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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a8df016-0f2d-4cab-a0e0-56b59e02ecf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415178 |
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 6:22:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 6:25:36 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > > > > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > > > > > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > > > > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > > > > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > > > > > > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > > > > > > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > > > > > > > > > > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > > > > > > > The key elements of the paradox is that one twin leaves and comes back. The other twin stays at home. You can't do that with both twins being inertial. > > > Wrong. You are confused by the use of "twins". You can have three inertial observers (each one with instrumentation). Observer A is moving at speed v away from observer B towards the location of observer C. Observer B is stationary at its location. Observer C is located at X light years from A and moving towards A at speed v. When B encounters C, C synchronizes its clock with the one of B. > I was responding to Starmaker, and my understanding of his scenario was that he had one stay-at-home twin, and another traveling twin. > The results of this gedanken are the same as the traditional one. that is, clock C when reaching observer A shows less elapsed time and, for sure, there is no acceleration. > Fine. But that's an entirely different thought experiment. > > > > > > > > > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > > > > > > > > > > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem. > > > > facing: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite. > > > > temporal: relating to time. > > > > temporal facing: position with the future toward a certain direction. > > > > Does that help it make sense? > > No, as this gedanken is quite simple explained by using geometry. I'm sorry you can't understand the idea of temporal facing. If you're interested in more details, you could visit this webpage, where I go into a bit more detail. http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/TemporalFacing.php Good luck!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bef4d912-7624-45c3-bedb-9510e5eb6de6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415221 |
El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 13:58:22 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 6:22:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 6:25:36 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > > > > > > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > > > > > > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > > > > > > > > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > > > > > > > > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > > > > > > > > > > The key elements of the paradox is that one twin leaves and comes back. The other twin stays at home. You can't do that with both twins being inertial. > > > > > Wrong. You are confused by the use of "twins". You can have three inertial observers (each one with instrumentation). Observer A is moving at speed v away from observer B towards the location of observer C. Observer B is stationary at its location. Observer C is located at X light years from A and moving towards A at speed v. When B encounters C, C synchronizes its clock with the one of B. > > > > I was responding to Starmaker, and my understanding of his scenario was that he had one stay-at-home twin, and another traveling twin. > > > > > The results of this gedanken are the same as the traditional one. that is, clock C when reaching observer A shows less elapsed time and, for sure, there is no acceleration. > > > > Fine. But that's an entirely different thought experiment. > No it is not as the experiment is related as how the comparisons of the lectures of clocks A and C relate between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem. > > > > > > facing: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite. > > > > > > temporal: relating to time. > > > > > > temporal facing: position with the future toward a certain direction. > > > > > > Does that help it make sense? > > > > No, as this gedanken is quite simple explained by using geometry. > > I'm sorry you can't understand the idea of temporal facing. > > If you're interested in more details, you could visit this webpage, where I go into a bit more detail. > > http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/TemporalFacing.php > > Good luck! I went through your video and there is nothing new or of interest over there. To begin with, measurement instruments have not faces nor eyes. What is the face of a radio antena?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2c918c9-032c-4a92-b565-02ce0954f1a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415235 |
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 12:21:30 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 13:58:22 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 6:22:17 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 5 de abril de 2017, 6:25:36 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 11:43:26 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > El martes, 4 de abril de 2017, 9:57:56 (UTC-3), Jonathan Doolin escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see he wouldn't answer the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But even if Paul Anderson won't confirm it, his demonstration shows that the acceleration of the traveling twin causes the stay-at-home twin's age to go up very fast, just as Mike Fontenot derives in his paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This not even wrong..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More explicitly, Mike Fontenot was not wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of each twin body human cells. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, meaning his spacetime path was shorter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The car analogy is may be clear. The Earth twin measures the passing of time like the odometer in car measures the distance the car travels. The traveler twin measures the passing of time the same way (that is in the car both odometers are equal). However the traveling twin (or the traveling car) follows a different path and clearly the final lectures will differ the same way the odometer lectures do. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the car analogy carries along with it some baggage that lead to inaccurate thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > Temporal facing, is a better analogy: that when you accelerate, you cause distant events to swing forward and backward in time in your perspective. Just like when you turn your body, objects to your left and right move forward and backward in space in your perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The twin paradox works the same WITHOUT acceleration (actually this is a SR scenario where all the twins are inertial) > > > > > > > > > > > > > The key elements of the paradox is that one twin leaves and comes back. The other twin stays at home. You can't do that with both twins being inertial. > > > > > > > Wrong. You are confused by the use of "twins". You can have three inertial observers (each one with instrumentation). Observer A is moving at speed v away from observer B towards the location of observer C. Observer B is stationary at its location. Observer C is located at X light years from A and moving towards A at speed v. When B encounters C, C synchronizes its clock with the one of B. > > > > > > > I was responding to Starmaker, and my understanding of his scenario was that he had one stay-at-home twin, and another traveling twin. > > > > > > > > > The results of this gedanken are the same as the traditional one. that is, clock C when reaching observer A shows less elapsed time and, for sure, there is no acceleration. > > > > > > > Fine. But that's an entirely different thought experiment. > > > > No it is not as the experiment is related as how the