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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 02:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6647de37-5183-4ac7-a6d7-d4be1debeb62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414602 |
On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:34:01 AM UTC+2, Deon Joubert wrote: > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 6:34:47 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 3/30/17 3/30/17 11:27 AM, Deon Joubert wrote: > > > The process of acceleration slows time down. So it doesn't matter who goes > > > where, when you accelerate, your clock slows, if you decelerate, it speeds > > > up. > > > > This is just plain not true. Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? > > > > Tom Roberts > > Tom, isn't it true that if you accelerate, time goes slower and slower? If you accelerate your time frame changes? If you go faster it slows, if you stop accelerating it remains constant? Doesn't that imply that the acceleration alters how you experience time? A spaceship leaves it's parking bay on earth, accelerates to near the speed of light travels for two days and comes back. On earth, a lot more time has passed. For the spaceship only two days has passed. Now that it is parked in the spaceship bay, next to Einstein's elevator, it is experiencing the same time as the parking bay. How did it's clock change in relation to the one at the parking bay? It accelerated. How did it get back to the same time reference as the parking bay? It decelerated. This link is related to what I am saying: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3660/1/Tirp.rtwa4.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 21:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g4OdnVFhKcszjkLFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #414602 |
On 3/31/17 3/31/17 2:33 AM, Deon Joubert wrote: > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 6:34:47 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 3/30/17 3/30/17 11:27 AM, Deon Joubert wrote: >>> The process of acceleration slows time down. So it doesn't matter who >>> goes where, when you accelerate, your clock slows, if you decelerate, it >>> speeds up. >> >> This is just plain not true. Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is >> true? >> >> Tom Roberts > > Tom, isn't it true that if you accelerate, time goes slower and slower? No. But if you started from an inertial frame, then an observer in that frame would measure [#] your clock as successively going slower and slower as you accelerate. You, on the other hand, would observe your clock just ticking as usual, both during and after your acceleration. [#] she must measure it correctly, of course. This is non-trivial. NOTE: This seems to be a rather confused attempt to describe the twin paradox of SR, so I neglect gravity. > If > you accelerate your time frame changes? Your FRAME changes; there is no such thing as "time frame" [%] -- a frame consists of three spatial and 1 temporal coordinates. Normally "frame" implies the coordinates are mutually orthogonal, which can happen only if it is an inertial frame (when using standard clocks and rulers to define the coordinates). [%] In ordinary speech "time frame" means a period of time, not a reference frame. In physics we often abbreviate "reference frame" to "frame", and we both do that here. Note that physics in general and SR in particular are SUBTLE, and you MUST learn the vocabulary in order to discuss it intelligently; precision in thought and word is absolutely essential. > If you go faster it slows, if you > stop accelerating it remains constant? Doesn't that imply that the > acceleration alters how you experience time? No! None of that is correct. You experience NO CHANGE in how time flows for you. It is OTHER OBSERVERS who see your clock ticking more slowly than their own [#]. It is NOT the acceleration that causes this, but rather your speed relative to an observer's inertial frame. To change inertial frames you must accelerate, but it is the speed difference between your rest frame and the observer's frame that matters, not the acceleration you experienced. > A spaceship leaves it's parking > bay on earth, accelerates to near the speed of light travels for two days and > comes back. On earth, a lot more time has passed. For the spaceship only > two days has passed. Now that it is parked in the spaceship bay, next to > Einstein's elevator, it is experiencing the same time as the parking bay. Yes (close enough). Beware of such loose phrases as "experiencing the same time" -- after it returns the spaceship is again at rest on earth. (Einstein's elevator has nothing whatsoever to do with this.) > How did it's clock change in relation to the one at the parking bay? Its clock did NOT "change", but it does display a different elapsed proper time than the earth clock, because it did travel over a shorter path through spacetime between its leaving and its return. That shorter path has less elapsed proper time. The spaceship's clock displays its elapsed proper time, and the earth clock displays earth's elapsed proper time. These clocks follow different paths between those two events [@]; they have different path lengths between those points; here path length is synonymous with elapsed proper time. [@] the two events are spaceship leaves and spaceship returns. > It > accelerated. How did it get back to the same time reference as the parking > bay? It decelerated. Beware of such loose phrases as "time reference" -- it is just again at rest in earth's frame. Yes, the spaceship accelerated away from earth, accelerated again to turn around, and accelerated (decelerated) again to stop at earth. But as far as elapsed proper time goes, the accelerations only define the path of the spaceship, they DO NOT affect its clock in any way; the total length of the path is what the clock displays, so the path matters. Indeed the spaceship clock never "changes' in any way. That is, both clocks tick at their usual rates, but the spaceship clock experiences less elapsed proper time between those two events [@] than the earth clock. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c0ffd75-044e-4c13-a64b-c4f52b41b25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414688 |
