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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pJmdnUqdfv6tjFXFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412692 |
On 3/13/17 3/13/17 - 10:33 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:54:04 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> In physics we use the term "event" to mean a single happening at a definite
>> place and time. So events cannot "move" -- they have zero spatial extent
>> and zero duration; each event is a single point in the spacetime manifold.
>>
>> Apparently you are confused about what "event" means. A simple snap of the
>> fingers is an event (abstracting it to zero extent and duration). A clock
>> displaying a specific value of time is an event -- it happens at a definite
>> place (where the clock is located at that time), and a definite time (as
>> specified), and has zero duration (the clock is continually ticking [#]).
>>
>> [#] We consider a tick to be of zero duration, with ticks being separated
>> by a time interval that is not part of the tick.
>
> I think that you seem to be saying that my argument "sounds absurd" to you.
No. I'm saying that the words you use do not mean what you apparently think they
mean.
> You're saying events cannot move.
I'm saying that "motion" does not apply to events. The concepts are
irreconcilable. OBJECTS move, not events (aka points in the manifold).
> You argue, "Once one has specified a coordinate system {x,y,z,t}, an event
> has specific values of the coordinates. A SINGLE value of each of the four
> coordinates."
That is not an "argument", that is part of the definition of what a coordinate
system is.
> But when an observer accelerates, and changes his perspective from a S
> coordinate system to an S' coordinate system, of course, he is no longer
> measuring distance and time in the {x,y,z,t} coordinate system, but in the
> {x',y',z',t'} coordinate system.
>
> Surely you can see that before and after a Lorentz transformation x' for a
> particular event is not equal to x for the same event. t' for a particular
> event is not equal to t for the same event.
Sure. This is not "motion", this is simply applying a different coordinate
system to the same manifold.
> In the view of the accelerating observer, the event has moved forward or
> backward in space from x to x', and forward or backward in time, from t to
> t'.
NO. In the view of the accelerating observer, the new coordinates apply rather
than the old ones. This is not "motion" in any sense of the word.
Analogy: I label my house "Tom's house". When I sell it the new
owner labels it "Mary's house"; did the house move? -- no.
Coordinate N-tuples (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') are merely DIFFERENT LABELS FOR
THE SAME EVENT. Just like the house, re-labeling events is not any sort of "motion".
IOW: the labels (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') can both apply to a given event.
Such labels do not imply any sort of "motion".
> But I realize that you are taking a seemingly conventional position that
> "events don't move" and I am taking what sounds like an absurd position,
> that "events DO move with respect to accelerating observers." But I would
> argue that in fact, the common convention to say "events don't move" is
> actually incorrect, and the unconventional claim that "events move when you
> accelerate" is correct, regardless of how absurd that seems to you.
Nope. Your claims contradict the definitions of what these words actually mean.
This is not a "conventional position", this is merely acknowledging the
meanings of words.
> I have a working paper that addresses this topic, at
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235352_Radar_Time_and_Temporal_Facing_A_Distinction_of_Two_Compatible_Ideas
I'll discuss here, but rarely visit webpages. If it reflects the misconceptions
you display here, visiting it would be useless.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 00:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <687ceddd-c2fe-491f-9d2c-a310eb516c09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412806 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 marca 2017 16:50:14 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > No. I'm saying that the words you use do not mean what you apparently think they > mean. You can scream and wave arms, as expected from a relativistic moron. but you can't decide what the words mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-15 04:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f56c45ca-fdeb-42d6-bc5c-103b8831c87d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #412806 |
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/13/17 3/13/17 - 10:33 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:54:04 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> In physics we use the term "event" to mean a single happening at a definite
> >> place and time. So events cannot "move" -- they have zero spatial extent
> >> and zero duration; each event is a single point in the spacetime manifold.
> >>
> >> Apparently you are confused about what "event" means. A simple snap of the
> >> fingers is an event (abstracting it to zero extent and duration). A clock
> >> displaying a specific value of time is an event -- it happens at a definite
> >> place (where the clock is located at that time), and a definite time (as
> >> specified), and has zero duration (the clock is continually ticking [#]).
> >>
> >> [#] We consider a tick to be of zero duration, with ticks being separated
> >> by a time interval that is not part of the tick.
> >
> > I think that you seem to be saying that my argument "sounds absurd" to you.
>
> No. I'm saying that the words you use do not mean what you apparently think they
> mean.
>
> > You're saying events cannot move.
>
> I'm saying that "motion" does not apply to events. The concepts are
> irreconcilable. OBJECTS move, not events (aka points in the manifold).
>
I'm not sure what this is called, where you argue based on rejecting an argument, not on whether it's valid, but on rejecting their right to define the meaning of their own words.
If I am looking straight ahead, and I turn to the left, then all of the objects move to the right, within my view. In the same fashion, if I am looking straight ahead, and I accelerate forward, all of the events that I am seeing, move forward, and into the past in my view.
