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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 13:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ej67b3FppopU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #412905 |
On 15/03/2017 9:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 4:33:57 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
>> Op 5/03/2017 om 1:42 schreef Sylvia Else:
>>> On 5/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>>
>>>> If you go back to the talk pages in archive 14 you'll see some
>>>> animations I made around that time.
>>>>
>>>> There is apparently, according to Dirk Van de Moortel, NO
>>>> LITERATURE in peer-reviewed journals that actually shows the
>>>> Lorentz Transformations actually done so that the spacetime
>>>> diagram is shown in the three frames.
>>
>> I've always found it surprising anyway, what little graphical
>> effort is put in "officialish" publications ...
>>
>>>> Therefore any animation or discussion of what the
>>>> two-dimensional spacetime diagram would look like from the
>>>> perspective of the traveling twin during any moment of their
>>>> travels is forbidden to be discussed in the article.
>>
>> ... that's why I've tried to do so in mine*, with the little basic
>> tools I had. The different standpoints of home and travelling twins
>> are one important aspect; the difference between calculation
>> results ("pure" Lorentz) and actually seeing things (as light
>> reaches the observer from different events) another. And the
>> graphical possibilities to visualize all this, of course.
>>
>> * http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
>>
>>>> Without that option to actually show the spacetime diagram in
>>>> the rest frame of the outbound twin, the inbound twin, and the
>>>> stay-at-home twin, the explanations tend to really give the
>>>> impression that the traveling twin has no other data about
>>>> what happened except, that their clock reads a smaller change
>>>> than the stay-at-home twin.
>>
>> And a mistaken impression it is ;-)
>>
>>>> But this would of course not be the most notable thing that
>>>> occurred during the twin's journey. For the twin, surely, the
>>>> thing that would blow his mind during the journey would be the
>>>> fact that during his turnaround, the image of the earth
>>>> (indeed, for all intents and purposes, the earth itself) jumps
>>>> back an enormous distance.
>>
>> That's precisely a result that struck me as odd and has left me
>> half perplex ever since. So I mention it specially, look for <<
>> after his instant maneuver, the hometwin appears to have got at a
>> different, greater distance (now in the homebound system, and
>> corresponding there to an "earlier" event) (*) [...] (*) This came
>> as a surprise even to me. Imagine [...]
>>>>
>> under heading "Relasee, TP-wise".
>>
>
> Well, it is no wonder a surprise, though, don't you think?
> Consideration of the distance to events and images in the frame of
> reference of the outbound twin, and the inbound twin, largely seems
> to be ignored by the mainstream. While there is a bit of interest in
> where events are "now" by Paul Anderson and Mike Fontenot, they get
> somewhat into the mainstream, because 'where things are now'
> demonstrates Lorentz Contraction.
>
> But asking "where was it when it produced the image" doesn't get
> published. So even when MIT created their very nice demonstration "A
> Slower Speed of Light" though it shows very clearly, when you're
> running around the environment at 99% of the speed of light, that the
> images of objects definitely do appear to recede when you accelerate
> toward them, they do not offer any sort of explanation or mention of
> this phenomenon in their information about the program.
>
> I gather, that's because there's simply no papers on the topic.
>
>>> The image of the Earth would do nothing unusual other than
>>> changing from being somewhat red to somewhat blue. In particular,
>>> it would not jump.
>>>
>>> However, the observer's changed velocity relative to the Earth
>>> would mean that the *calculated* position of the Earth in the
>>> observer's frame would abruptly change, as would the calculated
>>> time on Earth.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Though the calculational observation would result in some change
>> in distance during the turnaround:
>> http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/RelatyTravtwin2.PNG
>> (distance changes from DB to EB, even passing through a "rest
>> distance" value, but EB returning to same value as DB in the
>> symmetrical case)
>>
>> it is nothing like the big jump occurring during the actual "image"
>> or "seeing" observation:
>> http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/TravtwinSee%20pt-of-vw.PNG
>> (Seeing observation of home-twin according to travelling twin, ie,
>> with his reference axes, outbound and inbound axes collapsed in a
>> single system.
>
>
> I have independent confirmation of the left-hand half of this
> diagram.
>
> Please watch this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_csFp-QZGg&lc=z13ffv3xnmjxifj5304cjprgur3wwzez42c
>
> At about 8:30 in the video I construct a "Noninertial Rest Frame"
> But instead of constructing it by erasing events above and below the
> line of simultaneity, it is constructed by erasing events above and
> below the past light cone of the traveling observer.
>
> This preserves all of the events in the space, so that each event is
> represented only once.
>
>
>> Left: as spacetime events. Right: as instant perception at every
>> moment of traveller's time). Rv- : home twin, or Earth, "image"
>> just before return event; Rv+ : home twin, or Earth, "image" just
>> after return event: see the jump!
>>
>> -- guido wugi
>
> Yes. Your Rv- and Rv+ is represented in this animation as event F.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_14#/media/File:Lorentz_Transformations_of_Twin_Paradox_Minkowski_Diagram.gif
>
> Thank you for responding. It is really nice to have a response from
> someone who has has done some of the same modeling.