W dniu sobota, 1 kwietnia 2017 04:43:01 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > No! None of that is correct. You experience NO CHANGE in how time flows for you. And walking a street you experience trees and buildings running around you. A relativistic moron imagined!!! A relativistic moron knows!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 01:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <433427ff-c5d4-4ed9-abd7-0257e1a3a31e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414688 |
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:43:01 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/31/17 3/31/17 2:33 AM, Deon Joubert wrote: > > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 6:34:47 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 3/30/17 3/30/17 11:27 AM, Deon Joubert wrote: > >>> The process of acceleration slows time down. So it doesn't matter who > >>> goes where, when you accelerate, your clock slows, if you decelerate, it > >>> speeds up. > >> > >> This is just plain not true. Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is > >> true? > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > Tom, isn't it true that if you accelerate, time goes slower and slower? > > No. But if you started from an inertial frame, then an observer in that frame > would measure [#] your clock as successively going slower and slower as you > accelerate. You, on the other hand, would observe your clock just ticking as > usual, both during and after your acceleration. Yes, because the spaceship accelerated. > > [#] she must measure it correctly, of course. This is non-trivial. > > NOTE: This seems to be a rather confused attempt to describe the twin paradox of > SR, so I neglect gravity. > > > If > > you accelerate your time frame changes? > > Your FRAME changes; there is no such thing as "time frame" [%] -- a frame > consists of three spatial and 1 temporal coordinates. Normally "frame" implies > the coordinates are mutually orthogonal, which can happen only if it is an > inertial frame (when using standard clocks and rulers to define the coordinates). > > [%] In ordinary speech "time frame" means a period of time, > not a reference frame. In physics we often abbreviate "reference > frame" to "frame", and we both do that here. > > Note that physics in general and SR in particular are SUBTLE, and you MUST learn > the vocabulary in order to discuss it intelligently; precision in thought and > word is absolutely essential. > Yeah, sorry - thanks for pointing that out. > > If you go faster it slows, if you > > stop accelerating it remains constant? Doesn't that imply that the > > acceleration alters how you experience time? > > No! None of that is correct. You experience NO CHANGE in how time flows for you. > It is OTHER OBSERVERS who see your clock ticking more slowly than their own [#]. > I am well aware that the spaceship will experience time as usual, nobody was saying that the spaceship pilot will see things in slow motion. > It is NOT the acceleration that causes this, but rather your speed relative to > an observer's inertial frame. To change inertial frames you must accelerate, but > it is the speed difference between your rest frame and the observer's frame that > matters, not the acceleration you experienced. > See, that's where you are wrong. The acceleration has everything to do with it. To achieve a state of time dilation between these two clocks, the one needs to accelerate in a straight line and while it is accelerating, it's time slows down in relation to the other clock. The time dilation is caused by it's acceleration which alters it's inertial frame and it's clock in relation to the parking bay. > > A spaceship leaves it's parking > > bay on earth, accelerates to near the speed of light travels for two days and > > comes back. On earth, a lot more time has passed. For the spaceship only > > two days has passed. Now that it is parked in the spaceship bay, next to > > Einstein's elevator, it is experiencing the same time as the parking bay. > > Yes (close enough). Beware of such loose phrases as "experiencing the same time" > -- after it returns the spaceship is again at rest on earth. > > (Einstein's elevator has nothing whatsoever to do with this.) > > > How did it's clock change in relation to the one at the parking bay? > > Its clock did NOT "change", but it does display a different elapsed proper time I know that and the pilot aged less. > than the earth clock, because it did travel over a shorter path through > spacetime between its leaving and its return. That shorter path has less elapsed > proper time. The spaceship's clock displays its elapsed proper time, and the > earth clock displays earth's elapsed proper time. These clocks follow different > paths between those two events [@]; they have different path lengths between > those points; here path length is synonymous with elapsed proper time. > > [@] the two events are spaceship leaves and spaceship returns. > This is just another way of saying that the spaceship experienced time dilation. > > It > > accelerated. How did it get back to the same time reference as the parking > > bay? It decelerated. > > Beware of such loose phrases as "time reference" -- it is just again at rest in > earth's frame. Yes, the spaceship accelerated away from earth, accelerated again > to turn around, and accelerated (decelerated) again to stop at earth. But as far > as elapsed proper time goes, the accelerations only define the path of the > spaceship, they DO NOT affect its clock in any way; the total length of the path > is what the clock displays, so the path matters. Indeed the spaceship clock > never "changes' in any way. That is, both clocks tick at their usual rates, but > the spaceship clock experiences less elapsed proper time between those two > events [@] than the earth clock. > If it had not accelerated, it would not have experienced time dilation. You can also argue that the parking decelerated in relation to the spaceship and therefore it's relative time sped up. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Domonique Corle <oreuni@wwerwo.co> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obo8bs$6r4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #414697 |
Deon Joubert wrote: > Yes, because the spaceship accelerated. Wrong. YOU accelerate. Or him, or anybody.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <doKdndbX34ZHW0LFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #414697 |
On 4/1/17 4/1/17 3:41 AM, Deon Joubert wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:43:01 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 3/31/17 3/31/17 2:33 AM, Deon Joubert wrote:
>>> Tom, isn't it true that if you accelerate, time goes slower and slower?