> > You argue, "Once one has specified a coordinate system {x,y,z,t}, an event
> > has specific values of the coordinates. A SINGLE value of each of the four
> > coordinates."
>
> That is not an "argument", that is part of the definition of what a coordinate
> system is.
>
> > But when an observer accelerates, and changes his perspective from a S
> > coordinate system to an S' coordinate system, of course, he is no longer
> > measuring distance and time in the {x,y,z,t} coordinate system, but in the
> > {x',y',z',t'} coordinate system.
> >
> > Surely you can see that before and after a Lorentz transformation x' for a
> > particular event is not equal to x for the same event. t' for a particular
> > event is not equal to t for the same event.
>
> Sure. This is not "motion", this is simply applying a different coordinate
> system to the same manifold.
>
> > In the view of the accelerating observer, the event has moved forward or
> > backward in space from x to x', and forward or backward in time, from t to
> > t'.
>
> NO. In the view of the accelerating observer, the new coordinates apply rather
> than the old ones. This is not "motion" in any sense of the word.
>
> Analogy: I label my house "Tom's house". When I sell it the new
> owner labels it "Mary's house"; did the house move? -- no.
>
It's not mere relabeling. When one person says "That event happened one second ago and 1 light-second away" and another person, at the same location says "That event happened 10 seconds ago, and 10 light-seconds away" it is not a matter of one labeling it one thing, and another calls it a different thing.
They are seeing the same event, at different locations.
> Coordinate N-tuples (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') are merely DIFFERENT LABELS FOR
> THE SAME EVENT. Just like the house, re-labeling events is not any sort of "motion".
>
> IOW: the labels (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') can both apply to a given event.
> Such labels do not imply any sort of "motion".
>
You, (like Dolby and Gull), can label events whatever you want, but that won't prevent their coordinates from changing under a Lorentz Transformation.
> > But I realize that you are taking a seemingly conventional position that
> > "events don't move" and I am taking what sounds like an absurd position,
> > that "events DO move with respect to accelerating observers." But I would
> > argue that in fact, the common convention to say "events don't move" is
> > actually incorrect, and the unconventional claim that "events move when you
> > accelerate" is correct, regardless of how absurd that seems to you.
>
> Nope. Your claims contradict the definitions of what these words actually mean.
> This is not a "conventional position", this is merely acknowledging the
> meanings of words.
>
> > I have a working paper that addresses this topic, at
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235352_Radar_Time_and_Temporal_Facing_A_Distinction_of_Two_Compatible_Ideas
>
> I'll discuss here, but rarely visit webpages. If it reflects the misconceptions
> you display here, visiting it would be useless.
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Mqidndfk06KGlVbFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #412908 |
On 3/15/17 3/15/17 - 6:08 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> I'm saying that "motion" does not apply to events. The concepts are >> irreconcilable. OBJECTS move, not events (aka points in the manifold). > > I'm not sure what this is called, where you argue based on rejecting an > argument, not on whether it's valid, but on rejecting their right to define > the meaning of their own words. But you DIDN'T "define your own words", you attempted to use standard words with incorrect (self-inconsistent) meanings. Had you said "Bltzfg move", and defined what "bltzfg" means, I would offer no quarrel. > If I am looking straight ahead, and I turn to the left, then all of the > objects move to the right, within my view. That is not "motion" in any ordinary sense -- JUST THINK ABOUT IT: as you move your head, the objects around you DO NOT MOVE, and NOBODY would say that they do; you attempt to raise an objection that you, yourself, would disavow. That simply is NOT what "motion" means, and YOU KNOW IT. When you use common words with extraordinary meanings, and don't mention it, you cannot expect others to understand what you are tying to say. > In the same fashion, if I am > looking straight ahead, and I accelerate forward, all of the events that I am > seeing, move forward, and into the past in my view. This is NOT "the same fashion" -- in your previous sentence you discussed OBJECTS, but here you discuss EVENTS -- they are quite different. Note that you can see OBJECTS, but not events.... As I said before, in modern physics "event" is synonymous with "point"; specifically a point in the manifold used to model the world (or an interesting alternate world). A snap of the fingers, idealized to 0 duration and 0 size, is an event [#]; a finger is an object, NOT an event. An event is a single point in the manifold, an object traces out a worldline through the manifold (i.e. it follows a specific timelike path that inherently has a single location for every time while the object exists). [#] Taking for granted the implicit mapping between world and manifold. We can discuss the manifold because it is part of the model; we cannot discuss the world, only MODELS of it (including the vast and complex model implicit in our use of the English language). > [... too much repetition based on the same mistake] You REALLY need to learn what a coordinate system ACTUALLY is. Your GUESSES are wrong. Coordinates are merely a systematic and numerical way to LABEL events. But of course, such labels don't matter to the underlying physical phenomena. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 01:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0174cc7-6ed3-494a-9508-6a9f3ed6a9ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413049 |
