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 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 11:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D2D5B8.54E0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413747 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > 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. Maybe you don't understand...when a doctor makes a mistake on a patient, it's causes death...murder. How does a doctor correct death? Calling it, "he suffered from complications" does not correct his maistake, it just hides his mistake. How many "Oops" can one be allowed. How many "Oops" are there that were not disclosed???? Of course, the truth is...Doctors are not allowed to say "Ooops" during an operation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-22 12:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58D2D84A.2666@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #413751 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > 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. > > Maybe you don't understand...when a doctor makes a mistake on a patient, > it's causes death...murder. > > How does a doctor correct death? Calling it, "he suffered from > complications" does not correct his maistake, it just hides his mistake. > > How many "Oops" can one be allowed. How many "Oops" are there that were > not disclosed???? > > Of course, the truth is...Doctors are not allowed to say "Ooops" during > an operation. Do you know how many movie stars are dead because the doctor made a mistake???? In some hospitols the doctor's nickname is "Dr. Death" because he has so many dead patients under his belt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-23 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa70073a-37da-49e3-85ec-da7ff1fb8c68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413751 |
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:51:16 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Maybe you don't understand...when a doctor makes a mistake on a patient, > it's causes death...murder. > > How does a doctor correct death? Calling it, "he suffered from > complications" does not correct his maistake, it just hides his mistake. > > > How many "Oops" can one be allowed. How many "Oops" are there that were > not disclosed???? > > Of course, the truth is...Doctors are not allowed to say "Ooops" during > an operation. I think Doctor's who say "oops" in time are actually more likely to save your life. The ones who make a mistake and don't say "oops" who are going to kill you. However, if you're a lawyer or a teacher, and you say "oops" in the middle of an explanation, and have to go back and correct something, it can be embarrassing for the lawyer or teacher, and confusing for the jury or students. I think my role here is probably more along the line of a lawyer... In some sense defending the Lorentz Transformations-- I'm defending the Lorentz transformation (1) against those who claim it is only valid locally (2) against those who would claim that it simply changes labels on events without moving them. I'm accusing the Lorentz Transformations (1) of moving events in the perspective of an accelerating observer Now even though I am acting as a "lawyer" for/against the Lorentz transformations, it is not the quality of my arguments that establish the Lorentz Transformations guilt/innocence. There are several different questions here. One question is whether the Lorentz Transformation actually moves events to different coordinates. I say yes, but Tom Roberts, and others, argue that the Lorentz Transformations simply change the labels on events, without actually moving them, in the perspective of the observer. In fact, Tom argues that "events moving in the perspective of the observer" is meaningless. Another question is whether "Lorentz Transformations" ought to be used in modeling the actual nature of the physical universe, or whether some other model ought to be used, such as some form of Galilean transformations where the speed of light is nonconstant--either based on the velocity of the emitter, or only constant in some "preferred" reference frame. When people acknowledge that the Lorentz Transformations have actual meaning, then this is an interesting question, and one that can be tested, in principle, by the scientific method. However, most people who argue that the speed of light is non-constant, are also arguing that the Lorentz Transformation equations are meaningless. A third question is, how the coordinates change under Lorentz Transformations. ... Given some particular event, and some particular change in velocity around some particular shared origin between two coordinate systems at relative velocity... You want to know where the event was before and after the Lorentz Transformation. When you imagine such scenarios, you can go through all the math, or you can visualize a space-time diagram in your head, and imagine conditions before and after the Lorentz Transformations. When you accelerate to the left, events on the past light cone of the origin swing to the right, and events on the future light-cone from the origin swing to the left. Yesterday, in the space of about an hour, I erred twice in thinking about this idea, which is, of course, embarrassing for me... but worse, it is probably confusing for anyone who was listening to me, because you don't even know what was in my head when I made the errors. To remedy that, I'll offer two scenarios... I haven't worked out the answers to these questions, but if anybody is interested enough to ask, I'll work out the numerical answers later. 1a. You see a stationary object at 4 o'clock (120 degrees to your right), and accelerate in the 12 o'clock direction with a rapidity boost equal to 3 rapidians. (v/c = .995= tanh(3)) At what angle does the image "aberrate" to after the boost. 1b. Assume the object in part 1a was 100 light-years away before the acceleration. How far away is the image right after the boost, and at what angle would you need to aim a speed-of-light signal to intercept the object? 2a. Same scenario as 1a, except this time, the object at 4 o'clock is not stationary, but traveling directly away from you with rapidity equal to 3 (v/c = .995 = tanh(3)) Does the image aberrate to the same location, or a different location, after you accelerate .995c in the 12 o'clock direction? 2b. Same as 1b, except the object was traveling directly away from you at .995c before the acceleration... figure out the angle you would have to aim a signal to intercept the object after the boost in this scenario. If you work through these scenarios, you should be able to see why I needed to correct my errors earlier. The statements I made regarding interception were not correct, and usenet doesn't allow the editing of posts. Even though I know that the acknowledgment of personal error is red meat for trolls, I thought it better to use the clearest language that I could to highlight the error, by saying "oops".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <304e89c5-c082-40f2-bfba-f5301326f263@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413849 |