>>
>> No. But if you started from an inertial frame, then an observer in that
>> frame would measure [#] your clock as successively going slower and slower
>> as you accelerate. You, on the other hand, would observe your clock just
>> ticking as usual, both during and after your acceleration.
>
> Yes, because the spaceship accelerated.
In this specific case that is so. But in general it is not.
>>> If you go faster it slows, if you stop accelerating it remains constant?
>>> Doesn't that imply that the acceleration alters how you experience time?
>>
>> No! None of that is correct. You experience NO CHANGE in how time flows
>> for you. It is OTHER OBSERVERS who see your clock ticking more slowly than
>> their own [#].
>
> I am well aware that the spaceship will experience time as usual, nobody was
> saying that the spaceship pilot will see things in slow motion.
Yes, YOU DID SAY THAT ("If you go faster [time] slows"). You keep doing this:
using wishy-washy words that apparently don't really reflect what you are
thinking. When discussing subtle concepts like SR, that is a DISASTER.
>> It is NOT the acceleration that causes this, but rather your speed
>> relative to an observer's inertial frame. To change inertial frames you
>> must accelerate, but it is the speed difference between your rest frame and
>> the observer's frame that matters, not the acceleration you experienced.
>
> See, that's where you are wrong.
Nope. You need to read more accurately, and THINK more accurately.
> The acceleration has everything to do with it. To achieve a state of time
> dilation between these two clocks, the one needs to accelerate in a straight
> line and while it is accelerating, it's time slows down in relation to the
> other clock. The time dilation is caused by it's acceleration which alters
> it's inertial frame and it's clock in relation to the parking bay.
"Time dilation" is NOT "caused by acceleration". Indeed the notion "caused by"
is inappropriate. "Time dilation" is just a difference in the way the tick rate
of a clock is measured by different observers. And the VALUE of their different
measurements is related to their relative SPEED, not any acceleration.
In the physical situation you are discussing, it is not possible
to achieve relative speed without the spaceship accelerating.
But there are other scenarios in which "time dilation" applies
but neither clock ever accelerated.
If you look up how "time dilation" is calculated, you'll find the equation
includes relative speed, and has no term related to acceleration.
As I have said many times around here, this "twin scenario" does
not really demonstrate "time dilation". Rather it demonstrates
the geometrical fact that different paths between a given pair
of events (leaving and returning) can have different path
lengths. The comparison of the earth and spaceship clocks at
return depends on the integral of proper time over each clock's
path -- that is path length, not "time dilation".
You must distinguish between "change in a clock" and "change in the value
displayed by a clock". Speaking loosely, the VALUE changed but the clock itself
did not. That _IS_ speaking loosely, because "change" does not really apply to a
difference in values between two different clocks.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 20:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58E081C5.37CA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #414730 |
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> On 4/1/17 4/1/17 3:41 AM, Deon Joubert wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:43:01 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 3/31/17 3/31/17 2:33 AM, Deon Joubert wrote:
> >>> Tom, isn't it true that if you accelerate, time goes slower and slower?
> >>
> >> No. But if you started from an inertial frame, then an observer in that
> >> frame would measure [#] your clock as successively going slower and slower
> >> as you accelerate. You, on the other hand, would observe your clock just
> >> ticking as usual, both during and after your acceleration.
> >
> > Yes, because the spaceship accelerated.
>
> In this specific case that is so. But in general it is not.
>
> >>> If you go faster it slows, if you stop accelerating it remains constant?
> >>> Doesn't that imply that the acceleration alters how you experience time?
> >>
> >> No! None of that is correct. You experience NO CHANGE in how time flows
> >> for you. It is OTHER OBSERVERS who see your clock ticking more slowly than
> >> their own [#].