comparisons of the lectures of clocks A and C relate between them. > You can discuss that with Starmaker. I don't recall any clock lecturers in his question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The stay-at-home twin does not change his temporal facing. So he does not see the events of the traveling twin swing backward in time. The traveling twin does change his temporal facing, and he does see the events of the stay-at-home twin swing forward in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does not make any sense at all. The explanation of the paradox resides in the geometry of the problem. > > > > > > > > facing: positioned with the front toward a certain direction; opposite. > > > > > > > > temporal: relating to time. > > > > > > > > temporal facing: position with the future toward a certain direction. > > > > > > > > Does that help it make sense? > > > > > > No, as this gedanken is quite simple explained by using geometry. > > > > I'm sorry you can't understand the idea of temporal facing. > > > > If you're interested in more details, you could visit this webpage, where I go into a bit more detail. > > > > http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/pages/TemporalFacing.php > > > > Good luck! > > I went through your video and there is nothing new or of interest over there. To begin with, measurement instruments have not faces nor eyes. What is the face of a radio antena? The radio antenna's temporal facing is toward its immediate future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oc0ch2$1lgj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #415056 |
Paparios wrote: > This not even wrong..... > Both twins see their lives to behave as usual, they age one second per > second every day of every year. Nothing unusual affects the behavior of > each twin body human cells. It depends on how you define your "every year". > What it really happens is the traveling twin follows a spacetime path > which is different than the spacetime path followed by the Earth located from, not "then". > twin. So at the end of the journey they compare their coordinates and, > sure enough, the traveling twin clock lecture shows he has aged less, > meaning his spacetime path was shorter. I beg you to reconsider. Longer, not shorter. Essentially, his space envelope has to be much, much larger, compared to the guy standing at home, waiting. You are severely convoluted in Relativity, my friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E49D84.1301@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415053 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:46:29 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > > > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > > > > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > > > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the > > travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. > > > > In your mind, perhaps that's the central question. > > But when I google the "twin paradox" as you suggested earlier, the "google definition" is > > "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more." > > So it is in fact the stay-at-home twin has aged more... Not that the traveling twin "got younger". What? Nobody wants to know how a person ages..they want to know how those one get...younger. The "Twin paradox" is about...How did the traveling twin got younger?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-05 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04d8354a-0c24-4499-bc18-5c7c294f7a45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415164 |
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 2:31:30 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:46:29 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > > > > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > > > > > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the > > > travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. > > > > > > > In your mind, perhaps that's the central question. > > > > But when I google the "twin paradox" as you suggested earlier, the "google definition" is > > > > "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more." > > > > So it is in fact the stay-at-home twin has aged more... Not that the traveling twin "got younger". > > > What? > > > Nobody wants to know how a person ages..they want to know how those one get...younger. > > The "Twin paradox" is about...How did the traveling twin got younger? No. Both twins get older in the twin paradox. Neither twin ends the scenario younger than when they left. It's just that the older twin ages more than the traveling twin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E867D7.610D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415174 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 2:31:30 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:46:29 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > > > > > > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > > > > > > > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the > > > > travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. > > > > > > > > > > In your mind, perhaps that's the central question. > > > > > > But when I google the "twin paradox" as you suggested earlier, the "google definition" is > > > > > > "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more." > > > > > > So it is in fact the stay-at-home twin has aged more... Not that the traveling twin "got younger". > > > > > > What? > > > > > > Nobody wants to know how a person ages..they want to know how those one get...younger. > > > > The "Twin paradox" is about...How did the traveling twin got younger? > > No. Both twins get older in the twin paradox. Neither twin ends the scenario younger than when they left. It's just that the older twin ages more than the traveling twin. So, you're saying the returning traveling twin is...younger? I mean, if you look at the 'returning traveling twin' clock, if you look at the returning traveling twin calendar..it shows the returning traveling twin is...younger, is that correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef9d87ee-d4b5-4665-b863-f3f017f5d6e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415490 |
On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 11:31:23 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 2:31:30 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:46:29 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 6:14:28 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To put it simply, (so that everyone can understand) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you do a search for > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=twin+paradox&* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you'll notice the words: "and returns home" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, was is it necessary for the twin to "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, if he doesn't "return home" is he still...younger???? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he continues straight on at constant velocity, then each twin would forever regard the other as aging slower than himself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is No, then he needs to "return home" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the answer is Yes, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE "return home" FOR? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, ...the question is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When did the traveling brother get younger?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During the traveling brother's acceleration, many of the events, associated with the traveling brother slip from the traveling brother's future into the traveling brother's past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did the traveling brother get younger before he "return home", or after he had "return home"??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It' not so much that the traveling brother got younger, but that the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets older, from the point-of-view of the traveling twin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? The whole "Twin paradox" is about the > > > > > travelin twin getting younger, not the other twin getting older. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your mind, perhaps that's the central question. > > > > > > > > But when I google the "twin paradox" as you suggested earlier, the "google definition" is > > > > > > > > "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more." > > > > > > > > So it is in fact the stay-at-home twin has aged more... Not that the traveling twin "got younger". > > > > > > > > > What? > > > > > > > > > Nobody wants to know how a person ages..they want to know how those one get...younger. > > > > > > The "Twin paradox" is about...How did the traveling twin got younger? > > > > No. Both twins get older in the twin paradox. Neither twin ends the scenario younger than when they left. It's just that the older twin ages more than the traveling twin. > > > > So, you're saying the returning traveling twin is...younger? I mean, if you look at the 'returning traveling twin' clock, if you look at > the returning traveling twin calendar..it shows the returning traveling twin is...younger, is that correct? The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by which the stay-at-home twin aged. But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 10:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <G-qdnVIEWdb5n3TFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #415512 |
On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. All that is correct. > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html The abstract of that paper is WRONG, as is your brief summary of it. This does NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot advocates. Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, but it also is not useful. IMHO it is more important to point out that the age of a distant object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, and also IRRELEVANT to physics (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through -- IT IS WRONG. What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding observation that can be made. As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically copied it. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <515ea546-5a96-445c-8508-5d951217b2fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415516 |
W dniu sobota, 8 kwietnia 2017 17:31:55 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > advocates. And when you walk a street, trees and buildings APPEAR to run around you. Relativistic moron SAID! Don't dare to deny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7444fdcf-5611-4f63-8893-67f6ce61eb7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415516 |
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > All that is correct. > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, No, it is not wrong. > as is your brief summary of it. This does > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > advocates. > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, Right, it is not wrong. > but it also is not useful. IMHO > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > and also IRRELEVANT to physics I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > -- IT IS WRONG. There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > observation that can be made. > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > copied it. > > Tom Roberts I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58EC6720.2758@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415657 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > > > All that is correct. > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, > > No, it is not wrong. > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > > advocates. > > > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, > > Right, it is not wrong. > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO > > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, > > No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics > > I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > > > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > > -- IT IS WRONG. > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. > > Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > > observation that can be made. > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > > copied it. > > > > Tom Roberts > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline. i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <804a98d6-c131-4451-a367-d6a368bc02f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415839 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > > > > > All that is correct. > > > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, > > > > No, it is not wrong. > > > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does > > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > > > advocates. > > > > > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, > > > > Right, it is not wrong. > > > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO > > > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > > > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, > > > > No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > > > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics > > > > I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > > > > > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > > > -- IT IS WRONG. > > > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > > > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > > > > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" > > > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. > > > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. > > > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. > > > > Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > > > > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > > > observation that can be made. > > > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > > > copied it. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. > > > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline. > > > > i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane. Well, Mike Fontenot does post regularly to usenet, which will eventually drive anyone insane, at least temporarily. But what we should be asking, is whether Mike Fontenot is correct, or not. When, it says, in the abstract: "According to an accelerating observer, for a 1g acceleration occurring when the separation is sufficiently great, the object's maximum (in magnitude) rate of aging is greater than the accelerating observer's rate of aging by a factor approximately equal to their separation, as measured in the object's frame, in light‐years. If the observer is accelerating toward the object, the object will be getting older at that rate. If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate." You can, of course, put yourself into the role of the "object", in this scenario, and render the statement false, if you desire to misrepresent Mike Fontenot's argument, and claim he is insane. Or, you can put yourself into the role of the "observer", in this scenario, in which case, it renders the statement true, and it makes Mike Fontenot's statement correct. However, it should be noted, that if a method for instantaneous communications (faster-than-light) ever became available, then even the first interpretation would not be insane. Because if you could choose which instantaneous time-isocline along which to receive and send information, you could instantaneously receive information from the object's present (older age), accelerate away from the object to make it's present (younger age) current, then send an instantaneous signal to that younger age. The object, in this scenario would not have the experience of aging, but the object could see evidence of such aging, in the communication from its future self. I think it far more likely, though, that there is no way to actually transfer information via faster-than-light travel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 00:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58EDD380.74ED@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415862 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > > > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > > > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > > > > > > > All that is