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 9:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 1:51:16 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Maybe you don't understand...when a doctor makes a mistake on a patient, > > it's causes death...murder. > > > > How does a doctor correct death? Calling it, "he suffered from > > complications" does not correct his maistake, it just hides his mistake. > > > > > > How many "Oops" can one be allowed. How many "Oops" are there that were > > not disclosed???? > > > > Of course, the truth is...Doctors are not allowed to say "Ooops" during > > an operation. > > I think Doctor's who say "oops" in time are actually more likely to save your life. The ones who make a mistake and don't say "oops" who are going to kill you. > > However, if you're a lawyer or a teacher, and you say "oops" in the middle of an explanation, and have to go back and correct something, it can be embarrassing for the lawyer or teacher, and confusing for the jury or students. > > I think my role here is probably more along the line of a lawyer... In some sense defending the Lorentz Transformations-- > > I'm defending the Lorentz transformation > (1) against those who claim it is only valid locally > (2) against those who would claim that it simply changes labels on events without moving them. > > > I'm accusing the Lorentz Transformations > (1) of moving events in the perspective of an accelerating observer > > Now even though I am acting as a "lawyer" for/against the Lorentz transformations, it is not the quality of my arguments that establish the Lorentz Transformations guilt/innocence. > > There are several different questions here. > > > > > One question is whether the Lorentz Transformation actually moves events to different coordinates. > > I say yes, but Tom Roberts, and others, argue that the Lorentz Transformations simply change the labels on events, without actually moving them, in the perspective of the observer. In fact, Tom argues that "events moving in the perspective of the observer" is meaningless. > > > Another question is whether "Lorentz Transformations" ought to be used in modeling the actual nature of the physical universe, or whether some other model ought to be used, such as some form of Galilean transformations where the speed of light is nonconstant--either based on the velocity of the emitter, or only constant in some "preferred" reference frame. > > When people acknowledge that the Lorentz Transformations have actual meaning, then this is an interesting question, and one that can be tested, in principle, by the scientific method. > > However, most people who argue that the speed of light is non-constant, are also arguing that the Lorentz Transformation equations are meaningless. > > > A third question is, how the coordinates change under Lorentz Transformations. ... Given some particular event, and some particular change in velocity around some particular shared origin between two coordinate systems at relative velocity... > > You want to know where the event was before and after the Lorentz Transformation. > > When you imagine such scenarios, you can go through all the math, or you can visualize a space-time diagram in your head, and imagine conditions before and after the Lorentz Transformations. > > When you accelerate to the left, events on the past light cone of the origin swing to the right, and events on the future light-cone from the origin swing to the left. > > Yesterday, in the space of about an hour, I erred twice in thinking about this idea, which is, of course, embarrassing for me... but worse, it is probably confusing for anyone who was listening to me, because you don't even know what was in my head when I made the errors. > > To remedy that, I'll offer two scenarios... I haven't worked out the answers to these questions, but if anybody is interested enough to ask, I'll work out the numerical answers later. > > 1a. You see a stationary object at 4 o'clock (120 degrees to your right), and accelerate in the 12 o'clock direction with a rapidity boost equal to 3 rapidians. (v/c = .995= tanh(3)) At what angle does the image "aberrate" to after the boost. > > 1b. Assume the object in part 1a was 100 light-years away before the acceleration. How far away is the image right after the boost, and at what angle would you need to aim a speed-of-light signal to intercept the object? > I've posted solutions to the first two questions here: http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/AberrationQuestions.php > 2a. Same scenario as 1a, except this time, the object at 4 o'clock is not stationary, but traveling directly away from you with rapidity equal to 3 (v/c = .995 = tanh(3)) Does the image aberrate to the same location, or a different location, after you accelerate .995c in the 12 o'clock direction? > > 2b. Same as 1b, except the object was traveling directly away from you at .995c before the acceleration... figure out the angle you would have to aim a signal to intercept the object after the boost in this scenario. > > If you work through these scenarios, you should be able to see why I needed to correct my errors earlier. The statements I made regarding interception were not correct, and usenet doesn't allow the editing of posts. > > Even though I know that the acknowledgment of personal error is red meat for trolls, I thought it better to use the clearest language that I could to highlight the error, by saying "oops".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <do2dnVKOD_F_w0TFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413686 |
On 3/22/17 3/22/17 - 7:49 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> 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) Yes. But no matter which choice you make, the light ray you see does NOT point back to the object that emitted it. IOW: choice of simultaneity does NOT cancel aberration. > [a new example] > 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.) Call this the initial inertial frame, which is also the frame in which the stars are at rest. > 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. I did not "pull it" in any way -- my acceleration has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on star B. Star B does NOT "get aberrated", but LIGHT FROM B does -- this is a crucial distinction you seem to have missed. My acceleration does affect the direction from which _I_ see light from B. So I interpret your statement here as meaning that after my acceleration I see light from B coming from my 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. Hmmmm. All my numbers below are EXAMPLES to illustrate the point; I have not calculated this, and see no need to do so. If I turn 30 degrees to the the right (measured in the original inertial frame), so I am now headed directly toward my initial 1:00 (after acceleration, the direction from which I saw light from B), I will not reach B. In fact, I'll now see light from B at something like 12:45 -- in particular, NOT at 12:00. So repeatedly turn right until light from B comes EXACTLY at 12:00 (dead ahead). I will have turned relative to the initial inertial frame to now be headed toward B at 4:00. NOTE: I am neglecting the distance I traveled between my initial acceleration and the end of my turning. This distance will, of course, affect the direction in which I must travel to reach B. This displays a major problem for astrogation at speeds approaching c (relative to the frame of the "fixed stars") -- you need EXQUISITE accuracy in measuring angles near your forward direction, because you won't reach a star unless it is EXACTLY forward -- even a few micro-arc-seconds could cause a miss by what can be a large distance. >> the ray you see does NOT point back to where the object is or was. >> You cannot ignore aberration. > > The ray you see points from where the object was, Nope. This is so ONLY when the object is EXACTLY ahead of your spaceship. > and if you keep following > that ray, from where it came, you'll eventually find the object. Hmmm. As long as you continually steer toward it, yes. See above. > This > aberration effect is not an illusion. That depends on what you mean by these words. Most of us would consider a visual-only effect to be an "illusion", for instance when the image of a star is in a very different direction from the direction in which the star actually lies. But in addition to being an illusion, aberration is of course real -- this merely demonstrates the ambiguity of English words. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cb92a16-e992-42cd-bc0e-18d0160896dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414267 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:50:17 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/22/17 3/22/17 - 7:49 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 10:53:30 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> 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) > > Yes. But no matter which choice you make, the light ray you see does NOT point > back to the object that emitted it. IOW: choice of simultaneity does NOT cancel > aberration. > > > [a new example] > > 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.) > > Call this the initial inertial frame, which is also the frame in which the stars > are at rest. > > > 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. > > I did not "pull it" in any way -- my acceleration has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on > star B. Star B does NOT "get aberrated", but LIGHT FROM B does -- this is a > crucial distinction you seem to have missed. My acceleration does affect the > direction from which _I_ see light from B. So I interpret your statement here as > meaning that after my acceleration I see light from B coming from my 1:00. > Yes. And the light is coming from the direction where the star actually WAS, when it emitted that light, from your new perspective. > > 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. This was the error I was embarrassed about. I was imagining a very peculiar situation where you are accelerating toward a receding object, until it is stationary in your point-of-view. In that one case, only, would you want to accelerate toward the image of the object. I can explain why I made the error. Because I am thinking so often about the Hubble flow, where most objects in the universe actually are receding, I momentarily made the mistake of thinking this is a "general rule" that when you accelerate toward a distant receding object, then it becomes stationary, then you can accelerate toward the image, to get to it. But in general, you need to take into account the distant object's velocity, and figure out where you need to be to intercept it. > > Hmmmm. All my numbers below are EXAMPLES to illustrate the point; I have not > calculated this, and see no need to do so. > It's a matter of three-way-communication. If you provide enough information to set up the problem, then another person can solve the problem, confirming that what was said was understood. And when two people get the same answer from the same setup, then you know that at least mathematically equivalent models. Then you can discuss the physical meaning of the variables and physical significance of the mathematical results. > If I turn 30 degrees to the the right (measured in the original inertial frame), > so I am now headed directly toward my initial 1:00 (after acceleration, the > direction from which I saw light from B), I will not reach B. If the object at 1:00 was stationary in the original frame, then by turning 30 degrees, and boosting toward it, you would reach it. However, if the object was moving, then you're right. You would not reach it. > In fact, I'll now > see light from B at something like 12:45 -- in particular, NOT at 12:00. So > repeatedly turn right until light from B comes EXACTLY at 12:00 (dead ahead). I > will have turned relative to the initial inertial frame to now be headed toward > B at 4:00. I can't follow you, here, because there are two "uncommunicated" unknowns. I don't know the initial velocity of the object at B. I don't know whether you are talking about a relativistic or nonrelativistic acceleration I don't know whether you are measuring 12:45 from your own 12:00 facing, or from the original 12:00 facing. > NOTE: I am neglecting the distance I traveled between my initial > acceleration and the end of my turning. This distance will, of > course, affect the direction in which I must travel to reach B. > Yes, I want to neglect this distance as well. I would prefer to treat this as instantaneous boost and rotation one after the other, rather than trying to treat it as some kind of continuous combination of the two. But it should be noted that the operations are not commutative. A boost of 1 rapidian followed by a rotation of 30 degrees doesn't result in the same thing as a rotation of 30 degrees followed by a boost of 1 rapidian. > This displays a major problem for astrogation at speeds approaching c (relative > to the frame of the "fixed stars") -- you need EXQUISITE accuracy in measuring > angles near your forward direction, because you won't reach a star unless it is > EXACTLY forward -- even a few micro-arc-seconds could cause a miss by what can > be a large distance. > It's rather like the baseball outfielder, who sees plainly that the ball is in front of him, but runs backwards to catch it. He can see plainly where the baseball is (to be more pedantic, where it was when the light left it), but he chooses to run the opposite direction to intercept where the ball will be before it hits the ground. > >> the ray you see does NOT point back to where the object is or was. > >> You cannot ignore aberration. > > > > The ray you see points from where the object was, > This part wasn't in error. > Nope. This is so ONLY when the object is EXACTLY ahead of your spaceship. > Tom, you seem to be agreeing with the part where I erred, but disagreeing with the part I got right. What I was doing earlier was confusing the "future position" of the baseball, where you're supposed to catch it, with the "past position" of the baseball, where you currently see it. The location of the image of the object is the location of a past position of the object. For objects such as baseballs, which travel an insignificant fraction of the speed of light, the difference between the location of the image, and the object is negligible. But for objects traveling near the speed of light, especially TOWARD you, the difference can be vast. > > and if you keep following > > that ray, from where it came, you'll eventually find the object. > > Hmmm. As long as you continually steer toward it, yes. See above. > Again, you're agreeing with the part that I admitted was incorrect. You have to steer and accelerate toward a future position of the object. Not toward the image. > > This > > aberration effect is not an illusion. > > That depends on what you mean by these words. Most of us would consider a > visual-only effect to be an "illusion", for instance when the image of a star is > in a very different direction from the direction in which the star actually > lies. But in addition to being an illusion, aberration is of course real -- this > merely demonstrates the ambiguity of English words. > > Tom Roberts Where the star lies, where it lay, and where it will lie, are all different events. Those events each have coordinates. I don't think we have a question over the ambiguity of English words. I think we have a genuine disagreement--whereas I say that under Lorentz Transformations, the coordinates of events actually change, in-other-words, cause the events themselves to MOVE, you are claiming that this change is illusory, and while the "labels" might change, the events do not literally "move". And you keep claiming to have some definition of "move" that is not met by what the Lorentz Transformations do to events. I probably should have asked this earlier, but by what definition of "move" do the Lorentz Transformations fail to move events through space and time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 12:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sKudnarPhq4sBEfFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #414337 |
