Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #411547 > unrolled thread
| Started by | someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-03 07:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-08 12:28 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 253 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7NCdnaFku7iUkVXFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412730 |
On 3/13/17 3/13/17 - 3:58 PM, ronjresnick@gmail.com wrote: > [... irrelevant verbiage] > Until one acknowledges that a clock's rate is dependent on its actual (albeit > experimentally indiscernible) state of motion, one cannot explain the time > differential between reunited clocks. Only an actual difference in clock > rates can bring about the actual difference in clock readings which exists > between reunited clocks. This is just plain not true. In SR clocks always tick at their usual rate, and there _IS_ no "actual difference in clock rates". The difference in clock readings between separated and reunited clocks is purely due to the different path lengths of their different paths through spacetime. Elapsed proper time _IS_ the path length along a timelike path through spacetime. If you assume that clocks moving differently actually tick at different rates, you will NOT obtain agreement with experiments. > The time registered on a person's clock is dependent on the combination of > their speed relative to light speed and distance covered in relation to the > universe (or a rest frame associated with the totality of the universe). But "speed relative to light speed" is MEANINGLESS, because one CANNOT construct an inertial frame in which the light is at rest. Apparently you need to learn what "speed" actually means. Hint: locally inertial frames are essential. > The > time contraction formula is not linear. Thus, the party that changes > inertial frames will be the party whose clock registers the least time over > the course of a "round trip". These are among the few correct statements you make in your post. > This is seen with clarity when everything is > charted out in absolute terms. Hmmmm. There ARE no "absolute terms". Your "clarity" seems to be obfuscation at best, and just plain wrong at worst. > An "out and back" twin paradox adventure must incorporate the transfer of > clock reading from an outgoing astronaut to an incoming astronaut, thus > entirely eliminating the effect of acceleration. Hmmmm. If "acceleration" is the change in inertial frame, then it is not eliminated. In this so-called triplet paradox, no CLOCK undergoes acceleration, but the PATH of the out-and-back timekeeping certainly does. Remember that in SR it is the PATH that counts, not the acceleration. For two paths to separate and rejoin in SR it is necessary that at least one path be accelerated at one or more points. Note also that we KNOW that acceleration does not affect a clock's timekeeping, as long as it does not damage the clock. Experiments show that the timekeeping mechanism that governs muon decay is not significantly affected by a proper acceleration of 10^18 g -- truly enormous by human standards. > The time differential > between two reunited clocks is produced purely by uniform linear motion, as > seen in Einstein's original 1905 relativity paper, and as seen in all > subsequent derivations. Hmmmm. The out-and-back path is certainly not "uniform linear motion". But no matter -- this is easily explained as due to the difference in path lengths of the two clocks' paths. > [... more irrelevant verbiage] > Actual time-keeping fluctuation, in conjunction with actual length > contraction and actual states of uniform linear motion, produces all the > effects of special relativity as we know them in Einstein's treatment. This is all just plain wrong. If you assume that "time dilation" is an "actual change in tick rate", and "length contraction" is an "actual change in length", then you obtain WRONG ANSWERS that do not agree with experiments. SR, of course, models both as a geometrical projection, and agrees with experiments. Your assumptions cannot possibly explain the "mutual time dilation" that is the hallmark of SR. Ditto for "mutual length contraction". > Such > actualities (notably - the actual difference of registered time on two > reunited clocks at the same place-moment) imply an absolute frame of > reference, albeit an experimentally indiscernible one. Nope. SR has no "absolute frame reference", and your MISTAKES cannot inject one into the theory. > Much of this post was adapted from > http://relativitytrail.com/twin-paradox-relativity.htm > You should read the entire article. I'll discuss in this newsgroup, but rarely visit webpages. Tell your story here. Or better, LEARN something about the subject first. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41512eb2-03b5-4540-aa7b-c43d8c50a9af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412803 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:28:16 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > In SR clocks always tick at their usual rate, and there _IS_ no "actual > difference in clock rates". The difference in clock readings between separated > and reunited clocks is purely due to the different path lengths of their > different paths through spacetime. Elapsed proper time _IS_ the path length > along a timelike path through spacetime. Introducing Point #1, Point #2, and Point #3 as points of interest, the Lorentz transforms describing all these 3 points can be summed up below as demonstrated by Minkowski. <shrug> ** dt₁² = (1 – β₂₁²) dt₂² = (1 – β₃₁²) dt₃² ... equation 1 ** dt₂² = (1 – β₁₂²) dt₁² = (1 – β₃₂²) dt₃² ... equation 2 ** dt₃² = (1 – β₁₃²) dt₁² = (1 – β₂₃²) dt₂² ... equation 3 Where ** √(β_ij)² c = Speed of j as observed by i ** dt_i = Clock tick rate at i Equation 1 describes how the clock tick rate at #1 projects to (or is observed by) #2 and #3 that are measured in #2’s and #3’s clock tick rate, equation 2 describes how the clock tick rate at #2 projects to (or is observed by) #1 and #3 that are measured in #1’s and #3’s clock tick rate, and equation 3 describes how the clock tick rate at #3 projects to (or is observed by) #1 and #2 that are measured in #1’s and #2’s clock tick rate. These equations do not compare clock ticking rate from point to point. <shrug> If anyone has understood exactly how these equations are doing, the only sane conclusion is that the twin paradox demonstrates a fatal contraction to SR. What Paul did was to form an erroneous model based just on 1 equation and ignores others. This is just so wrong. <shrug> Consequently, there is no such mythical path called proper path or mythical time line called proper time. These are all conjured up by morons who have never understood relativity. Unfortunately, these idiots were the first to write textbooks, and these same buffoons are still writing textbooks. In the recent Presidential election of 2016, most highly educated voted for Hillary oblivious to her criminal past. As long as the main stream media do not report it, it must not be true, and if the main stream media report it, it must be true. If textbooks describe it, it must be true. Tell that to Galileo. The same mysticism is still with the academics. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5uOdnd-0vsAU91XFnZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412803 |
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:7NCdnaFku7iUkVXFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... >On 3/13/17 3/13/17 - 3:58 PM, ronjresnick@gmail.com wrote: >> [... irrelevant verbiage] >> Until one acknowledges that a clock's rate is dependent on its actual >> (albeit >> experimentally indiscernible) state of motion, one cannot explain the >> time >> differential between reunited clocks. Only an actual difference in clock >> rates can bring about the actual difference in clock readings which >> exists >> between reunited clocks. >This is just plain not true. >In SR clocks always tick at their usual rate, and there _IS_ no "actual >difference in clock rates". The difference in clock readings between >separated and reunited clocks is purely due to the different path lengths >of their different paths through spacetime. Indeed. No question. Absolutely the correct description Tom. All agreed. I do commend you in your persistence in trying to get people to understand mathematical geometry. Now... explain, what "different path lengths through space-time" means physically, in the real world, baring in mind that the clocks, in the real world, only measure time, not "space-time". :-) da da da da....da da da da....da da....da da da da....da da da da....da da.... -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 22:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <T82dnWmkkqDHK1XFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412854 |
On 3/14/17 3/14/17 5:11 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Now... explain, what "different path lengths through space-time" means
> physically, in the real world, baring in mind that the clocks, in the real
> world, only measure time, not "space-time".
Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure their
own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time depends on the path over which
it is measured.
Just like odometers don't measure some abstract "distance",
they very specifically measure the distance over which they
traveled. The odometers of two cars that separate and then
rejoin can display different distances, because distance
between a given pair of places CLEARLY depends on the path
taken between them. Ditto for clocks, realizing that one
must use spaceTIME.
"Different paths through spacetime" means just what it says. For the twin
paradox it means that the clocks followed different paths between the events
representing their separation and reunion: one remained at rest at "home", and
the other traveled far away and then returned. These are QUITE CLEARLY different
paths between those two events.
Just DRAW it; Here is the usual twin paradox, drawn relative to the stay-at-home
twin's inertial frame, using coordinates {x,t}. A labels their separation, and B
labels their reunion; C labels the traveling twin's turn-around; A and B are
both at "home":
[use a fixed-width font]
* B t
|\ ^
| \ |
| \ |
| \ -----> x
| \
| \
| * C
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/
* A
The stay-at-home twin travels A->B and the traveling twin travels A->C->B. The x
and t coordinate axes are shown in the upper right.
It OUGHT to be clear what this means: "the clocks travel on different paths with
different path lengths" -- JUST LOOK AT THEM -- their path lengths are CLEARLY
different.