correct. > > > > > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > > > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > > > > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, > > > > > > No, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does > > > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > > > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > > > > advocates. > > > > > > > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, > > > > > > Right, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO > > > > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > > > > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, > > > > > > No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > > > > > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics > > > > > > I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > > > > > > > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > > > > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > > > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > > > > -- IT IS WRONG. > > > > > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > > > > > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > > > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > > > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > > > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > > > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > > > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > > > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > > > > > > > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" > > > > > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. > > > > > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. > > > > > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. > > > > > > Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > > > > > > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > > > > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > > > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > > > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > > > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > > > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > > > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > > > > observation that can be made. > > > > > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > > > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > > > > copied it. > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. > > > > > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline. > > > > > > > > i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane. > > Well, Mike Fontenot does post regularly to usenet, which will eventually drive anyone insane, at least temporarily. > > But what we should be asking, is whether Mike Fontenot is correct, or not. When, it says, in the abstract: > > "According to an accelerating observer, for a 1g acceleration occurring when the separation is sufficiently great, the object's maximum (in magnitude) rate of aging is greater than the accelerating observer's rate of aging by a factor approximately equal to their separation, as measured in the object's frame, in lightâ€years. If the observer is accelerating toward the object, the object will be getting older at that rate. If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be > > You can, of course, put yourself into the role of the "object", in this scenario, and render the statement false, if you desire to misrepresent Mike Fontenot's argument, and claim he is insane. > > Or, you can put yourself into the role of the "observer", in this scenario, in which case, it renders the statement true, and it makes Mike Fontenot's statement correct. > > > > I think it far more likely, though, that there is no way to actually transfer information via faster-than-light travel. Information does not...tranfer, via or ask the bus driver for a transfer to another bus. Information is..carried. When the information enters the bus, then it is carried to it's ...destination. And also...information uses different carriers. If you're looking for a carrier faster than light...Thought travels faster than light. So, information sometimes uses thought instead of light to...get around. Information use different methods for transportation...but it doesn't "tranfer". It takes a certain mode of transportation from beginning to end and then...gets off the train. But information does not transfer from one carrier to another carrier...it goes all the way untill it reaches it's destination and delivers the message. And it doesn't return at less than the speed of light... I think all your ideas are...confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8521acd9-dfc6-41c9-b737-ae09a0faa935@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415996 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:13:16 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > > > > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > > > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > > > > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > > > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > > > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > > > > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > > > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > > > > > > > > > All that is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > > > > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > > > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > > > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > > > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > > > > > > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, > > > > > > > > No, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does > > > > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > > > > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > > > > > advocates. > > > > > > > > > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, > > > > > > > > Right, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO > > > > > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > > > > > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, > > > > > > > > No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > > > > > > > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics > > > > > > > > I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > > > > > > > > > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > > > > > > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > > > > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > > > > > -- IT IS WRONG. > > > > > > > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > > > > > > > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > > > > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > > > > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > > > > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > > > > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > > > > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > > > > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" > > > > > > > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. > > > > > > > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. > > > > > > > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. > > > > > > > > Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > > > > > > > > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > > > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > > > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > > > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > > > > > > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > > > > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > > > > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > > > > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > > > > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > > > > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > > > > > observation that can be made. > > > > > > > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > > > > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > > > > > copied it. > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. > > > > > > > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline. > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane. > > > > Well, Mike