On 3/28/17 3/28/17 8:18 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:50:17 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> [...] If I turn 30 degrees to the the right (measured in the original >> inertial frame), so I am now headed directly toward my initial 1:00 (after >> acceleration, the direction from which I saw light from B), I will not >> reach B. > > If the object at 1:00 was stationary in the original frame, then by turning > 30 degrees, and boosting toward it, you would reach it. NO! The object was at 4:00 in the original frame -- only ITS LIGHT reached me at 1:00. Traveling toward 1:00 won't get me to B at all. Not even close. And after this turn toward 1:00, as I said, the image of be would be at 12:45 (or similar), NOT 12:00. >> In fact, I'll now see light from B at something like 12:45 -- in >> particular, NOT at 12:00. So repeatedly turn right until light from B comes >> EXACTLY at 12:00 (dead ahead). I will have turned relative to the initial >> inertial frame to now be headed toward B at 4:00. > > I can't follow you, here, because there are two "uncommunicated" unknowns. I > don't know the initial velocity of the object at B. I am simply following YOUR scenario. In that scenario the stars were all at rest in the initial inertial frame -- GO BACK AND READ WHAT I WROTE. > I don't know whether you > are talking about a relativistic or nonrelativistic acceleration YOU specified "you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs", and said that light from B arrives at 1:00 after the acceleration. That is certainly a relativistic acceleration. > I don't know > whether you are measuring 12:45 from your own 12:00 facing, or from the > original 12:00 facing. Such orientations are ALWAYS relative to the current direction of travel -- THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN. If you didn't know this, why did you try to use it???? > I would prefer to treat this > as instantaneous boost and rotation one after the other, rather than trying > to treat it as some kind of continuous combination of the two. If you would bother to READ WHAT I WROTE, you would know that I considered them consecutively, not any sort of "continuous combination of the two". > I think we have a genuine disagreement--whereas I say that under Lorentz > Transformations, the coordinates of events actually change, in-other-words, > cause the events themselves to MOVE, you are claiming that this change is > illusory, and while the "labels" might change, the events do not literally > "move". No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. The Lorentz transform does NOT "change" coordinates. Rather it relates TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COORDINATE SYSTEMS. That is, the LT expresses how the LABELS of one coordinate system are related to the LABELS of the other coordinate system. This is not "move" for any sensible meaning of the word; it is a RE-LABELING of events that are completely unaffected by what labels one might apply to them. And only OBJECTS can move; the concept "motion" simply does not apply to events (aka points of the spacetime manifold). > And you keep claiming to have some definition of "move" that is not met by > what the Lorentz Transformations do to events. I probably should have asked > this earlier, but by what definition of "move" do the Lorentz Transformations > fail to move events through space and time? This applies to ANY reasonable meaning of "move", because the word means that some OBJECT changes position over time. Re-labeling events has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with motion. This is not "my" meanings of these words, these are the actual meanings used in physics, and for "move" in everyday speech as well. If I face North, the sun rises to my right. If I rotate so I'm facing South, the sun now rises to my left. DID THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN RISES MOVE??? -- clearly NOT. All that happened Is that _I_ changed the label that _I_ apply to it from "right" to "left". The LT is EXACTLY the same, a RE-LABELING. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dickorrich@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <945351bd-2732-445b-a614-a2adff381ad2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414370 |
It seems the original poster left the building. For anyone interested, here's a paper that is intended to clarify the 'twin' thing. https://app.box.com/s/c8yshj90l3c2eixu13cpkge8w53304cm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84b80685-a041-43fd-bced-787ae11c8059@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414370 |
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:13:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/28/17 3/28/17 8:18 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:50:17 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> [...] If I turn 30 degrees to the the right (measured in the original > >> inertial frame), so I am now headed directly toward my initial 1:00 (after > >> acceleration, the direction from which I saw light from B), I will not > >> reach B. > > > > If the object at 1:00 was stationary in the original frame, then by turning > > 30 degrees, and boosting toward it, you would reach it. > > NO! The object was at 4:00 in the original frame -- only ITS LIGHT reached me at > 1:00. Traveling toward 1:00 won't get me to B at all. Not even close. And after > this turn toward 1:00, as I said, the image of be would be at 12:45 (or > similar), NOT 12:00. > > >> In fact, I'll now see light from B at something like 12:45 -- in > >> particular, NOT at 12:00. So repeatedly turn right until light from B comes > >> EXACTLY at 12:00 (dead ahead). I will have turned relative to the initial > >> inertial frame to now be headed toward B at 4:00. > > > > I can't follow you, here, because there are two "uncommunicated" unknowns. I > > don't know the initial velocity of the object at B. > > I am simply following YOUR scenario. In that scenario the stars were all at rest > in the initial inertial frame -- GO BACK AND READ WHAT I WROTE. > > > I don't know whether you > > are talking about a relativistic or nonrelativistic acceleration > > YOU specified "you accelerate, tremendously, so that aberration occurs", and > said that light from B arrives at 1:00 after the acceleration. That is certainly > a relativistic acceleration. > > > I don't know > > whether you are measuring 12:45 from your own 12:00 facing, or from the > > original 12:00 facing. > > Such orientations are ALWAYS relative to the current direction of travel -- > THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN. If you didn't know this, why did you try to use it???? > > > I would prefer to treat this > > as instantaneous boost and rotation one after the other, rather than trying > > to treat it as some kind of continuous combination of the two. > > If you would bother to READ WHAT I WROTE, you would know that I considered them > consecutively, not any sort of "continuous combination of the two". > Okay... I'm still not a hundred percent sure... But here's what I imagine you mean(?) We have a stationary object at 4 o'clock. We accelerate at a tremendous rate toward the 12 o'clock position, until the stationary object aberrates to the 1 o'clock position. Now we turn 30 degrees to the right. And you say that the position of the object is now not at the 12 o'clock position, but at the 12:45 position. I'm still confused as to what you mean. Are you saying that during the time that we turned 30 degrees to the right, that the object in question moved? I was just confused about where the 12:45 heading came from. > > I think we have a genuine disagreement--whereas I say that under Lorentz > > Transformations, the coordinates of events actually change, in-other-words, > > cause the events themselves to MOVE, you are claiming that this change is > > illusory, and while the "labels" might change, the events do not literally > > "move". > > No. Not even close. You REALLY need to learn how to read. > > The Lorentz transform does NOT "change" coordinates. Rather it relates TWO > COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COORDINATE SYSTEMS. That is, the LT expresses how the > LABELS of one coordinate system are related to the LABELS of the other > coordinate system. This is not "move" for any sensible meaning of the word; it > is a RE-LABELING of events that are completely unaffected by what labels one > might