> >
> > I am well aware that the spaceship will experience time as usual, nobody was
> > saying that the spaceship pilot will see things in slow motion.
>
> Yes, YOU DID SAY THAT ("If you go faster [time] slows"). You keep doing this:
> using wishy-washy words that apparently don't really reflect what you are
> thinking. When discussing subtle concepts like SR, that is a DISASTER.
>
> >> It is NOT the acceleration that causes this, but rather your speed
> >> relative to an observer's inertial frame. To change inertial frames you
> >> must accelerate, but it is the speed difference between your rest frame and
> >> the observer's frame that matters, not the acceleration you experienced.
> >
> > See, that's where you are wrong.
>
> Nope. You need to read more accurately, and THINK more accurately.
>
> > The acceleration has everything to do with it. To achieve a state of time
> > dilation between these two clocks, the one needs to accelerate in a straight
> > line and while it is accelerating, it's time slows down in relation to the
> > other clock. The time dilation is caused by it's acceleration which alters
> > it's inertial frame and it's clock in relation to the parking bay.
>
> "Time dilation" is NOT "caused by acceleration". Indeed the notion "caused by"
> is inappropriate. "Time dilation" is just a difference in the way the tick rate
> of a clock is measured by different observers. And the VALUE of their different
> measurements is related to their relative SPEED, not any acceleration.
>
> In the physical situation you are discussing, it is not possible
> to achieve relative speed without the spaceship accelerating.
> But there are other scenarios in which "time dilation" applies
> but neither clock ever accelerated.
>
> If you look up how "time dilation" is calculated, you'll find the equation
> includes relative speed, and has no term related to acceleration.
>
> As I have said many times around here, this "twin scenario" does
> not really demonstrate "time dilation". Rather it demonstrates
> the geometrical fact that different paths between a given pair
> of events (leaving and returning) can have different path
> lengths. The comparison of the earth and spaceship clocks at
> return depends on the integral of proper time over each clock's
> path -- that is path length, not "time dilation".
>
> You must distinguish between "change in a clock" and "change in the value
> displayed by a clock". Speaking loosely, the VALUE changed but the clock itself
> did not. That _IS_ speaking loosely, because "change" does not really apply to a
> difference in values between two different clocks.
>
> Tom Roberts
The question is...when does the "change" take place?
"when" is the operative word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E1F41E.624E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #414787 |
To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) If you do a search for https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* you'll notice the words: "and returns home" Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 00:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E1F997.401A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #414821 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > If you do a search for > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E22EB3.43E7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #414824 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > If you do a search for > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? The bottom line is, ...the question is: "When did the traveling brother get younger?" Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? Of course I can take it a step further...(but that would just stump you) and that would be... if the traveling bother got younger before he returned home... at what point in time did he get younger??? It had to be between the time, the very second he left, to the point and time he arrived. Even if he got younger *after* he began to "return home", at what point and time did he get...younger??? So, it doesn't matter if he is going or returning, he had to get younger at some point in time. What point and time is that? (but i didn't mean to stump you so don't answer the last question) Just this question: Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he "return home"? Or to put it simply where everyone can understand: "When did the traveling brother get younger?" Before he "return home", or after? But nevermind...simple questions are not your forte because you cannot hide behind answers no one can understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5964d0f2-0905-4b7f-ad6f-64416de2d944@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414861 |
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > Of course I can take it a step further...(but that would just stump you) > > and that would be... > > if the traveling bother got younger before he returned home... > > at what point in time did he get younger??? > > > It had to be between the time, the very second he left, to the point and time he arrived. > > Even if he got younger *after* he began to "return home", at what point and time did he > get...younger??? > > > So, it doesn't matter if he is going or returning, he had to get younger at some point in time. > > > What point and time is that? > > (but i didn't mean to stump you so don't answer the last question) > > > Just this question: Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he "return home"? > > > Or to put it simply where everyone can understand: > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > Before he "return home", or after? > > > But nevermind...simple questions are not your forte because you cannot hide behind answers no one can understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E3EA32.202C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415001 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. The travelin twin did not cause his older brother to get older. > > > > > > > Of course I can take it a step further...(but that would just stump you) > > > > and that would be... > > > > if the traveling bother got younger before he returned home... > > > > at what point in time did he get younger??? > > > > > > It had to be between the time, the very second he left, to the point and time he arrived. > > > > Even if he got younger *after* he began to "return home", at what point and time did he > > get...younger??? > > > > > > So, it doesn't matter if he is going or returning, he had to get younger at some point in time. > > > > > > What point and time is that? > > > > (but i didn't mean to stump you so don't answer the last question) > > > > > > Just this question: Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he "return home"? > > > > > > Or to put it simply where everyone can understand: > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > Before he "return home", or after? > > > > > > But nevermind...simple questions are not your forte because you cannot hide behind answers no one can understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 05:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2f34089-7318-4a46-8382-906c24a46fd4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415038 |