This drawing is necessarily on Euclidean paper. In fact for the
twin paradox the geometry is hyperbolic, and the path A->B has
a larger elapsed proper time than the path A->C->B.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 00:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdaa6995-92b2-4ef7-9125-6b541a859c48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412882 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. <shrug> With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must exist. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b53b361-1791-443a-834a-501e7c248eed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412894 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > <shrug> > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > exist. <shrug> Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 09:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oabiha$1ou1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #412896 |
On 3/15/2017 2:53 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these > relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and > choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is > all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the > main stream media. <shrug> Has anyone noticed that whenever a drunken Koobee Wublee staggers back into a bar (after a stretch following his last black-out bender), bellowing that he'll take on any man in a fight, that the regulars in the bar mostly just say, "Can it, Wublee" and ignore him? Has anyone noticed that the drunken Koobee Wublee then turns red in the face and bellows, "And yer all COWARDS! I've WHUPPED yer ASSES!" and then passes out on the floor? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 23:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58CB9546.6963@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #412896 |
Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > > <shrug> > > > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > > exist. <shrug> > > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug> When a clock ages, it gets older...but not the twin gets older, only the clock. But one clock is real and the other clock is fake. In other words, a clock gets older but the person doesn't work like a clock because people are not clocks. So, one of the twins didn't age but his clock did. Which clock has the real time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 23:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58CB9637.297B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413070 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > > > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > > > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > > > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > > > <shrug> > > > > > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > > > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > > > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > > > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > > > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > > > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > > > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > > > exist. <shrug> > > > > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug> > > When a clock ages, it gets older...but not the twin gets older, only the > clock. > > But one clock is real and the other clock is fake. > > In other words, a clock gets older but the person doesn't work like a > clock because people are not clocks. > > So, one of the twins didn't age but his clock did. > > Which clock has the real time? time flows, it doesn't tick. a clock ticks.. so, the clock that age was because the hand moved..tick but the twin doesn't tick, it flows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 08:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58CC0B8A.ADE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413071 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > > > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > > > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > > > > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > > > > > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > > > > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > > > > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > > > > <shrug> > > > > > > > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > > > > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > > > > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > > > > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > > > > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > > > > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > > > > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > > > > exist. <shrug> > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug> > > > > When a clock ages, it gets older...but not the twin gets older, only the > > clock. > > > > But one clock is real and the other clock is fake. > > > > In other words, a clock gets older but the person doesn't work like a > > clock because people are not clocks. > > > > So, one of the twins didn't age but his clock did. > > > > Which clock has the real time? > > time flows, it doesn't tick. a clock ticks.. > > so, the clock that age was because the hand moved..tick > > but the twin doesn't tick, it flows. I mean, come on...this is ridiculous. a clock is not a person a clock doesn't age like a person a clock is a device made by man. it's not a aging clock. Where did you people get this idea that you can tell a person is aging with a clock????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5502da4d-e56b-4ee8-b138-a4e4805c8e6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413115 |
Non-Gravitational TD/RM is joules per Kelvin per kilogram Non-Gravitational TD/RM Is inversely proportional to Entropy Non-Gravitational TD/RM Is Kinetic heating of mass
