
> > potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead
> > constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the
> > partial processes 2 and 4."
>
> > Today's Einsteinians don't accuse Einstein of fraud but still
> > suggest that there is no such "calculation". They claim either
> > that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial or that it
> > matters but the calculation is not based on it:
>
> > http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html
>
> the elapsed proper times of the twins can easily be calculated as
> Einstein suggests.

This is nonsense.  See the following for more details.  <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6BxrowPOUPI/AIpgVHViDAAJ

> [personal attacked snipped]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373971

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:23:05 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 7:47:26 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > the elapsed proper times of the twins can easily be calculated as
> > Einstein suggests.
> 
> This is nonsense.  See the following for more details.  <shrug>
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/6BxrowPOUPI/AIpgVHViDAAJ

From that post:

"c dt' = (c dt - v dx) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)"

So K-dub can't even write a correct equation?  It should be

c dt' = (c dt - v dx/c) / sqrt(1 - v^2  / c^2)

How careless of him.

"Notice the relative speed of the frames (primed and the unprimed), v,
vanishes."

So what?  Looks like obfuscation and deflection to me.

"dt_AB = dt_BB / sqrt(1 - B^2) 
"dt_BA = dt_AA / sqrt(1 - B^2) 

K-dub didn't need to go through all that spinach to come to THOSE
equations :-)

"Thus, the contradiction to the Twin paradox is absolutely fatal to the
religion of relativity."

Complete baloney.  K-stupid prefers to forget about what happens at the
turn-around point:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html

Hopefully, he's not as stupid as Valev about this.
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373945

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:08:14 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that "the calculation" based on the turning-around acceleration shows that the traveling twin is younger at the end of the trip:
> 
> http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
>  Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
> 
> Today's Einsteinians don't accuse Einstein of fraud but still suggest that there is no such "calculation". They claim either that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial or that it matters but the calculation is not based on it:
> 
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
>  Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 
> 
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
>  Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
> 
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
>  Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." 
> 
> Was Einstein a liar? If not, why are today's Einsteinians implicitly denying the existence of his "calculation"?
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Or you just don't know what you're talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stc9OtTUOA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373953

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:08:14 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that "the calculation" based on the turning-around acceleration shows that the traveling twin is younger at the end of the trip:
> 
> http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
>  Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
> 
> Today's Einsteinians don't accuse Einstein of fraud but still suggest that there is no such "calculation". They claim either that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial or that it matters but the calculation is not based on it:
> 
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
>  Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 
> 
> http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
>  Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."
> 
> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
>  Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..." 
> 
> Was Einstein a liar? If not, why are today's Einsteinians implicitly denying the existence of his "calculation"?
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Einstein never intentionally lied... I believe that is obvious
because of who he was as a man of principle...

It is speed in 4D space programing Gamma for slower rate and more energy
from material changing in position.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web