>
> Jonathan Doolin
>
It has long been known that the faster you go, the narrower your forward
field of view, and the wider your backward field of view, with respect
to things that are moving relative to you [*]. Things that are behind
you and off to the side, can appear to be in front of you, off to the
side, because although your motion does not affect the relative speed of
light, it does alter its relative direction.
Since the images of the objects in front of you are effectively squeezed
by your narrower field of view, you may construe them as looking further
away. However, if you made due allowance for the effects of your speed
on the direction of light impinging one you, then you wouldn't reach
such a conclusion.
Sylvia.
[*] This effect was used in the science fiction novel "Into Deepest
Space" by Geoffrey Hoyle, 1974.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eba2e1bc-e9e2-4a7c-b64a-8f0c263f237a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413307 |
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:05:27 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15/03/2017 9:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 4:33:57 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> >> Op 5/03/2017 om 1:42 schreef Sylvia Else:
> >>> On 5/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If you go back to the talk pages in archive 14 you'll see some
> >>>> animations I made around that time.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is apparently, according to Dirk Van de Moortel, NO
> >>>> LITERATURE in peer-reviewed journals that actually shows the
> >>>> Lorentz Transformations actually done so that the spacetime
> >>>> diagram is shown in the three frames.
> >>
> >> I've always found it surprising anyway, what little graphical
> >> effort is put in "officialish" publications ...
> >>
> >>>> Therefore any animation or discussion of what the
> >>>> two-dimensional spacetime diagram would look like from the
> >>>> perspective of the traveling twin during any moment of their
> >>>> travels is forbidden to be discussed in the article.
> >>
> >> ... that's why I've tried to do so in mine*, with the little basic
> >> tools I had. The different standpoints of home and travelling twins
> >> are one important aspect; the difference between calculation
> >> results ("pure" Lorentz) and actually seeing things (as light
> >> reaches the observer from different events) another. And the
> >> graphical possibilities to visualize all this, of course.
> >>
> >> * http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm
> >>
> >>>> Without that option to actually show the spacetime diagram in
> >>>> the rest frame of the outbound twin, the inbound twin, and the
> >>>> stay-at-home twin, the explanations tend to really give the
> >>>> impression that the traveling twin has no other data about
> >>>> what happened except, that their clock reads a smaller change
> >>>> than the stay-at-home twin.
> >>
> >> And a mistaken impression it is ;-)
> >>
> >>>> But this would of course not be the most notable thing that
> >>>> occurred during the twin's journey. For the twin, surely, the
> >>>> thing that would blow his mind during the journey would be the
> >>>> fact that during his turnaround, the image of the earth
> >>>> (indeed, for all intents and purposes, the earth itself) jumps
> >>>> back an enormous distance.
> >>
> >> That's precisely a result that struck me as odd and has left me
> >> half perplex ever since. So I mention it specially, look for <<
> >> after his instant maneuver, the hometwin appears to have got at a
> >> different, greater distance (now in the homebound system, and
> >> corresponding there to an "earlier" event) (*) [...] (*) This came
> >> as a surprise even to me. Imagine [...]
> >>>>
> >> under heading "Relasee, TP-wise".
> >>
> >
> > Well, it is no wonder a surprise, though, don't you think?
> > Consideration of the distance to events and images in the frame of
> > reference of the outbound twin, and the inbound twin, largely seems
> > to be ignored by the mainstream. While there is a bit of interest in
> > where events are "now" by Paul Anderson and Mike Fontenot, they get
> > somewhat into the mainstream, because 'where things are now'
> > demonstrates Lorentz Contraction.
> >
> > But asking "where was it when it produced the image" doesn't get
> > published. So even when MIT created their very nice demonstration "A
> > Slower Speed of Light" though it shows very clearly, when you're
> > running around the environment at 99% of the speed of light, that the
> > images of objects definitely do appear to recede when you accelerate
> > toward them, they do not offer any sort of explanation or mention of
> > this phenomenon in their information about the program.
> >
> > I gather, that's because there's simply no papers on the topic.
> >
> >>> The image of the Earth would do nothing unusual other than
> >>> changing from being somewhat red to somewhat blue. In particular,
> >>> it would not jump.
> >>>
> >>> However, the observer's changed velocity relative to the Earth
> >>> would mean that the *calculated* position of the Earth in the
> >>> observer's frame would abruptly change, as would the calculated
> >>> time on Earth.
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> Though the calculational observation would result in some change
> >> in distance during the turnaround:
> >> http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/RelatyTravtwin2.PNG
> >> (distance changes from DB to EB, even passing through a "rest
> >> distance" value, but EB returning to same value as DB in the
> >> symmetrical case)
> >>
> >> it is nothing like the big jump occurring during the actual "image"
> >> or "seeing" observation:
> >> http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/TravtwinSee%20pt-of-vw.PNG
> >> (Seeing observation of home-twin according to travelling twin, ie,
> >> with his reference axes, outbound and inbound axes collapsed in a
> >> single system.
> >
> >
> > I have independent confirmation of the left-hand half of this
> > diagram.
> >
> > Please watch this:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_csFp-QZGg&lc=z13ffv3xnmjxifj5304cjprgur3wwzez42c
> >
> > At about 8:30 in the video I construct a "Noninertial Rest Frame"
> > But instead of constructing it by erasing events above and below the
> > line of simultaneity, it is constructed by erasing events above and
> > below the past light cone of the traveling observer.