W dniu czwartek, 16 marca 2017 22:48:18 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 3/15/17 3/15/17 - 6:08 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> I'm saying that "motion" does not apply to events. The concepts are > >> irreconcilable. OBJECTS move, not events (aka points in the manifold). > > > > I'm not sure what this is called, where you argue based on rejecting an > > argument, not on whether it's valid, but on rejecting their right to define > > the meaning of their own words. > > But you DIDN'T "define your own words", you attempted to use standard words with > incorrect (self-inconsistent) meanings. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. It's actually you attempting the trick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e758a4c-0f50-490c-9f10-6d41924211be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413049 |
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 4:48:18 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/15/17 3/15/17 - 6:08 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:50:14 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> I'm saying that "motion" does not apply to events. The concepts are > >> irreconcilable. OBJECTS move, not events (aka points in the manifold). > > > > I'm not sure what this is called, where you argue based on rejecting an > > argument, not on whether it's valid, but on rejecting their right to define > > the meaning of their own words. > > But you DIDN'T "define your own words", you attempted to use standard words with > incorrect (self-inconsistent) meanings. Had you said "Bltzfg move", and defined > what "bltzfg" means, I would offer no quarrel. > Hmmm. I guess I don't know how usenet works... I remember thinking to myself that was awfully confrontational... I didn't want to accuse you of Orwellian Newspeak. In Google groups, the message appears as deleted. > > If I am looking straight ahead, and I turn to the left, then all of the > > objects move to the right, within my view. > > That is not "motion" in any ordinary sense -- JUST THINK ABOUT IT: as you move > your head, the objects around you DO NOT MOVE, and NOBODY would say that they > do; you attempt to raise an objection that you, yourself, would disavow. That > simply is NOT what "motion" means, and YOU KNOW IT. > Actually quite the contrary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI2biEOUTco&list=PLC-qVSnsyc7-lHGZf8BUO-tY2b2Z8uYKv&index=1 In this video I argue that "future" and "past" are geometric observer dependent directions, much like forward, back, left, right, up, and down. The rotation transformation moves objects around the observer in circular paths as he rotates through angle theta from direction F (Forward) to direction F' (Forward-prime). Of course the objects don't actually move when the observer changes his facing. But in order to truly understand Lorentz Transformations, we have to "embrace the absurdity" that the objects actually move relative to the rotating observer. > When you use common words with extraordinary meanings, and don't mention it, you > cannot expect others to understand what you are tying to say. > > > In the same fashion, if I am > > looking straight ahead, and I accelerate forward, all of the events that I am > > seeing, move forward, and into the past in my view. > > This is NOT "the same fashion" -- in your previous sentence you discussed > OBJECTS, but here you discuss EVENTS -- they are quite different. Note that you > can see OBJECTS, but not events.... > No, not exactly the same fashion, but a similar fashion. When I turn my head, objects move through my point-of-view in circular arcs. When I accelerate, events around me move in hyperbolic arcs. I don't know why you say I cannot see events. I can certainly see events. In fact, whenever I see objects, it is an event associated with that object. The event is a visible-light photon either being generated by or reflected off of the object. > As I said before, in modern physics "event" is synonymous with "point"; > specifically a point in the manifold used to model the world (or an interesting > alternate world). A snap of the fingers, idealized to 0 duration and 0 size, is > an event [#]; a finger is an object, NOT an event. An event is a single point in > the manifold, an object traces out a worldline through the manifold (i.e. it > follows a specific timelike path that inherently has a single location for every > time while the object exists). Usually, the word "point" is associated with Euclidan geometry, which is a stationary dot on a page... the point in Euclidian geometry is a world-line in Minkowski geometry. While there may be some who regard "point" and "event" as synonymous, I'm not familiar with their work. > > [#] Taking for granted the implicit mapping between world and > manifold. We can discuss the manifold because it is part of > the model; we cannot discuss the world, only MODELS of it > (including the vast and complex model implicit in our use of > the English language). > > > [... too much repetition based on the same mistake] > > You REALLY need to learn what a coordinate system ACTUALLY is. Your GUESSES are > wrong. Coordinates are merely a systematic and numerical way to LABEL events. > But of course, such labels don't matter to the underlying physical phenomena. > > Tom Roberts It's not so much that my guesses about coordinate systems are wrong, but rather, it's a fairly vast group of authors and peer reviewed publications have not acknowledged that the coordinates of events actually change upon Lorentz Transformation. I make that point