apply to them. > > And only OBJECTS can move; the concept "motion" simply does not apply to events > (aka points of the spacetime manifold). > > > And you keep claiming to have some definition of "move" that is not met by > > what the Lorentz Transformations do to events. I probably should have asked > > this earlier, but by what definition of "move" do the Lorentz Transformations > > fail to move events through space and time? > > This applies to ANY reasonable meaning of "move", because the word means that > some OBJECT changes position over time. Re-labeling events has NOTHING > WHATSOEVER to do with motion. > > This is not "my" meanings of these words, these are the actual meanings used in > physics, and for "move" in everyday speech as well. > > If I face North, the sun rises to my right. If I rotate so > I'm facing South, the sun now rises to my left. DID THE PLACE > WHERE THE SUN RISES MOVE??? -- clearly NOT. All that happened > Is that _I_ changed the label that _I_ apply to it from "right" > to "left". The LT is EXACTLY the same, a RE-LABELING. > > Tom Roberts If you face north, the sun rises to your right. If you face south the sun rises to your left. Did the place where the sun rises move? Yes. If the sun did not "really move" then you must state which direction the sun really is. Is it REALLY to your left, or was it REALLY to your right? Which one of these coordinate systems is the real coordinate system, and which one is the "optical illusion?" Which one of them has the correct distances, and which one is the "relabeling?" Those coordinate "labels" as you call them, before and after a Lorentz Transformations are equally valid descriptions of time and distance from the origin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 00:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AsWdnQ1MAulWCUHFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #414466 |
On 3/29/17 3/29/17 1:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:13:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > We have a stationary object at 4 o'clock. We accelerate at a tremendous rate > toward the 12 o'clock position, until the stationary object aberrates to the > 1 o'clock position. > > Now we turn 30 degrees to the right. > > And you say that the position of the object is now not at the 12 o'clock > position, but at the 12:45 position. > > I'm still confused as to what you mean. Are you saying that during the time > that we turned 30 degrees to the right, that the object in question moved? No. As I stated, B is at rest in the initial frame. So it does not move relative to that frame. But after the acceleration _I_ am moving relative to that frame, and the light from B that comes in to me is aberrated by my motion. > I was just confused about where the 12:45 heading came from. As I said, it is not exact, just a demonstration of the situation. After the acceleration the light from B comes in to me at 1:00. But turning 30 degrees to the right, so what was 1:00 is now 12:00, does NOT make the light come in at 12:00, it comes in at some value between 12:00 and 1:00, and I said 12:45. This is so because B did not move (relative to the initial frame), but I am and LIGHT FROM B IS STILL ABERRATED, just not as much as it was before the turn. If I want to travel to B, I must keep turning to the right until light from B comes in to me at exactly 12:00 (i.e. I am heading directly toward B). I will have turned 120 degrees to the right. This is so even though initially after my acceleration the light from B came in to me at 1:00; aberration is like that. (a different scenario, attempting to consider my example) > If you face north, the sun rises to your right. If you face south the sun > rises to your left. Did the place where the sun rises move? Yes. Nobody else would claim that. Rotating your body DOES NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO THE SUN OR TO THE EARTH OR TO THE DIRECTION WHERE THE SUN RISES. The latter remains over there (pointing to the East), regardless of whether you call that "left" or "right" (depending on which way you are facing). > If the sun did not "really move" then you must state which direction the sun > really is. Is it REALLY to your left, or was it REALLY to your right? Which > one of these coordinate systems is the real coordinate system, and which one > is the "optical illusion?" Which one of them has the correct distances, and > which one is the "relabeling?" You are VERY confused. There is no such "really". These are just LABELS -- I can say "left" or "right", but those pertain only to me and how I happen to be facing at the time I apply them. The reality here is WHERE THE SUN RISES, and not how I might choose to label that direction as "left" or "right" -- such labels are ARBITRARY. > Those coordinate "labels" as you call them, before and after a Lorentz > Transformations are equally valid descriptions of time and distance from the > origin. Close. But there is no "the origin", each coordinate system has its own origin (though for simplicity we often choose to make them the same event). But yes, the different coordinate systems are equally valid descriptions. Using one or the other, or transforming between them, has nothing whatsoever to do with "motion". The LT relates different coordinate systems, it does not "move" anything. I'm giving up -- you have serious problems with reading accurately and understanding what simple words like "move" actually mean. I cannot teach you via a medium that requires accurate reading and understanding the meanings of words. Goodbye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1da8b5c5-8df2-41eb-a13e-10c67c69e04c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414516 |
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:17:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/29/17 3/29/17 1:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:13:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > We have a stationary object at 4 o'clock. We accelerate at a tremendous rate > > toward the 12 o'clock position, until the stationary object aberrates to the > > 1 o'clock position. > > > > Now we turn 30 degrees to the right. > > > > And you say that the position of the object is now not at the 12 o'clock > > position, but at the 12:45 position. > > > > I'm still confused as to what you mean. Are you saying that during the time > > that we turned 30 degrees to the right, that the object in question moved? > > No. As I stated, B is at rest in the initial frame. So it does not move relative > to that frame. But after the acceleration _I_ am moving relative to that frame, > and the light from B that comes in to me is aberrated by my motion. > > > I was just confused about where the 12:45 heading came from. > > As I said, it is not exact, just a demonstration of the situation. > > After the acceleration the light from B comes in to me at 1:00. But turning 30 > degrees to the right, so what was 1:00 is now 12:00, does NOT make the light > come in at 12:00, it comes in at some value between 12:00 and 1:00, and I said > 12:45. This is so because B did not move (relative to the initial frame), but I > am and LIGHT FROM B IS STILL ABERRATED, just not as much as it was before the turn. > That's not correct. If you have the image at a heading of 1 o'clock, and then turn 30 degrees, the new heading of the image should be at 12 o'clock. > If I want to travel to B, I must keep turning to the right until light from B > comes in to me at exactly 12:00 (i.e. I am heading directly toward B). I will > have turned 120 degrees to the right. This is so even though initially after my > acceleration the light from B came in to me at 1:00; aberration is like that. > > (a different scenario, attempting to consider my example) > > If you face north, the sun rises to your right. If you face south the sun > > rises to your left. Did the place where the sun rises move? Yes. > > Nobody else would claim that. Rotating your body