> >
> > This preserves all of the events in the space, so that each event is
> > represented only once.
> >
> >
> >> Left: as spacetime events. Right: as instant perception at every
> >> moment of traveller's time). Rv- : home twin, or Earth, "image"
> >> just before return event; Rv+ : home twin, or Earth, "image" just
> >> after return event: see the jump!
> >>
> >> -- guido wugi
> >
> > Yes. Your Rv- and Rv+ is represented in this animation as event F.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox/Archive_14#/media/File:Lorentz_Transformations_of_Twin_Paradox_Minkowski_Diagram.gif
> >
> > Thank you for responding. It is really nice to have a response from
> > someone who has has done some of the same modeling.
> >
> > Jonathan Doolin
> >
>
> It has long been known that the faster you go, the narrower your forward
> field of view, and the wider your backward field of view, with respect
> to things that are moving relative to you [*]. Things that are behind
> you and off to the side, can appear to be in front of you, off to the
> side, because although your motion does not affect the relative speed of
> light, it does alter its relative direction.
>
> Since the images of the objects in front of you are effectively squeezed
> by your narrower field of view, you may construe them as looking further
> away. However, if you made due allowance for the effects of your speed
> on the direction of light impinging one you, then you wouldn't reach
> such a conclusion.
>
> Sylvia.
>
> [*] This effect was used in the science fiction novel "Into Deepest
> Space" by Geoffrey Hoyle, 1974.
I think what you're describing here is essentially Lorentz Ether Theory... I might be mistaken, but isn't LET the theory that has a universal rest frame, but is mathematically equivalent to Special Relativity in every way?
Then when you are moving relative to the absolute rest frame, then you should make "due allowance for the effects of your speed on the direction of light impinging one you"
The only thing I would ask, though... If we should make due allowance for our own speed, what speed should we use? I guess the general agreement among astronomers is to use something called J2000.0 coordinates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system
But before that, they used B1950.0 and B1900.0 coordinates. Which one then is the "correct" stationary reference frame?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oamtma$sgu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413307 |
Op 19/03/2017 om 3:05 schreef Sylvia Else: > It has long been known that the faster you go, the narrower your forward > field of view, and the wider your backward field of view, with respect > to things that are moving relative to you [*]. Things that are behind Yes but *knowing* and *showing* things is not the same, and not always equally shared by a so-called mainstream mind. And yet, tackling the showing (visuals) aspect may prevent one from giving wrong descriptions of what's going on. > you and off to the side, can appear to be in front of you, off to the > side, because although your motion does not affect the relative speed of > light, it does alter its relative direction. That's not the right explanation I'd say. You are NOT seeing a thing *where it is at the moment of your seeing it* (eg, sideways behind you) though with some altered direction of light signals due to your motion (so that it appears sideways in front of you), BUT you are seeing a thing right *where it was at the moment when the light left it*, the very light that reaches your seeing eyes right now. So, at any moment you're seeing a thing in a previous position corresponding with a past moment of its existence. See my "squad" example elsewhere in this thread, or here, an example with a single "front" line of such a squad, at approach: http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/frontline1.PNG bold dot = observer line of black dots = present position green lines = "seeing" experiences in past and (rightmost) at present. The same front line after passing by: http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/frontline2.PNG (green and red stand for doppler shift of colors, at approach and at recession) -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7L-dncyNevYPv1LFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413380 |
On 3/19/17 3/19/17 4:38 PM, wugi wrote: > You are NOT seeing a thing *where it is at the moment of your seeing it* (eg, > sideways behind you) though with some altered direction of light signals due to > your motion (so that it appears sideways in front of you), > BUT > you are seeing a thing right *where it was at the moment when the light left > it*, the very light that reaches your seeing eyes right now. Sort of, but not really. We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the light we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the direction in which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at the time of emission. This effect varies in magnitude with both your speed relative to the objects being observed, AND their locations relative to you at the instant of observation. The distortions in what we see, as Sylvia discussed, are large and cannot be neglected. At high speeds, the image of the sky is NOT an accurate representation of where the stars and galaxies actually are located. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-19 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aa06697-7fa2-4976-b528-43af6dad2fd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413389 |
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 5:30:16 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > ... when one is traveling at an appreciable fraction of c, aberration > cannot be neglected, and the light we observe from an object is NOT > an accurate indication of the direction in which it is located at the > time of reception, or where it was located at the time of emission. Aberration is a Galilean phenomenon. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 00:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eff83b2-3384-49dc-8d92-2739ed195c18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413389 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 20 marca 2017 01:30:16 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore the > aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies in the > direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at an > appreciable fraction of c And when one is walking a street, he sees treese and buildings running around him. A relativistic moron imagined!!! It must be the truth!!! BTW, your Shit forbids talking the way you do. You should specify what one is travelling relative to. But, of course, you're a moron ignoring your Shit rules as well as common sense rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9fce699-a432-4bb0-8e4f-93a091dcfa31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413389 |