in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZC0Bl6NDY&index=4&list=PLC-qVSnsyc7-lHGZf8BUO-tY2b2Z8uYKv In this video I use an app that I wrote in mathematica to describe the twin paradox, and how "temporal facing" resolves it without any paradox. source code at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314750827_The_Twin_Paradox_Spacetime_Animation_Temporal_Facing_and_Isocline_Demonstration I look at isoclines of time for the earth, outbound twin, inbound twin, and see that the amount of time passed for the traveling twin is less than the time passed for the stay-at-home twin. Changing the temporal facing, we realize that the clock for the stay-at-home twin is slower than the clock for the traveling twin BUT, there is a group of events that follow hyperbolic arcs from the traveling twin's future to his past. These events between event A and B swing from the twin's future into their past. One reason that you have never seen any animations like this, is because around the turn of the millenium, there was a paper written about Radar Time and Radar Distance. The idea was that you can get perfectly adequate estimations of the coordinates of time and distance of distant events useing radar even if the emitter/perceiver device is shaking wildly during the course of operation. Ostensibly, there were two reasons that radar time and radar distance were developed. 1. They wanted isoclines of time and distance that did not cross each other. In this they succeeded. However, none of the existing isoclines of time and space crossed each other, either. 2. They wanted to create isoclines of time and distance that did not swing up and down upon temporal facing. In this, they failed. Putting numeric labels on events does not prevent them from swinging around in time or space relative to an accelerating observer. In the time since "On Radar Time and the Twin Paradox" has been published, a fairly vast group of authors and peer reviewed publications have not acknowledged that the coordinates of events actually change upon Lorentz Transformation. So there are a certain set of diagrams which you will not see in peer reviewed publications and textbooks, because they do not accept that events move in the point-of-view of an accelerated observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 14:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iaWdneFwQJAeGlDFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413112 |
On 3/17/17 3/17/17 9:40 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> No, not exactly the same fashion, but a similar fashion. When I turn my
> head, objects move through my point-of-view in circular arcs. When I
> accelerate, events around me move in hyperbolic arcs.
But you cannot attribute this change in view to THE OBJECTS "moving".
As I said, you raise an objection you yourself would disavow -- moving your head
does NOT cause other objects to move. It merely change you YOU see them.
> I don't know why you say I cannot see events.
Because they are not visible (visibility does not apply). You still do not know
what "event" means in this context.
> I can certainly see events. In fact, whenever I see objects, it is an event
> associated with that object.
No. Not even close. You see a LIGHT RAY that came from the object. If we
abstract your seeing to an instant of zero duration, then the emission of that
ray by the object is an event, BUT YOU DON"T SEE THAT EVENT. The light ray
hitting your eyeball is another event -- You see THE LIGHT RAY, not the event of
it hitting your eyeball, nor the event of it being emitted.
> The event is a visible-light photon either being generated by or reflected
> off of the object.
Yes. But you see the LIGHT RAY ("photon"), not the event.
>> As I said before, in modern physics "event" is synonymous with "point";
>> specifically a point in the manifold used to model the world (or an
>> interesting alternate world). A snap of the fingers, idealized to 0
>> duration and 0 size, is an event [#]; a finger is an object, NOT an event.
>> An event is a single point in the manifold, an object traces out a
>> worldline through the manifold (i.e. it follows a specific timelike path
>> that inherently has a single location for every time while the object
>> exists).
>
> Usually, the word "point" is associated with Euclidan geometry, which is a
> stationary dot on a page... the point in Euclidian geometry is a world-line
> in Minkowski geometry. While there may be some who regard "point" and "event"
> as synonymous, I'm not familiar with their work.
This use of "event" to mean "point in spacetime" is common in modern physics,
and essentially every book on SR uses it. "Point" is by no means exclusive to
Euclid, and ALL TYPES of geometry use it, because geometry is a study of the
geometric properties of manifolds, and manifolds are sets of points with various
properties.
>> You REALLY need to learn what a coordinate system ACTUALLY is. Your
>> GUESSES are wrong. Coordinates are merely a systematic and numerical way to
>> LABEL events. But of course, such labels don't matter to the underlying
>> physical phenomena.
>
> It's not so much that my guesses about coordinate systems are wrong, but
> rather, it's a fairly vast group of authors and peer reviewed publications
> have not acknowledged that the coordinates of events actually change upon
> Lorentz Transformation.
Your use of "change" there seems to be the crux of your confusion.
If I write a sentence in English, and then translate it into German, did the
letters that comprise it "change"? -- in a rather loose sense, yes, but strictly
speaking NO because those are TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES. That is, NOTHING
"changed", it's just that different letters were created to make the two
sentences. They happen to be related in meaning, but that does not affect the
letters themselves.