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:46:29 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > > What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the > travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. > In your mind, perhaps that's the central question. But when I google the "twin paradox" as you suggested earlier, the "google definition" is "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more." So it is in fact the stay-at-home twin has aged more... Not that the traveling twin "got younger". > > > The traveling twin did not cause his older brother to get older. > > Actually, yes, he does. You can read this in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity": https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html "The Lorentz equations of special relativity unambiguously specify the current age of a distant object (CADO) according to an inertial observer." "Sudden velocity changes" (of the traveling twin) "can cause the CADO, expressed in years, to vary over a range numerically equal to twice the (object-measured) separation, expressed in light years, between the observer and the object." "The CADO is also, to a large extent, controllable by the observer." "If the observer is accelerating toward the object" (stay-at-home-twin), "the object will be getting older at that rate." These conclusions that Mike Fontenot has in his abstract here are correct. When the traveling twin accelerates toward home, he causes his twin brother to get older. You can see, here, Mike hasn't changed his mind https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/nFIZ9q3DQmI/m4C4Y_xkAQAJ and I agree with Mike. Paul Anderson has a simulation that shows the same result here: https://paulba.no/twins.html You can see it plainly in the demonstration, by going to the "B-View" then running the demonstration, then watching the lower-left-hand panel labeled "Clock A as observed by B" When I tried to get Paul Anderson to acknowledge that his idea was mathematically identical to Mike Fontenot's, though... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/nFIZ9q3DQmI/VhxzzkecAQAJ You can see he wouldn't answer the question. But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2847535-e0d5-4e88-8307-ed4072e825fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415053 |
El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. This not even wrong..... Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <892e2339-336f-4f03-9d6e-ac6b663c5b05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415056 |
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > This not even wrong..... > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <056e69d7-5ba8-4e0b-a86c-8b791dd31dfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415058 |
El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c276253-ff1f-4700-9d24-363edf497e2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415070 |
If Gravitational Curvature is not utilized.... The matter of the Accelerated more Relativistic Twin will be hotter upon re-Synchronization The accelerated twin will have lower Entropy Joules per Kelvin Entropy/(Relativistic mass)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 02:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1aac408-6787-4457-9c06-dc6de56fd78a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415070 |
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > > > > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > The key elements of the paradox is that one twin leaves and comes back. The other twin stays at home. You can't do that with both twins being inertial. > > > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > > > > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem. facing: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite. temporal: relating to time. temporal facing: position with the future toward a certain direction. Does that help it make sense?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6a43404-95f5-4743-97b5-31118e9a6a85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415171 |
El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 6:25:36 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > > > > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > > > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > > > > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > > > > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > > > > > > > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > > > > The key elements of the paradox is that one twin leaves and comes back. The other twin stays at home. You can't do that with both twins being inertial. > Wrong. You are confused by the use of "twins". You can have three inertial observers (each one with instrumentation). Observer A is moving at speed v away from observer B towards the location of observer C. Observer B is stationary at its location. Observer C is located at X light years from A and moving towards A at speed v. When B encounters C, C synchronizes its clock with the one of B. The results of this gedanken are the same as the traditional one. that is, clock C when reaching observer A shows less elapsed time and, for sure, there is no acceleration. > > > > > > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > > > > > > > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem. > > facing: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite. > > temporal: relating to time. > > temporal facing: position with the future toward a certain direction. > > Does that help it make sense? No, as this gedanken is quite simple explained by using geometry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46f6cf66-96d4-419f-be44-5f94e0c32c0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415178 |
W dniu środa, 5 kwietnia 2017 13:22:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > Wrong. You are confused by the use of "twins". You can have three inertial observers (each one with instrumentation). Observer A is moving at speed v away from observer B towards the location of observer C. Observer B is stationary at its location. Observer C is located at X light years from A and moving towards A at speed v. When B encounters C, C synchronizes its clock with the one of B. > > The results of this gedanken are the same as the traditional one. that is, clock C when reaching observer A shows less elapsed time and, for sure, there is no acceleration. Fortunately, real clocks don't follow your idiotic rules and indicate t'=t. You can check it at GPS, poor idiot. > No, as this gedanken is quite simple explained by using geometry. Fortunately, this gedanken is nothing but a sick imagination of some brainwashed morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web