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 18:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58CDEEF6.5D27@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413115 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > > > > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > > > > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > > > > > > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > > > > > > > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > > > > > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > > > > > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > > > > > <shrug> > > > > > > > > > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > > > > > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > > > > > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > > > > > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > > > > > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > > > > > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > > > > > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > > > > > exist. <shrug> > > > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug> > > > > > > When a clock ages, it gets older...but not the twin gets older, only the > > > clock. > > > > > > But one clock is real and the other clock is fake. > > > > > > In other words, a clock gets older but the person doesn't work like a > > > clock because people are not clocks. > > > > > > So, one of the twins didn't age but his clock did. > > > > > > Which clock has the real time? > > > > time flows, it doesn't tick. a clock ticks.. > > > > so, the clock that age was because the hand moved..tick > > > > but the twin doesn't tick, it flows. > > I mean, come on...this is ridiculous. > > a clock is not a person > a clock doesn't age like a person > a clock is a device made by man. > > it's not a aging clock. > > Where did you people get this idea that you can tell a person is aging > with a clock???? but, with triplets..the third guy doesn't come back...what time does he got?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 00:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58CE3F63.2FD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413306 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:46:34 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > > > > > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > > > > > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [more bullshit from Tom snipped] > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up > > > > > > with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by and no > > > > > > fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. > > > > > > <shrug> > > > > > > > > > > > > With that said, the Michelson-Morley experiment can only be possible if > > > > > > the longitudinal direction of travel actually physically shrink in length. > > > > > > This is because when photons left the interferometer, they would be in > > > > > > vacuum (for the Aether deniers) or the Aether. The only way for these > > > > > > null results to have happened is to have this length that these photons > > > > > > travel in shrink in the longitudinal direction. There is no other way to > > > > > > interpret these results. That means the absolute frame of reference must > > > > > > exist. <shrug> > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone noticed that whenever Koobee Wublee has personally shown up, these relativistic morons just place their miserable tails between their legs and choose cowardly to run away? That is what their pagan version of science is all about --- nothing but myths, lies, and misinformation --- just like the main stream media. <shrug> > > > > > > > > When a clock ages, it gets older...but not the twin gets older, only the > > > > clock. > > > > > > > > But one clock is real and the other clock is fake. > > > > > > > > In other words, a clock gets older but the person doesn't work like a > > > > clock because people are not clocks. > > > > > > > > So, one of the twins didn't age but his clock did. > > > > > > > > Which clock has the real time? > > > > > > time flows, it doesn't tick. a clock ticks.. > > > > > > so, the clock that age was because the hand moved..tick > > > > > > but the twin doesn't tick, it flows. > > > > I mean, come on...this is ridiculous. > > > > a clock is not a person > > a clock doesn't age like a person > > a clock is a device made by man. > > > > it's not a aging clock. > > > > Where did you people get this idea that you can tell a person is aging > > with a clock???? > > but, with triplets..the third guy doesn't come back...what time does he > got? and the second triplet, how fast did he come back???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oabia5$1n6f$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #412894 |
On 3/15/2017 2:46 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed up with science. Ageing is all about how much time > has gone by and no fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some mythical nonsense. <shrug> Correction. Aging is all about how much PROPER time has gone by and, yes, the proper time is precisely tied to the pathlength through spacetime. That would be the point. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 07:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cecd90e-154d-449a-b500-0c22fe4ecf3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412894 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 3:46:34 AM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:34:56 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically > > measure their own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time > > depends on the path over which it is measured. > > > Tom is not bringing forth physics but bullshit that cannot be backed > up with science. Ageing is all about how much time has gone by... You seem confused. It has nothing to do with science but with the meaning (the definition) of the words used. Proper time just means "the value on the clock" (or, the difference in values). > and no fvcking way is it with the fvcking pathlength of some > mythical nonsense. <shrug> Again, you seem to be confused about the meaning of the words used, or you just dont accept their meanings. "path" or "pathlength" in this context just means "I can describe the motion in a given frame". Since you agree that we can describe the motion (its position as a function of your coordinate time, x = x(t) ), then you accept the notion of "pathlength" or "trajectory" or whatever other appropriate words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d560d746-0282-436d-8aeb-fc882ae6b368@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412882 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 4:34:56 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure their > own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time depends on the path over which > it is measured. You are confused and confusing: proper time depends on nothing at all, its ratio of flow never varies (yes, of course, per definition but also per subjective and causal experience)! OTOH, the total measured by an odometer of course depends on what the journey was, but this is just an utterly generic and irrelevant truism, indeed it adds nothing at all about what happens to the twins! > Just DRAW it You are fucking confused and confusing: draw *BOTH* of them!! Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 15:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0ZudnddH-u0-PFTFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412902 |