A coordinate system is a systematic assignment of numerical labels to events
(points). For the specific types of assignment known as inertial frames, the
labels of individual events in a pair of such systems are related by the Lorentz
transform between the two frames. So yes, in coordinate system S the label of a
certain event is (x,y,z,t), and in coordinate system S' the label of THE SAME
EVENT is (x',y',z',t'). But it does not really make sense to call this a
"change", it's just that two different labels are assigned to the given event by
these two coordinate systems. Note that the manifold, and all of its events, are
COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of any coordinate system(s) that might be applied --
things are independent of the labels that are applied to them.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-18 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oak3u8$dg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413271 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
> that ray by the object is an event, BUT YOU DON"T SEE THAT EVENT. The
> light ray hitting your eyeball is another event -- You see THE LIGHT
> RAY, not the event of it hitting your eyeball, nor the event of it being
> emitted.
This seems reasonable. Actually he sees exactly that event, delayed in
time of course. This is how events works in Nature.
> Yes. But you see the LIGHT RAY ("photon"), not the event.
You can't see a photon, mostly detecting it. A bucket of photons creates
an image (2d, interpreted by a brain). Again, you have to learn it. The
information is ALWAYS 2d embedded. The 3d is completely an artefact, not
real. Actually you just gave another proof.
> This use of "event" to mean "point in spacetime" is common in modern
> physics, and essentially every book on SR uses it. "Point" is by no
> means exclusive to Euclid, and ALL TYPES of geometry use it, because
> geometry is a study of the geometric properties of manifolds, and
> manifolds are sets of points with various properties.
What am I teaching you is far more advanced than any of your advanced
geometries. Any point, be that considered embedded into 3d of spacetime,
is simply information. That's is real. Information only may exists
embedded into 2d. Fully consistent with my Divergent Matter theory.
> Your use of "change" there seems to be the crux of your confusion.
> If I write a sentence in English, and then translate it into German, did
> the letters that comprise it "change"? -- in a rather loose sense, yes,
> but strictly speaking NO because those are TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES. That
> is, NOTHING "changed", it's just that different letters were created to
> make the two sentences. They happen to be related in meaning, but that
> does not affect the letters themselves.
Exactly, embedded still in 2d (no thickness). Wonderful, I just love
talking with you. See, you just gave another proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5110a2b-6c96-417b-b7b3-980037ac00c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413271 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 2:16:26 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/17/17 3/17/17 9:40 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > No, not exactly the same fashion, but a similar fashion. When I turn my
> > head, objects move through my point-of-view in circular arcs. When I
> > accelerate, events around me move in hyperbolic arcs.
>
> But you cannot attribute this change in view to THE OBJECTS "moving".
>
If the events that happen to the object move, then the object, to whom those events are happening also moves.
> As I said, you raise an objection you yourself would disavow -- moving your head
> does NOT cause other objects to move. It merely change you YOU see them.
>
In a sense, yes I did. You caught it. I said "Of course the object doesn't really move, but it does in our point-of-view." It sounds somewhat like an objection to my own argument.
When I say "the object doesn't really move" I mean that it experiences no sense of motion when you or I turn your head, or accelerate.
The objection I have here is your use of the words "only" and "merely". You seem to be suggesting there isn't something profoundly strange and unfamiliar about how the Lorentz Transformations change the coordinates of events.
> > I don't know why you say I cannot see events.
>
> Because they are not visible (visibility does not apply). You still do not know
> what "event" means in this context.
>
> > I can certainly see events. In fact, whenever I see objects, it is an event
> > associated with that object.
>
> No. Not even close. You see a LIGHT RAY that came from the object. If we
> abstract your seeing to an instant of zero duration, then the emission of that
> ray by the object is an event, BUT YOU DON"T SEE THAT EVENT. The light ray
> hitting your eyeball is another event -- You see THE LIGHT RAY, not the event of
> it hitting your eyeball, nor the event of it being emitted.
>
> > The event is a visible-light photon either being generated by or reflected
> > off of the object.
>
> Yes. But you see the LIGHT RAY ("photon"), not the event.
>
I like Idimi Higame's response to this.
"Actually he sees exactly that event, delayed in time, of course. This is how events works in Nature. You can't see a photon, mostly detecting it."
In any case the coordinates where the photon originated before it came into your eye are the same coordinates where the object was when the image of the event was formed.
"A bucket of photon creates an image."
I'll stop with Idimi where he says "The 3d is completely an artefact, not real" the part that he thinks you proved...
> >> As I said before, in modern physics "event" is synonymous with "point";
> >> specifically a point in the manifold used to model the world (or an
> >> interesting alternate world). A snap of the fingers, idealized to 0
> >> duration and 0 size, is an event [#]; a finger is an object, NOT an event.
> >> An event is a single point in the manifold, an object traces out a
> >> worldline through the manifold (i.e. it follows a specific timelike path
> >> that inherently has a single location for every time while the object
> >> exists).