DOES NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO THE > SUN OR TO THE EARTH OR TO THE DIRECTION WHERE THE SUN RISES. The latter remains > over there (pointing to the East), regardless of whether you call that "left" or > "right" (depending on which way you are facing). > > > If the sun did not "really move" then you must state which direction the sun > > really is. Is it REALLY to your left, or was it REALLY to your right? Which > > one of these coordinate systems is the real coordinate system, and which one > > is the "optical illusion?" Which one of them has the correct distances, and > > which one is the "relabeling?" > > You are VERY confused. There is no such "really". If you think that the objects to my left are not really to my left, and the objects in front of me are not really in front of me, I think you're the one who is confused. Either that or there is some very different philosophical difference that ought to be acknowledged. I have the impression that you think observer dependent coordinate systems are, for some reason, not instantaneously valid, or that there is some absolute coordinate system, which provides the true, "real" coordinates > These are just LABELS -- I can > say "left" or "right", but those pertain only to me and how I happen to be > facing at the time I apply them. Are left and right simply arbitrary labels, or are they functions of "hou you happen to be facing at a time"? Are the coordinates (right, forward, up) from your position arbitrary labels, or do they represent actual distances from your position, given your facing and position. My claim, which you seem to think is so controversial, is that the coordinates (x,y,z,t) are functions of the observer's position in space, his experience of now, his facing, and his velocity. In every observer's "here and now" he is facing forward. His velocity is zero. His position is (forward 0, right 0, up 0, time 0) And from that origin, he can physically observe his surroundings of how far objects are around him, and when events happened, are happening, and will happen. I'm not invalidating the concept of the observer moving forward in time, and having velocity. But I am saying it is equally valid to consider events from the observer's point-of-view, where events move from the future into the past, as time passes, and where the objects and events swing around him according to rotations as he turns his head. > The reality here is WHERE THE SUN RISES, and > not how I might choose to label that direction as "left" or "right" -- such > labels are ARBITRARY. > I'm trying to parse this statement that you've capitalized here: "The reality here is WHERE THE SUN RISES" Are you saying "WHERE THE SUN RISES" has no coordinates, it is just a reality? "where the sun rises" seems to me, more of a question, rather than a reality. To answer that question, one needs a landmark and a definition of directions, and a unit of distance. > > Those coordinate "labels" as you call them, before and after a Lorentz > > Transformations are equally valid descriptions of time and distance from the > > origin. > > Close. But there is no "the origin", each coordinate system has its own origin Of course, each coordinate system has its own origin. And each coordinate system has an x, y, z, t axis. > (though for simplicity we often choose to make them the same event). But yes, > the different coordinate systems are equally valid descriptions.> Using one or > the other, or transforming between them, has nothing whatsoever to do with > "motion". The LT relates different coordinate systems, it does not "move" anything. > Let's be more explicit. What is commonly done is to draw isoclines of distance and time representing the coordinate system of a traveling observer, on a non-transformed space-time diagram for a stationary observer. What you're claiming, if I'm not mistaken, is that the traveling observer's "experience" is somehow represented by these nonorthogonal > I'm giving up -- you have serious problems with reading accurately and > understanding what simple words like "move" actually mean. I cannot teach you > via a medium that requires accurate reading and understanding the meanings of > words. Goodbye. > > Tom Roberts I agree that this medium is insufficient to get across some of the ideas, but it was you who said you do not click on hyperlinks to get more information. So, that's up to you, of course. I've given you links to my paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235352_Radar_Time_and_Temporal_Facing_A_Distinction_of_Two_Compatible_Ideas and to videos and animations to show you the idea of Temporal Facing. http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/TemporalFacing.php The central disagreement of the debate is this: - You claim that the Lorentz Transformations only change the coordinate labels on the events and do not actually move them. Furthermore, you're claiming that the input/output coordinates to the Lorentz Transformations are arbitrary labels, that do not necessarily represent position and time, measured from the origin. - I claim that the Lorentz Transformations move events around the origin, and that the input/output coordinates to the Lorentz Transformations do necessarily represent position and time, measured from the origin. This is a genuine disagreement about what the Lorentz Transformation actually does, and whether the "coordinates" inputs/outputs of the Lorentz Transformations represent "position and time of an event" or just "arbitrary labels on an event" There is no disagreement here about what simple words like "move" actually mean. You are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not move events. And I am genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do move events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 12:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <GbydnVAskupjG3_FnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #414539 |
On 3/30/17 3/30/17 - 8:02 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:17:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 3/29/17 3/29/17 1:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:13:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: We have >>> a stationary object at 4 o'clock. We accelerate at a tremendous rate >>> toward the 12 o'clock position, until the stationary object aberrates to >>> the 1 o'clock position. >>> >>> Now we turn 30 degrees to the right. >>> >>> And you say that the position of the object is now not at the 12 o'clock >>> position, but at the 12:45 position. >>> >>> I'm still confused as to what you mean. Are you saying that during the >>> time that we turned 30 degrees to the right, that the object in question >>> moved? >> >> No. As I stated, B is at rest in the initial frame. So it does not move >> relative to that frame. But after the acceleration _I_ am moving relative >> to that frame, and the light from B that comes in to me is aberrated by my >> motion. >> >>> I was just confused about where the 12:45 heading came from. >> >> As I said, it is not exact, just a demonstration of the situation. >> >> After the acceleration the light from B comes in to me at 1:00. But turning >> 30 degrees to the right, so what was 1:00 is now 12:00, does NOT make the >> light come in at 12:00, it comes in at some value between 12:00 and 1:00, >> and I said 12:45. This is so because B did not move (relative to the >> initial frame), but I am and LIGHT FROM B IS STILL ABERRATED, just not as >> much as it was before the turn. >> > > That's not correct. If you have the image at a heading of 1 o'clock, and > then turn 30 degrees, the new heading of the image should be at 12 o'clock. This is simply NOT TRUE when the image is from light that has been aberrated by my motion relative to the source of the light. The aberration angle depends on both my velocity relative to the source AND the direction to the source. It behaves as I described, not as you fantasize. > [...] > The