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/19/17 3/19/17 4:38 PM, wugi wrote: > > You are NOT seeing a thing *where it is at the moment of your seeing it* (eg, > > sideways behind you) though with some altered direction of light signals due to > > your motion (so that it appears sideways in front of you), > > BUT > > you are seeing a thing right *where it was at the moment when the light left > > it*, the very light that reaches your seeing eyes right now. > > Sort of, but not really. > > We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore the > aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies in the > direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at an > appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the light we > observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the direction in which > it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at the time of > emission. The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is that when we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of the direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our current reference frame. What I think you're saying here, Tom, is that we were not in our current reference frame a billion years ago when that event actually took place, and if we used that reference frame where we were a billion years ago, it would not match the current observed coordinates of the event. Of course that's true, but it's not an argument against what Guido and I are saying. We have no choice in the matter except to use our current reference frame, when we make measurements, and within the context of our current reference frame, the distant events actually occurred in the distant past, in the positions where they are observed. > This effect varies in magnitude with both your speed relative to the > objects being observed, AND their locations relative to you at the instant of > observation. > > The distortions in what we see, as Sylvia discussed, are large and cannot be > neglected. At high speeds, the image of the sky is NOT an accurate > representation of where the stars and galaxies actually are located. > > Tom Roberts While correction to J2000.0 coordinates may correct for blur, it should not be considered to correct for error. The past coordinates of the stars are genuinely moving in our perspective. It is not some illusion that is created by lenses, which create an image in a position that is not occupied by the object. It is a direct view of the object, in the location where it actually was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YYWdndtFD9Tp0UzFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413445 |
On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore >> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies >> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at >> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the light >> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the direction in >> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at >> the time of emission. > > The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is that when > we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of the > direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our current > reference frame. But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are traveling with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you are looking at. I had understood you were attempting to describe how things would look to the traveling twin, who does travel with speed an appreciable fraction of c. > What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at speeds an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in what you SEE. A light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point back to where the object is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). To determine its actual direction you must first correct for aberration. For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 arcsec. and of concern only for precision astronomy. But for speeds approaching c the error in angle can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars at your side will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars behind you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. > It is a direct view of the object, in the location where it actually > was. Nope -- the ray you see does NOT point back to where the object is or was. You cannot ignore aberration. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 18:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oarpin$1mks$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413549 |
Op 21/03/2017 om 16:53 schreef Tom Roberts: > On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore >>> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it >>> lies >>> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is >>> traveling at >>> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the >>> light >>> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the >>> direction in >>> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at >>> the time of emission. >> >> The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is >> that when >> we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of >> the >> direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our current >> reference frame. > > But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are > traveling with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you > are looking at. I had understood you were attempting to describe how > things would look to the traveling twin, who does travel with speed an > appreciable fraction of c. > >> What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] > > No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at > speeds an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in > what you SEE. A light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point > back to where the object is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). To > determine its actual direction you must first correct for aberration. And how to determine its very previous direction, when the light left it? > For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 arcsec. and of concern only > for precision astronomy. But for speeds approaching c the error in angle > can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars at your side > will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars behind > you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. I don't see the problem, it is exactly what we said, and what you can see in my and wiki's diagrams: http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/frontline2.PNG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XYCoordinates.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/SphereAberration01.gif -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 17:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejekstFfs4mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #413558 |
On 22/03/2017 4:59 AM, wugi wrote: > Op 21/03/2017 om 16:53 schreef Tom Roberts: >> On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>>> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually >>>> ignore >>>> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it >>>> lies >>>> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is >>>> traveling at >>>> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the >>>> light >>>> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the >>>> direction in >>>> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was >>>> located at >>>> the time of emission. >>> >>> The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is >>> that when >>> we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of >>> the >>> direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our >>> current >>> reference frame. >> >> But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are >> traveling with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you >> are looking at. I had understood you were attempting to describe how >> things would look to the traveling twin, who does travel with speed an >> appreciable fraction of c. >> >>> What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] >> >> No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at >> speeds an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in >> what you SEE. A light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point >> back to where the object is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). To >> determine its actual direction you must first correct for aberration. > > And how to determine its very previous direction, when the light left it? > >> For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 arcsec. and of concern only >> for precision astronomy. But for speeds approaching c the error in angle >> can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars at your side >> will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars behind >> you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. > > I don't see the problem, it is exactly what we said, and what you can > see in my and wiki's diagrams: It's hard to see how it can be exactly what you said. An object that is, and always has been, behind you based on your direction of travel, can appear to be in front of you, which is a direction it never occupied. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oatjbv$lia$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413652 |