> >
> > Usually, the word "point" is associated with Euclidan geometry, which is a
> > stationary dot on a page... the point in Euclidian geometry is a world-line
> > in Minkowski geometry. While there may be some who regard "point" and "event"
> > as synonymous, I'm not familiar with their work.
>
> This use of "event" to mean "point in spacetime" is common in modern physics,
> and essentially every book on SR uses it. "Point" is by no means exclusive to
> Euclid, and ALL TYPES of geometry use it, because geometry is a study of the
> geometric properties of manifolds, and manifolds are sets of points with various
> properties.
>
Of course "point" is sometimes used to refer to a "point in spacetime" as being an event.
"point" is also sometimes used in reference to a central idea... such as "What's your point?"
The point of your argument is that you'll not allow me to use the Euclidian meaning of point, because someone, somewhere, has given a new definition of point which is synonymous with "event."
But my definition of "point" is the same as that given in this diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)#/media/File:ACP_3.svg
You can see plainly there, a set of blue dots that are not moving, and exist as long as you keep the image on your computer screen.
These Euclidian points are not events. They are continuously existing stationary dots. Now each emission of individual photon coming from your computer monitor to your eye does represent an event. So you do have a bunch of events associated with those Euclidian points, whose coordinates are at the same position as those points.
> >> You REALLY need to learn what a coordinate system ACTUALLY is. Your
> >> GUESSES are wrong. Coordinates are merely a systematic and numerical way to
> >> LABEL events. But of course, such labels don't matter to the underlying
> >> physical phenomena.
> >
> > It's not so much that my guesses about coordinate systems are wrong, but
> > rather, it's a fairly vast group of authors and peer reviewed publications
> > have not acknowledged that the coordinates of events actually change upon
> > Lorentz Transformation.
>
> Your use of "change" there seems to be the crux of your confusion.
>
> If I write a sentence in English, and then translate it into German, did the
> letters that comprise it "change"? -- in a rather loose sense, yes, but strictly
> speaking NO because those are TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES. That is, NOTHING
> "changed", it's just that different letters were created to make the two
> sentences. They happen to be related in meaning, but that does not affect the
> letters themselves.
>
> A coordinate system is a systematic assignment of numerical labels to events
> (points). For the specific types of assignment known as inertial frames, the
> labels of individual events in a pair of such systems are related by the Lorentz
> transform between the two frames. So yes, in coordinate system S the label of a
> certain event is (x,y,z,t), and in coordinate system S' the label of THE SAME
> EVENT is (x',y',z',t'). But it does not really make sense to call this a
> "change", it's just that two different labels are assigned to the given event by
> these two coordinate systems. Note that the manifold, and all of its events, are
> COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of any coordinate system(s) that might be applied --
> things are independent of the labels that are applied to them.
>
> Tom Roberts
I realize that yours is a common misconception, which is the reason I wrote this paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235352_Radar_Time_and_Temporal_Facing_A_Distinction_of_Two_Compatible_Ideas
My main point in this paper is that if you really really want to put labels on events and call them radar time and radar distance, you can certainly do that, but it won't prevent them from swinging forward and backward in time whenever Barbara goes dancing.
The point is, there are some "description based" transformations that merely change the description of coordinates. Some of them are useful, like polar coordinates, and Spherical coordinates, for instance, change coordinates from x,y,z to r, theta, phi. This changes the description without changing position.
Some of them, like Radar Time, and Radar distance, are... interesting... and may be useful under certain situations, as well. But putting new labels on events doesn't prevent them from swinging forward and backward in time and space under the Lorentz Transformations.
Rotation and Lorentz Transformations are not "description transformations" but "location transformations" They aren't in the category of mere "relabeling". Rotations change the actual x, y, z positions. Lorentz Transformations, change x,y,z, and t, positions.
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/Types-of-Transformations.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g4CdndX7V6sluE3FnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413358 |
On 3/19/17 3/19/17 - 11:28 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> If the events that happen to the object move, then the object, to whom those
> events are happening also moves.
No. You just don't understand what "event" actually means. Let me try again.
I snap my fingers -- an event that happens to my fingers. Let me label this
event "first snap" so I can refer to it later. (Idealize all snaps to zero
duration and extent.)
Now I move my hand and snap again, labeling this event "second snap".
Note that NOTHING WHATEVER happened to "first snap", it is now in the past, but
the location and time that it happened are COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. So "first snap"
DID NOT "MOVE" (in any meaning of the word). But, of course, my fingers did move
between "first snap" and "second snap", and those two events did not occur at
the same place, or at the same time -- they are different events.
Let me rotate my head so I'm looking differently at my hand. Did "first snap"
move? -- clearly not: the location and time that it happened are COMPLETELY
UNCHANGED.
Now let me re-label "fist snap" as "bltzfg". Did the snap itself move? --
CLEARLY NOT. All that happened is a new label was applied.