On 3/15/17 3/15/17 - 4:53 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 4:34:56 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: >> Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure their >> own elapsed proper time. And elapsed proper time depends on the path over which >> it is measured. > > You are confused and confusing: proper time depends on nothing at all, its > ratio of flow never varies (yes, of course, per definition but also per > subjective and causal experience)! Yes. But ELAPSED proper time depends on the path. The confusion is yours, as you omitted an important word/concept. Elapsed proper time is the INTEGRAL of proper time along the path, and such an integral inherently depends on the path. As you say, the integrand "depends on nothing at all" [#]; the integral depends on the path. It is the integral that determines how the twins' clocks compare when they rejoin. [#] In SR; in GR it depends on the metric at each point of the path. > OTOH, the total measured by an odometer > of course depends on what the journey was, but this is just an utterly > generic and irrelevant truism, indeed it adds nothing at all about what > happens to the twins! YOU are confused. The whole point of the twin paradox is that the elapsed proper time between a given pair of points depends on the path taken between them. Just like odometers. >> Just DRAW it > You are fucking confused and confusing: draw *BOTH* of them!! I did. Just LOOK at my drawing. The stay-at-home twin goes from A to B, and the traveling twin goes from A to C to B. Both are drawn. The confusion is all YOURS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d6e01cf-77cb-4039-b7d1-2bcda0a7c4dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412956 |
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 1:18:50 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > But ELAPSED proper time depends on the path. There is no such mystic description of proper time. Everything, without any exception, ages in ordinary time NOT PROPER TIME. You are inventing magic to explain what you do not understand. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 03:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b65184b5-7de1-4ee5-9ee2-aa154e33aa2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412882 |
W dniu środa, 15 marca 2017 04:34:56 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure their In the world we inhabit most clocks don't measure anything, poor idiot. Instead, they show numbers we use as a coordinate. > own elapsed proper time. And you know, what is proper!!! You can't be wrong!!! Because you analyzed MM experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 21:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7d2dnVwUEfBUL1TFnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412882 |
>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>news:T82dnWmkkqDHK1XFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 3/14/17 3/14/17 5:11 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> Now... explain, what "different path lengths through space-time" means
>> physically, in the real world, baring in mind that the clocks, in the
>> real
>> world, only measure time, not "space-time".
>Clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure
>their own elapsed proper time.
Yep. Well understood. Clocks measure time, not space, or space-time.
>And elapsed proper time depends on the path over which it is measured.
Yep. Well understood. Depends on the time path over which it is measured, as
clocks only measure time, not space paths.
Time is mapped to space on the geometric diagram, if the geometric diagram
says the path has change, that path is mapped back to time, in this real
universe.
>Just like odometers don't measure some abstract "distance",
>they very specifically measure the distance over which they
>traveled. The odometers of two cars that separate and then
>rejoin can display different distances, because distance
>between a given pair of places CLEARLY depends on the path
>taken between them. Ditto for clocks, realizing that one
>must use spaceTIME.
Yep. Well understood, but no to spaceTIME
Clocks don't measure space-time, they measure time.
So, sure, the odometers read more distance, because that's what more path
means, when referenced to space.
and similarly, the clocks read more time, because that's what more path
means, when referenced to time.
>"Different paths through spacetime" means just what it says. For the twin
>paradox it means that the clocks followed different paths
{sniped Toms usual, Groundhog day time loop explanation}
Tom says:
"odometers don't measure some abstract "distance", they very specifically
measure the distance over which they travelled."
and
"Ditto for clocks"
Yep. Ditto for clocks. 100% agree. This means:
"clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure
the time over which they travelled."
Hint: the "time" and "space" words were swapped one-to-one, in case you
missed the translation. Its the "ditto" bit that did this.
So, Tom, you now agree, that the physical interpretation is, time travel.
That's because, according to he GR/SR geometric interpretation, space and
time are on an essentially, equal footing.
If you don't like "travelled", because it upsets your sensibilities , we can
change the words a tad:
"odometers don't measure some abstract "distance", they very specifically
measure the distance over which they experience."
"clocks don't measure some abstract "time", they very specifically measure
the time over which they experience."
No matter how much you are in denial, or ignorance. You appear have this
pathological OCD in denying that GR/SR model of the universe, illustrated by
the analysis above, means, time travel.
Clocks measure time, and only time. If clock readings changed, and the
clocks stayed the same, the clocks must have experienced more time, not
space, or space-time. Period. This is trivially obvious.
The stay at home Brigadier Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart experiences
more time than Dr. Who who travels into Stewarts future.
Sure, acknowledging that the "different path lengths through space-time"
must mean time travel, may well be problematic for the GR/SR geometric
interpretation, but it don't change the fact, that that is what it means
under that interpretaion.
Like, "different path lengths through space-time" only means "different path
lengths through space-time" is a good explanation? Ho hummmm...
Its no wonder that the "Einstein was wrong" brigade are out in force..
-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web