central disagreement of the debate is this: - You claim that the Lorentz > Transformations only change the coordinate labels on the events and do not > actually move them. I repeat: EVENTS CANNOT "MOVE" -- or rather, the concept "motion" simply does not apply to events. You REALLY need to learn the meanings of the words you use. > This is a genuine disagreement about what the Lorentz Transformation actually > does, No, it is not "genuine" at all - YOU HAVE SCREWED UP, and are too pig headed to actually look up how the Lorentz transform is used, and what it does. You are also too stupid to learn the meanings of the words you use, and thus confuse yourself -- you are so confused you cannot even recognize your own confusion. > There is no disagreement here about what simple words like "move" actually > mean. Yes there is, YOU do not understand what it means in the context of physics and SR. An OBJECT can move, basically because it exists for a nonzero duration; a point of the manifold cannot "move" (it is where it is, and nothing can change that). An event is a point in the spacetime manifold. It makes no sense to attempt to apply the concept "motion" to an event that has no duration -- "motion" is a change of position over time, but an event exists at a single position for a single instant (of zero duration) -- it cannot possibly change position, and cannot possibly do anything "over time". Different observers can apply different coordinate values (labels) to a given event, but the fact that they are different does not relate to ANY meaning of "motion" in ANY way. > You are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not > move events. Not really. I am merely pointing out that the concept "motion" does not apply to events. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E363DE.1309@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #414948 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > > Not really. I am merely pointing out that the concept "motion" does not apply to > events. > > Tom Roberts You never heard the expression "motion pictures"???? each picture is an event. without pictures there is no motion, without motion there are no events...no motion pictures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 17:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <47b4d618-7d88-487e-885b-968462f207a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #414948 |
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 12:31:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 3/30/17 3/30/17 - 8:02 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:17:05 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 3/29/17 3/29/17 1:22 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 12:13:27 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: We have > >>> a stationary object at 4 o'clock. We accelerate at a tremendous rate > >>> toward the 12 o'clock position, until the stationary object aberrates to > >>> the 1 o'clock position. > >>> > >>> Now we turn 30 degrees to the right. > >>> > >>> And you say that the position of the object is now not at the 12 o'clock > >>> position, but at the 12:45 position. > >>> > >>> I'm still confused as to what you mean. Are you saying that during the > >>> time that we turned 30 degrees to the right, that the object in question > >>> moved? > >> > >> No. As I stated, B is at rest in the initial frame. So it does not move > >> relative to that frame. But after the acceleration _I_ am moving relative > >> to that frame, and the light from B that comes in to me is aberrated by my > >> motion. > >> > >>> I was just confused about where the 12:45 heading came from. > >> > >> As I said, it is not exact, just a demonstration of the situation. > >> > >> After the acceleration the light from B comes in to me at 1:00. But turning > >> 30 degrees to the right, so what was 1:00 is now 12:00, does NOT make the > >> light come in at 12:00, it comes in at some value between 12:00 and 1:00, > >> and I said 12:45. This is so because B did not move (relative to the > >> initial frame), but I am and LIGHT FROM B IS STILL ABERRATED, just not as > >> much as it was before the turn. > >> > > > > That's not correct. If you have the image at a heading of 1 o'clock, and > > then turn 30 degrees, the new heading of the image should be at 12 o'clock. > > This is simply NOT TRUE when the image is from light that has been aberrated by > my motion relative to the source of the light. The aberration angle depends on > both my velocity relative to the source AND the direction to the source. It > behaves as I described, not as you fantasize. > > > [...] > > The central disagreement of the debate is this: - You claim that the Lorentz > > Transformations only change the coordinate labels on the events and do not > > actually move them. > > I repeat: EVENTS CANNOT "MOVE" -- or rather, the concept "motion" simply does > not apply to events. You REALLY need to learn the meanings of the words you use. > > > This is a genuine disagreement about what the Lorentz Transformation actually > > does, > > No, it is not "genuine" at all - YOU HAVE SCREWED UP, and are too pig headed to > actually look up how the Lorentz transform is used, and what it does. You are > also too stupid to learn the meanings of the words you use, and thus confuse > yourself -- you are so confused you cannot even recognize your own confusion. > > > There is no disagreement here about what simple words like "move" actually > > mean. > > Yes there is, YOU do not understand what it means in the context of physics and SR. > > An OBJECT can move, basically because it exists for a > nonzero duration; a point of the manifold cannot "move" > (it is where it is, and nothing can change that). > An event is a point in the spacetime manifold. It > makes no sense to attempt to apply the concept "motion" > to an event that has no duration -- "motion" is a change > of position over time, but an event exists at a single > position for a single instant (of zero duration) -- > it cannot possibly change position, and cannot possibly > do anything "over time". Different observers can apply > different coordinate values (labels) to a given event, > but the fact that they are different does not relate > to ANY meaning of "motion" in ANY way. > > > You are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not > > move events. > > Not really. I am merely pointing out that the concept "motion" does not apply to > events. > > Tom Roberts Either you are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not move events, or you admit that the Lorentz Transformations do move events. It's one or the other. I think, based on the other six paragraphs you wrote here, I would say you are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not move events. Your "Not really" seems a bit out of place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0vidnequS7ZYIH7FnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #415002 |
On 4/3/17 4/3/17 - 7:21 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 12:31:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 3/30/17 3/30/17 - 8:02 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: >>> You are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not move >>> events. >> >> Not really. I am merely pointing out that the concept "motion" does not >> apply to events. > > Either you are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not > move events, or you admit that the Lorentz Transformations do move events. Apparently you are unable to read what I wrote and you quoted. So this is hopeless. One last time: the "dichotomy" you claim here is PURE FANTASY -- there is no such either/or, because the concept "motion" DOES NOT APPLY. > It's one or the other. No. It is NEITHER. The concept "motion" DOES NOT APPLY to events. Either the number 7 moves or does not move. -- NO, it is NEITHER, because the concept "motion" does not apply to 7, and "not moving" is a type of motion. As I keep saying: you REALLY need to learn the ACTUAL meanings of the words you use. Your GUESSES are wrong. But I cannot teach you how to read via a medium that requires reading. Goodbye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b53da8e-fb05-4c04-99d6-97dd73d6617d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415063 |