Op 22/03/2017 om 7:45 schreef Sylvia Else: > On 22/03/2017 4:59 AM, wugi wrote: >> Op 21/03/2017 om 16:53 schreef Tom Roberts: >>> On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>>>> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually >>>>> ignore >>>>> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it >>>>> lies >>>>> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is >>>>> traveling at >>>>> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the >>>>> light >>>>> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the >>>>> direction in >>>>> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was >>>>> located at >>>>> the time of emission. >>>> >>>> The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is >>>> that when >>>> we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of >>>> the >>>> direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our >>>> current >>>> reference frame. >>> >>> But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are >>> traveling with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you >>> are looking at. I had understood you were attempting to describe how >>> things would look to the traveling twin, who does travel with speed an >>> appreciable fraction of c. >>> >>>> What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] >>> >>> No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at >>> speeds an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in >>> what you SEE. A light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point >>> back to where the object is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). To >>> determine its actual direction you must first correct for aberration. >> >> And how to determine its very previous direction, when the light left it? >> >>> For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 arcsec. and of concern only >>> for precision astronomy. But for speeds approaching c the error in angle >>> can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars at your side >>> will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars behind >>> you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. >> >> I don't see the problem, it is exactly what we said, and what you can >> see in my and wiki's diagrams: > > It's hard to see how it can be exactly what you said. An object that is, > and always has been, behind you based on your direction of travel, can > appear to be in front of you, which is a direction it never occupied. Ah but this is not what I said, neither what I think "aberration" says. The object has indeed been in front of you, esp. at the time it emitted the light you see just now, even if by now it is behind you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#/media/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif (there seems to be some confusion between what is "behind" and what is "in front", depending on the descriptions: observer moving among the rain or the stars; or "lines" or "squads" or "spheres" moving toward, passing by, and away from the observer). BTW for J.Doolin: in this picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/SphereAberration01.gif I would think that the "latitude parallels" shown here don't represent those of the sphere itself, as they themselves would be deformed too. -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fb6d5c3-8d9f-49c6-a66d-07fe65216589@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413672 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 5:24:02 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > Op 22/03/2017 om 7:45 schreef Sylvia Else: > > On 22/03/2017 4:59 AM, wugi wrote: > >> Op 21/03/2017 om 16:53 schreef Tom Roberts: > >>> On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >>>>> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually > >>>>> ignore > >>>>> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it > >>>>> lies > >>>>> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is > >>>>> traveling at > >>>>> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the > >>>>> light > >>>>> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the > >>>>> direction in > >>>>> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was > >>>>> located at > >>>>> the time of emission. > >>>> > >>>> The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is > >>>> that when > >>>> we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of > >>>> the > >>>> direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our > >>>> current > >>>> reference frame. > >>> > >>> But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are > >>> traveling with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you > >>> are looking at. I had understood you were attempting to describe how > >>> things would look to the traveling twin, who does travel with speed an > >>> appreciable fraction of c. > >>> > >>>> What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] > >>> > >>> No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at > >>> speeds an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in > >>> what you SEE. A light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point > >>> back to where the object is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). To > >>> determine its actual direction you must first correct for aberration. > >> > >> And how to determine its very previous direction, when the light left it? > >> > >>> For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 arcsec. and of concern only > >>> for precision astronomy. But for speeds approaching c the error in angle > >>> can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars at your side > >>> will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars behind > >>> you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. > >> > >> I don't see the problem, it is exactly what we said, and what you can > >> see in my and wiki's diagrams: > > > > It's hard to see how it can be exactly what you said. An object that is, > > and always has been, behind you based on your direction of travel, can > > appear to be in front of you, which is a direction it never occupied. > > Ah but this is not what I said, neither what I think "aberration" says. > The object has indeed been in front of you, esp. at the time it emitted > the light you see just now, even if by now it is behind you: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#/media/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif > (there seems to be some confusion between what is "behind" and what is > "in front", depending on the descriptions: observer moving among the > rain or the stars; or "lines" or "squads" or "spheres" moving toward, > passing by, and away from the observer). > > BTW for J.Doolin: > in this picture > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/SphereAberration01.gif > I would think that the "latitude parallels" shown here don't represent > those of the sphere itself, as they themselves would be deformed too. > > -- > guido wugi I hadn't given that any thought... You're thinking where the grid of a an inertial coordinate system meets the sphere... Think about how the grid goes through the interior of the sphere, versus how it meets the exterior of the sphere. Through the interior of the sphere, it would be distorted, but where it meets the exterior of the sphere, it would form parallel latitudes. What I can't tell for sure is whether the animator properly modeled how the lines would "bunch up" as the sphere passed the origin. It looks to me like a standard skinnning algorithm was probably used for generating the latitude lines, so the "bunching" isn't modeled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9373a318-88df-47b7-b27d-d0442fbaf74e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413549 |