Instead of such wordy labels, coordinate systems systematically apply numerical
labels to events; for inertial frames these are values of {x,y,z,t}. But just
like the labels in my example, the labels of a coordinate system (i.e. the
values of its coordinates) DO NOT AFFECT THE EVENTS THEMSELVES. So if I
construct an inertial coordinate system in which "first snap" happened at
(x=0,y=0.z=0,t=0), and after a Lorentz transform to the primed coordinate system
it happened at (x'=10,y'=0,z'=0,t'=-10), THE DIFFERENT VALUES DO NOT MEAN THAT
"first snap" MOVED, IT JUST MEANS THAT A NEW LABEL WAS APPLIED. And, of course,
NONE of this affects "first snap" itself.
IOW: "motion" is a change in position over time, so in order for "motion" to
apply to something it must have a non-zero duration. My fingers have duration,
and can move. But "first snap" had zero duration AND THEREFORE CANNOT MOVE (or
rather, the concept "motion" simply does not apply to it).
You are confusing "applying a new label" with "motion", and that is both
perverse and just plain wrong. Confusions like this pervade you writings, but
you are so confused that you are unable to recognize your own confusions.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <024c79b9-79a6-4fe1-8926-1c396835f176@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413469 |
On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/19/17 3/19/17 - 11:28 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > If the events that happen to the object move, then the object, to whom those
> > events are happening also moves.
>
> No. You just don't understand what "event" actually means. Let me try again.
>
> I snap my fingers -- an event that happens to my fingers. Let me label this
> event "first snap" so I can refer to it later. (Idealize all snaps to zero
> duration and extent.)
>
> Now I move my hand and snap again, labeling this event "second snap".
>
> Note that NOTHING WHATEVER happened to "first snap", it is now in the past, but
> the location and time that it happened are COMPLETELY UNCHANGED. So "first snap"
> DID NOT "MOVE" (in any meaning of the word). But, of course, my fingers did move
> between "first snap" and "second snap", and those two events did not occur at
> the same place, or at the same time -- they are different events.
>
Depends... Do you keep the origin of your coordinate system "Now"? If so, then the snap moves at a constant rate into the past.
> Let me rotate my head so I'm looking differently at my hand. Did "first snap"
> move? --
Depends. Do you attach the forward direction of your coordinate system to your head? If the coordinate system measures forward, back, left, right, up, and down from your head, then the object moves relative to that coordinate system.
> clearly not: the location and time that it happened are COMPLETELY
> UNCHANGED.
>
> Now let me re-label "fist snap" as "bltzfg". Did the snap itself move? --
> CLEARLY NOT. All that happened is a new label was applied.
>
Right. You could also relabel the coordinates of events according to spherical coordinates, or Radar Time/Radar Distance, or Schwarzschild coordinates, or Rindler Coordinates. None of these would cause the events to move... They're just re-labelings.
> Instead of such wordy labels, coordinate systems systematically apply numerical
> labels to events; for inertial frames these are values of {x,y,z,t}. But just
> like the labels in my example, the labels of a coordinate system (i.e. the
> values of its coordinates) DO NOT AFFECT THE EVENTS THEMSELVES. So if I
> construct an inertial coordinate system in which "first snap" happened at
> (x=0,y=0.z=0,t=0), and after a Lorentz transform to the primed coordinate system
> it happened at (x'=10,y'=0,z'=0,t'=-10),
A Lorentz Transformation, by itself does not move the origin. But if you wait 10 seconds then do a galilean transformation of v=-10, you would find that the event at the origin moved 10 seconds into the past, and 10 units to the right.
> THE DIFFERENT VALUES DO NOT MEAN THAT
> "first snap" MOVED, IT JUST MEANS THAT A NEW LABEL WAS APPLIED. And, of course,
> NONE of this affects "first snap" itself.
>
No, it doesn't affect the snap. It affects the coordinates of the snap.
> IOW: "motion" is a change in position over time, so in order for "motion" to
> apply to something it must have a non-zero duration.
You're word-policing again.
Move: change or cause to change from one state, opinion, sphere, or activity to another.
This doesn't require any particular amount of time.
But even if I agreed with you that moving requires the passage of time, it takes time for a person to turn his head, and it takes time to change velocity.
> My fingers have duration,
> and can move. But "first snap" had zero duration AND THEREFORE CANNOT MOVE (or
> rather, the concept "motion" simply does not apply to it).
>
The zero duration snap moves continuously backward in time.
> You are confusing "applying a new label" with "motion", and that is both
> perverse and just plain wrong. Confusions like this pervade you writings, but
> you are so confused that you are unable to recognize your own confusions.
>
> Tom Roberts
I think you're confused because there really are many "transformations" that don't move anything. They just change labels. Cartesian -> Spherical, and Minkowski -> Schwarzchild coordinates, or Minkowski -> Gullstrand-Painleve, etc. All of these transformations just change the labels on the events, without moving them.