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 10:37:47 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/3/17 4/3/17 - 7:21 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 12:31:49 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 3/30/17 3/30/17 - 8:02 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > >>> You are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not move > >>> events. > >> > >> Not really. I am merely pointing out that the concept "motion" does not > >> apply to events. > > > > Either you are genuinely claiming that the Lorentz Transformations do not > > move events, or you admit that the Lorentz Transformations do move events. > > Apparently you are unable to read what I wrote and you quoted. So this is hopeless. > > One last time: the "dichotomy" you claim here is PURE FANTASY -- there is no > such either/or, because the concept "motion" DOES NOT APPLY. > Sure it does. > > It's one or the other. > > No. It is NEITHER. The concept "motion" DOES NOT APPLY to events. > Sure it can. > Either the number 7 moves or does not move. -- NO, it is > NEITHER, because the concept "motion" does not apply to 7, > and "not moving" is a type of motion. > > As I keep saying: you REALLY need to learn the ACTUAL meanings of the words you > use. Your GUESSES are wrong. But I cannot teach you how to read via a medium > that requires reading. Goodbye. > > Tom Roberts Move: a change of place, position, or state. The lorentz transformation changes the position and time coordinate of events. That is a change in position. What you're denying here is that those coordinates actually represent position and time. Hence, you believe that Lorentz Transformations only affects labels on events. I believe that the Lorentz Transformation affects position. This is a genuine disagreement about phenomena, and what the Lorentz Transformations do. This is not a semantic disagreement about the meaning of the word "move".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 18:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oc0io1$9n7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #415066 |
On 04/04/2017 05:52 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > Move: a change of place, position, or state. > > The lorentz transformation changes the position and time coordinate of events. That is a change in position. Change in position is change of coordinates within the same coordinate system. Change in position between different coordinate systems is coordinate transform reflection of coordinates from 1 system to another. Similarly, the coordinate transform to a system where I have higher speed does not mean I have accelerated. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a99bee8-b304-4911-bc0a-ef85d56cd1ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415074 |
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:51:04 AM UTC-5, Poutnik wrote: > On 04/04/2017 05:52 PM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > Move: a change of place, position, or state. > > > > The lorentz transformation changes the position and time coordinate of events. That is a change in position. > > Change in position > is change of coordinates within the same coordinate system. > Yes, and a change in the position is a change of Cartesian coordinates of an object on rotation or Lorentz Boost of an observer's reference frame. > Change in position between different coordinate systems > is coordinate transform reflection of coordinates > from 1 system to another. > Yes, and Reflection, rotation, lorentz boost, stretch, etc. > Similarly, the coordinate transform to a system > where I have higher speed does not mean > I have accelerated. > I'm not talking about a coordinate transform to a system where you have higher speed. I'm talking about accelerating, and then doing a coordinate transform to a system where you are stationary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68905709-cceb-4d00-a3f6-c8eb04e09c5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #413380 |
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 4:37:21 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > 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. > Yes. This is exactly my point. You are not looking at where the object is, but where the object WAS when it produced the event. But just to go one step further, when you accelerate, events far in the past can move extremely large distances. Even under galilean transformation, they move extremely large distances in space. Under lorentz transformation, they also move extremely large distances in time. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Question_on_Galilean_Relativity_Where_did_you_get_up_this_morning Question on Galilean Relativity. Where did you get up this morning? Edit You wake up at 5 AM. Three hours later, you get on a trolley, traveling to the east at 5 km/h. A man on the trolley asks you. "Where did you get up this morning?" You point back at your house. "Just back there," you say The man says, "No, you got up 15 kilometers in front of the trolley." pointing the other direction. Which of you is more correct? For further discussion of this question, see Section 5 in my working paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314235352_Radar_Time_and_Temporal_Facing_A_Distinction_of_Two_Compatible_Ideas > 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 I'm not finding enough information in your diagrams to understand them, I'm afraid. Is this supposed to be representative of a snapshot of a group of comoving observers passing by, similar to this: http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/ViewFollowing02.gif Or are you presenting a space-time diagram of a group of accelerating bodies,, similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#/media/File:Rindler_chart.svg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <brol@brol.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 17:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oaovr8$pa6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #413440 |
Op 20/03/2017 om 16:36 schreef Jonathan Doolin: > On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 4:37:21 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote: >> 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) > I'm not finding enough information in your diagrams to understand them, > I'm afraid. Is this supposed to be representative of a snapshot of a > group of comoving observers passing by, similar to this: > > http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/ViewFollowing02.gif Yes. The line of dots is the present position "measured/calculated" (linear and perpendicular to motion WRT observer). The right-most colored line is the present position *seen*. The others are previous positions seen (*), say, the "history" of the encounter, showing the visual distortions (the BASIC animation offers choice between keeping them, or erasing them to follow the motion). They correspond to your gif, for one vertical set of dots, extended vertically, and passing by at distance "zero" from the observer. Your gif shows a slight distortion from verticality too. (*) Alternatively, they could be thought of as the present positions seen of other lines of dots following each other at a step distance. The equivalent of this is my "squad" diagrams. > Or are you presenting a space-time diagram of a group of > accelerating > bodies,, similar to this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates#/media/File:Rindler_chart.svg No acceleration in mine. -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web