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:53:30 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/20/17, 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > ... when we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate > > indication of the direction in which it WAS located at the time of > > emission, in our current reference frame. > > But it DOES NOT DO THAT, Yes, but aberration is a phenomenon well understood under Newtonian or Galilean mechanics. You are just behaving like a shaman promoting a pagan religion by pitching that SR and GR own aberration. You are nothing but a usurper of science. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 19:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejer23Fgvf7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #413658 |
On 22/03/2017 6:26 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:53:30 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 3/20/17, 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >>> ... when we see light from distant stars, it gives us an >>> accurate indication of the direction in which it WAS located at >>> the time of emission, in our current reference frame. >> >> But it DOES NOT DO THAT, > > Yes, but aberration is a phenomenon well understood under Newtonian > or Galilean mechanics. You are just behaving like a shaman promoting > a pagan religion by pitching that SR and GR own aberration. You are > nothing but a usurper of science. <shrug> > I can't see anything to suggest that Tom considers that SR and GR "own" aberration. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efa04bad-0fa7-4292-9902-3bfd93c6a4f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413662 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 3:31:02 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/03/2017 6:26 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 8:53:30 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 3/20/17, 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > >>> ... when we see light from distant stars, it gives us an > >>> accurate indication of the direction in which it WAS located at > >>> the time of emission, in our current reference frame. > >> > >> But it DOES NOT DO THAT, > > > > Yes, but aberration is a phenomenon well understood under Newtonian > > or Galilean mechanics. You are just behaving like a shaman promoting > > a pagan religion by pitching that SR and GR own aberration. You are > > nothing but a usurper of science. <shrug> > > > > I can't see anything to suggest that Tom considers that SR and GR "own" > aberration. > > Sylvia. He said aberration is a distortion that needs to be corrected, and that it is only of interest to precision astronomers, and the event did not actually take place where it is observed. My impression was this was more "disowning" aberration, than "owning" it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5efd33c6-feb6-42ab-8e17-9720b65ddaee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413549 |
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore > >> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies > >> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at > >> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the light > >> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the direction in > >> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at > >> the time of emission. > > > > The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is that when > > we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of the > > direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our current > > reference frame. You seem to have a correct sense of what one observes, but your description of the phenomena uses a lot of words that presuppose a preferred reference frame. I will run down through some of your statements... fixing this nuance so that a fixed "correct" reference frame is not treated as given. > > But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are traveling > with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you are looking at. Two items that I would fix here. (1) Error - replace with "phenomenon" (2) relative to the stars you are looking at - should be, "relative to how fast we, ourselves were moving on January 1, 2000. Relativistic Nuance: "The phenomenon can be quite large, if you accelerate by an appreciable rapidity." > I > had understood you were attempting to describe how things would look to the > traveling twin, who does travel with speed an appreciable fraction of c. > > > What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] > > No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at speeds > an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in what you SEE. Again, our disagreement here is in the nuance of your statement, rather than a difference in our expectations of observational phenomena. We both agree that stellar aberration happens, and cannot be neglected. We both agree that if you don't take it into account as earth goes around in its orbit, and satellites and probes gather information from other positions in the solar system, you will find that the positions of the stars don't quite match up. However, whereas you call this a "distortion" because some of the measurements were taken while the earth was moving, and some were taken while the earth was sitting still, I would say that the selection of J2000.0 coordinates was just a convention. We're not "correcting" an "error" but rather, "selecting" a synchronization point. > A > light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point back to where the object > is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). Both "now" and "when it emitted the ray" are terms that require us to establish some convention by which we agree on mapping the isoclines of constant time (simultaneity) When I say, "where the object was when it emitted the ray" I mean to use isoclines of constant time according to an hypothetical array of synchronized inertial clocks that are momentarily comoving with myself. But of course, in your conceptualization, where coordinates of time and space are mere labels, I agree that there would be no trouble at all in relabeling the isoclines of time according to some arbitrary convention, which would render "now" and "when" isoclines of time so those measures do not reflect actual distances and times. You can label those events correctly as 2000.0 coordinates or 1950.0 coordinates, or you can completely mislabel those coordinates But either system of labeling does not prevent them from moving with respect to your momentarily comoving reference frame. > To determine its actual direction you > must first correct for aberration. For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 > arcsec. and of concern only for precision astronomy. Yes, it is about 20 arc-seconds. And yes, that 20 arcseconds moves everything in the same direction, sweeping forward the stars in the direction of earth's motion around the sun. It would be a phenomenon that is detectable with a finely tuned sextant, but not with a telescope. It changes angles between