But the rotation transformation,
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/rotationtransform.gif
the Galilean transformation,
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/galileantransform.gif
and Lorentz Transformation
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/lorentztransform.gif
are different. Rotation, LT, and GT actually change the positions of the events. Not just the labels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YYWdndpFD9Tf0EzFnZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413495 |
On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 6:34 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > [...] the snap moves at a constant rate into the past. That is NOT "moves" in any sensible meaning of the word. This is hopeless, because YOU do not understand the ACTUAL meanings of the words you use, and you INSIST on speaking so loosely that communication is impossible. Goodbye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02832ab9-ffb7-4136-81ea-846d23f7db42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413271 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/17/17 3/17/17 9:40 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > No, not exactly the same fashion, but a similar fashion. When I turn my > > head, objects move through my point-of-view in circular arcs. When I > > accelerate, events around me move in hyperbolic arcs. > > But you cannot attribute this change in view to THE OBJECTS "moving". Of course the object moves: translates and/or rotates. You are just the typical incompetent agent of the enemy, always defending the systematic and generalised misunderstanding. Fuck you. *Plonk* Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 22:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dafa156-fbd4-4881-8d90-30d4b0e20d78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413049 |
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 2:48:18 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Coordinates are merely a systematic and numerical way to LABEL events. > But of course, such labels don't matter to the underlying physical > phenomena. This is correct. However, this is not how the self-styled physicists use to formulate their fvcked theory of GR. From Tom’s correct statements above, ** GEOMETRY = METRIC * COORDINATE SYSTEM Where ** GEOMETRY = reality that is invariant to any observer ** COORDINATE SYSTEM = Observer’s observation Thus, METRIC can only be a connection of observation to reality, and the self-styled physicists have screwed up this very basic concept of geometry so fvcking royally. There is a specific METRIC to describe the same invariant geometry using a specific set of coordinate system. The self-styled physicists have not understood Euclidean geometry, and these buffoons have been writing textbooks to describe their ignorance. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 00:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D0E0DF.4592@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413398 |
one needs to define ..."ageing" before one can say a twin aged or a clock aged. If you stop the ageing process.. time still flows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D19E95.11B2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413513 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > one needs to define ..."ageing" before one > can say a twin aged or a clock aged. > > If you stop the ageing process.. > > time still flows. but here is the real problem... one twin stays on earth the other travels.. it is not necessary for the traveling twin to come back. You can look at his clock without the twin returning since it is only...a thought experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 01:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D24636.70C6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413599 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > one needs to define ..."ageing" before one > > can say a twin aged or a clock aged. > > > > If you stop the ageing process.. > > > > time still flows. > > but here is the real problem... > > one twin stays on earth > > the other travels.. > > it is not necessary for the traveling > twin to come back. > > You can look at his clock without > the twin returning since it is only...a thought experiment. so, one twin looks at his clock and the other twin looks at his clock.. which twin had the real time???? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 01:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d9d5a93-9cca-4ce1-bf74-15aa4d291d08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413664 |
W dniu środa, 22 marca 2017 09:38:38 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > so, one twin looks at his clock and > the other twin looks at his clock.. > which twin had the real time???? The stronger one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D2CCA8.4E68@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413664 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > one needs to define ..."ageing" before one > > > can say a twin aged or a clock aged. > > > > > > If you stop the ageing process.. > > > > > > time still flows. > > > > but here is the real problem... > > > > one twin stays on earth > > > > the other travels.. > > > > it is not necessary for the traveling > > twin to come back. > > > > You can look at his clock without > > the twin returning since it is only...a thought experiment. > > so, one twin looks at his clock and > the other twin looks at his clock.. > which twin had the real time???? > The minute one has the twin 'returning'... you run into problems that cannot be...fixed. patched up maybe..a bandage maybe...but no cure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D2D6D5.645E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413743 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > one needs to define ..."ageing" before one > > > > can say a twin aged or a clock aged. > > > > > > > > If you stop the ageing process.. > > > > > > > > time still flows. > > > > > > but here is the real problem... > > > > > > one twin stays on earth > > > > > > the other travels.. > > > > > > it is not necessary for the traveling > > > twin to come back. > > > > > > You can look at his clock without > > > the twin returning since it is only...a thought experiment. > > > > so, one twin looks at his clock and > > the other twin looks at his clock.. > > which twin had the real time???? > > > > The minute one has the twin 'returning'... > > you run into problems that cannot be...fixed. > > patched up maybe..a bandage maybe...but no cure. When the train arrives at the station...are you going to turn it around and go back???? If you look above at the title of this newsgroups: relativity That means, a twin returning has nothing to do with Relativity. The Earth travels in a straight line...but the Sun makes it return. That falls under Gravity, not Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web