certain stars from, 90 degrees to 90 degrees, 0 arc-minutes, and 20 arc-seconds. Yes, it is very small. But it is also very predictable, and it is exactly what we expect from modeling with Lorentz Transformations, with earth's velocity of 30,000 m/s around the sun. >But for speeds approaching > c the error in angle can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars > at your side will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars > behind you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. > Light from stars that were behind you is now coming from in front of you. Quite right. Let's consider this for a moment, though... Let's say, that you have a star A at 12 o'clock, And star B at 4 o'clock. (to your right, and slightly behind you.) Now, you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs. Star A will pull away from you, but remain at 12:00, while Star B gets aberrated.. Say you pull it up to around 1:00. Now, you want to adjust your speed so that you can make it to star B. Should you turn 30 degrees, and go toward the image at 1 o'clock? Or should you turn 120 degrees, and go toward where the image was before you accelerated? I think you will have much more success reaching star B if you accelerate toward the image of star B. > > It is a direct view of the object, in the location where it actually > > was. > > Nope -- the ray you see does NOT point back to where the object is or was. You > cannot ignore aberration. > > Tom Roberts The ray you see points from where the object was, and if you keep following that ray, from where it came, you'll eventually find the object. This aberration effect is not an illusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f116e54c-08fb-4998-80cf-0de899714dc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413686 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:49:59 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 3/20/17 3/20/17 - 10:59 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > >> We are used to speeds very much smaller than c, and we habitually ignore > > >> the aberration of light. So we ASSUME that when we see an object, it lies > > >> in the direction of the light we see from it. But when one is traveling at > > >> an appreciable fraction of c, aberration cannot be neglected, and the light > > >> we observe from an object is NOT an accurate indication of the direction in > > >> which it is located at the time of reception, or where it was located at > > >> the time of emission. > > > > > > The point that guido wugi and I are agreeing on, here, I think, is that when > > > we see light from distant stars, it gives us an accurate indication of the > > > direction in which it WAS located at the time of emission, in our current > > > reference frame. > > You seem to have a correct sense of what one observes, but your description of the phenomena uses a lot of words that presuppose a preferred reference frame. > > I will run down through some of your statements... fixing this nuance so that a fixed "correct" reference frame is not treated as given. > > > > > > But it DOES NOT DO THAT, and the error can be quite large if you are traveling > > with an appreciable fraction of c relative to the stars you are looking at. > > Two items that I would fix here. > (1) Error - replace with "phenomenon" > (2) relative to the stars you are looking at - should be, "relative to how fast we, ourselves were moving on January 1, 2000. > > Relativistic Nuance: "The phenomenon can be quite large, if you accelerate by an appreciable rapidity." > > > > > I > > had understood you were attempting to describe how things would look to the > > traveling twin, who does travel with speed an appreciable fraction of c. > > > > > What I think you're saying here, Tom, is [... completely wrong] > > > > No. I'm saying that aberration is important, and cannot be neglected at speeds > > an appreciable fraction of c. This causes a gross distortion in what you SEE. > > Again, our disagreement here is in the nuance of your statement, rather than a difference in our expectations of observational phenomena. > > We both agree that stellar aberration happens, and cannot be neglected. We both agree that if you don't take it into account as earth goes around in its orbit, and satellites and probes gather information from other positions in the solar system, you will find that the positions of the stars don't quite match up. > > However, whereas you call this a "distortion" because some of the measurements were taken while the earth was moving, and some were taken while the earth was sitting still, I would say that the selection of J2000.0 coordinates was just a convention. We're not "correcting" an "error" but rather, "selecting" a synchronization point. > > > > A > > light ray you see from a distant object does NOT point back to where the object > > is (now) or was (when it emitted the ray). > > > Both "now" and "when it emitted the ray" are terms that require us to establish some convention by which we agree on mapping the isoclines of constant time (simultaneity) > > When I say, "where the object was when it emitted the ray" I mean to use isoclines of constant time according to an hypothetical array of synchronized inertial clocks that are momentarily comoving with myself. > > But of course, in your conceptualization, where coordinates of time and space are mere labels, I agree that there would be no trouble at all in relabeling the isoclines of time according to some arbitrary convention, which would render "now" and "when" isoclines of time so those measures do not reflect actual distances and times. > > You can label those events correctly as 2000.0 coordinates or 1950.0 coordinates, or you can completely mislabel those coordinates But either system of labeling does not prevent them from moving with respect to your momentarily comoving reference frame. > > > > > > To determine its actual direction you > > must first correct for aberration. For earth's orbital velocity this is only 20 > > arcsec. and of concern only for precision astronomy. > > Yes, it is about 20 arc-seconds. > > And yes, that 20 arcseconds moves everything in the same direction, sweeping forward the stars in the direction of earth's motion around the sun. It would be a phenomenon that is detectable with a finely tuned sextant, but not with a telescope. > > It changes angles between certain stars from, 90 degrees to 90 degrees, 0 arc-minutes, and 20 arc-seconds. > > Yes, it is very small. But it is also very predictable, and it is exactly what we expect from modeling with Lorentz Transformations, with earth's velocity of 30,000 m/s around the sun. > > >But for speeds approaching > > c the error in angle can approach 180 degrees, and the light emitted from stars > > at your side will arrive from in front of you; even light emitted from stars > > behind you can APPEAR to come from in front of you. > > > > Light from stars that were behind you is now coming from in front of you. Quite right. > > Let's consider this for a moment, though... > > Let's say, that you have a star A at 12 o'clock, And star B at 4 o'clock. (to your right, and slightly behind you.) > > Now, you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs. Star A will pull away from you, but remain at 12:00, while Star B gets aberrated.. Say you pull it up to around 1:00. > > Now, you want to adjust your speed so that you can make it to star B. > > Should you turn 30 degrees, and go toward the image at 1 o'clock? > > Or should you turn 120 degrees, and go toward where the image was before you accelerated? > > I think you will have much more success reaching star B if you accelerate toward the image of star B. > > Oops. I'm sorry. I'm mixing scenarios... If the star was originally stationary, then of course, you'll need to turn something like 120 degrees, or even more, and my argument really doesn't work at all. The scenario I was thinking of is where all the stars in the scenario are already moving away from you according to Hubble's Law. In that case, accelerating toward a receding star only reduces the speed at which it is receding. So having it aberrate to the 1:00 position means you may still need to accelerate toward the one o'clock direction. > > > It is a direct view of the object, in the location where it actually > > > was. > > > > Nope -- the ray you see does NOT point back to where the object is or was. You > > cannot ignore aberration. > > > > Tom Roberts > > > The ray you see points from where the object was, and if you keep following that ray, from where it came, you'll eventually find the object. This aberration effect is not an illusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30f39b03-bc26-4490-90a7-94ff72feb7bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413690 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > Light from stars that were behind you is now coming from in front of you. Quite right. > > > > Let's consider this for a moment, though... > > > > Let's say, that you have a star A at 12 o'clock, And star B at 4 o'clock. (to your right, and slightly behind you.) > > > > Now, you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs. Star A will pull away from you, but remain at 12:00, while Star B gets aberrated.. Say you pull it up to around 1:00. > > > > Now, you want to adjust your speed so that you can make it to star B. > > > > Should you turn 30 degrees, and go toward the image at 1 o'clock? > > > > Or should you turn 120 degrees, and go toward where the image was before you accelerated? > > > > I think you will have much more success reaching star B if you accelerate toward the image of star B. > > > > > > Oops. I'm sorry. > > I'm mixing scenarios... > > If the star was originally stationary, then of course, you'll need to turn something like 120 degrees, or even more, and my argument really doesn't work at all. > > The scenario I was thinking of is where all the stars in the scenario are already moving away from you according to Hubble's Law. In that case, accelerating toward a receding star only reduces the speed at which it is receding. So having it aberrate to the 1:00 position means you may still need to accelerate toward the one o'clock direction. > > Oops again. No. Still doesn't work. You can't get to a receding star by accelerating away from it. You can go toward where it WAS when the star emitted the light. And what is amazing is that where it was at emission does indeed swing around in front of you. However, It's the PAST position of the star that swings around in front of you. But the image of that star will be approaching superluminally, and if you want to get to it, you should turn 120 degrees or more to get where the star will be when you catch it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D2CB96.3DAB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413704 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > Light from stars that were behind you is now coming from in front of you. Quite right. > > > > > > Let's consider this for a moment, though... > > > > > > Let's say, that you have a star A at 12 o'clock, And star B at 4 o'clock. (to your right, and slightly behind you.) > > > > > > Now, you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs. Star A will pull away from you, but remain at 12:00, while Star B gets aberrated.. Say you pull it up to around 1:00. > > > > > > Now, you want to adjust your speed so that you can make it to star B. > > > > > > Should you turn 30 degrees, and go toward the image at 1 o'clock? > > > > > > Or should you turn 120 degrees, and go toward where the image was before you accelerated? > > > > > > I think you will have much more success reaching star B if you accelerate toward the image of star B. > > > > > > > > > > Oops. I'm sorry. > > > > I'm mixing scenarios... > > > > If the star was originally stationary, then of course, you'll need to turn something like 120 degrees, or even more, and my argument really doesn't work at all. > > > > The scenario I was thinking of is where all the stars in the scenario are already moving away from you according to Hubble's Law. In that case, accelerating toward a receding star only reduces the speed at which it is receding. So having it aberrate to the 1:00 position means you may still need to accelerate toward the one o'clock direction. > > > > > > Oops again. No. Still doesn't work. > > You can't get to a receding star by accelerating away from it. You can go toward where it WAS when the star emitted the light. And what is amazing is that where it was at emission does indeed swing around in front of you. > > However, It's the PAST position of the star that swings around in front of you. But the image of that star will be approaching superluminally, and if you want to get to it, you should turn 120 degrees or more to get where the star will be when you catch it. Oops??? If a doctor is operating on me and he says..."Oops. I'm sorry.," , "Oops again. No. Still doesn't work.", I want that doctor ...dead! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b632f06f-25ee-4e5e-80d1-4cc1a45f76b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413741 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:07:59 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 8:17:10 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > Light from stars that were behind you is now coming from in front of you. Quite right. > > > > > > > > Let's consider this for a moment, though... > > > > > > > > Let's say, that you have a star A at 12 o'clock, And star B at 4 o'clock. (to your right, and slightly behind you.) > > > > > > > > Now, you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs. Star A will pull away from you, but remain at 12:00, while Star B gets aberrated.. Say you pull it up to around 1:00. > > > > > > > > Now, you want to adjust your speed so that you can make it to star B. > > > > > > > > Should you turn 30 degrees, and go toward the image at 1 o'clock? > > > > > > > > Or should you turn 120 degrees, and go toward where the image was before you accelerated? > > > > > > > > I think you will have much more success reaching star B if you accelerate toward the image of star B. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops. I'm sorry. > > > > > > I'm mixing scenarios... > > > > > > If the star was originally stationary, then of course, you'll need to turn something like 120 degrees, or even more, and my argument really doesn't work at all. > > > > > > The scenario I was thinking of is where all the stars in the scenario are already moving away from you according to Hubble's Law. In that case, accelerating toward a receding star only reduces the speed at which it is receding. So having it aberrate to the 1:00 position means you may still need to accelerate toward the one o'clock direction. > > > > > > > > > > Oops again. No. Still doesn't work. > > > > You can't get to a receding star by accelerating away from it. You can go toward where it WAS when the star emitted the light. And what is amazing is that where it was at emission does indeed swing around in front of you. > > > > However, It's the PAST position of the star that swings around in front of you. But the image of that star will be approaching superluminally, and if you want to get to it, you should turn 120 degrees or more to get where the star will be when you catch it. > > > > Oops??? > > > If a doctor is operating on me and he says..."Oops. I'm sorry.," , "Oops again. No. Still doesn't work.", > > > I want that doctor ...dead! > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus It's interesting that you're interest in murdering doctors goes up when they acknowledge and correct their mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web