Fontenot does post regularly to usenet, which will eventually drive anyone insane, at least temporarily. > > > > But what we should be asking, is whether Mike Fontenot is correct, or not. When, it says, in the abstract: > > > > "According to an accelerating observer, for a 1g acceleration occurring when the separation is sufficiently great, the object's maximum (in magnitude) rate of aging is greater than the accelerating observer's rate of aging by a factor approximately equal to their separation, as measured in the object's frame, in light‐years. If the observer is accelerating toward the object, the object will be getting older at that rate. If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be > > > > You can, of course, put yourself into the role of the "object", in this scenario, and render the statement false, if you desire to misrepresent Mike Fontenot's argument, and claim he is insane. > > > > Or, you can put yourself into the role of the "observer", in this scenario, in which case, it renders the statement true, and it makes Mike Fontenot's statement correct. > > > > > > > > I think it far more likely, though, that there is no way to actually transfer information via faster-than-light travel. > > > Information does not...tranfer, via or ask the bus driver for a transfer > to another bus. Information is..carried. > Digital information can be carried through a conducting wire, or via wi-fi connection, or through fiber-optics. > > When the information enters the bus, then it is carried to it's > ...destination. > > > And also...information uses different carriers. > > > If you're looking for a carrier faster than light...Thought travels > faster than light. So, information sometimes uses thought instead of > light to...get around. > Actually, no. Thought travels through neurons. The nerve signal has been measured to travel along the axon at speeds from 50 m/s to about 150 m/s... well that's measured with giant squid neurons... Human neurons were too small to get the probes into. https://books.google.com/books?id=xETAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA647&lpg=PA647#v=onepage&q&f=false > Information use different methods for transportation...but it doesn't > "tranfer". > > > It takes a certain mode of transportation from beginning to end and > then...gets off the train. > How is that not transfering? > But information does not transfer from one carrier to another > carrier...it goes all the way untill it reaches it's destination > and delivers the message. > Let's pose this as a question, rather than a statement of fact. Between source and destination, one might have something happen. Photons bounce several times off the sides of a fiber-optic cable. Photons refract through glass, or refract through your pupil to get to your retina, or through a prism to separate into various colors of light. Does that refraction of the light constitute a transfer of information? > And it doesn't return at less than the speed of light... > If it returns at all, it returns at the speed of light, or less. > > I think all your ideas are...confused. I think your confusion about my ideas may be caused mostly by your incorrect belief that "thought travels faster than light" But it might also be caused by your ambiguous understanding of what, exactly constitutes information transfer. What I meant by information was "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things." By information transfer, I meant any energy transfer, whether it happens via a collision (for instance, interaction of air molecules in the cochlea, or microphone, or any surface or gas) or electromagnetic interaction (for instance, interaction of visible light with the retina, or CCD, or any surface or gas). On the other hand, if you would want to discuss the question of whether information is transferred when a photon gets refracted, or reflected, and changes direction? I can only say, my personal belief is there is a momentum exchange between the optical device and the photon, and that momentum exchange, regardless of how small, would constitute an exchange of information as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58EEA101.3051@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #416026 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:13:16 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17 9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the > > > > > > > beginning of his journey. And that will be the same whether you look at his > > > > > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than > > > > > > > he was when the traveling twin left. And that will be the same whether you > > > > > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by > > > > > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling > > > > > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin. > > > > > > > > > > > > All that is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get > > > > > > > younger. If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you > > > > > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed > > > > > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper. > > > > > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html > > > > > > > > > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG, > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does > > > > > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the > > > > > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot > > > > > > advocates. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fontenot's CADO is not wrong, > > > > > > > > > > Right, it is not wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO > > > > > > it is more important to point out that the age of a distant > > > > > > object "now" is AMBIGUOUS, > > > > > > > > > > No. In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined. > > > > > > > > > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics > > > > > > > > > > I'd agree with that. That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer. > > > > > > > > > > > (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics). > > > > > > > > > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly > > > > > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through > > > > > > -- IT IS WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper. All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object." > > > > > > > > > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant > > > > > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the > > > > > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting > > > > > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO -- > > > > > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are > > > > > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how > > > > > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate" > > > > > > > > > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation. The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning. And it would also be an incorrect statement. > > > > > > > > > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement. > > > > > > > > > > Now I prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger". But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant." > > > > > > > > > > > > However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you > > > > > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting. It is when the traveling twin > > > > > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to > > > > > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end. > > > > > > > > > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that > > > > > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only > > > > > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling > > > > > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how > > > > > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is > > > > > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding > > > > > > observation that can be made. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to > > > > > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically > > > > > > copied it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations. > > > > > > > > > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane. > > > > > > Well, Mike Fontenot does post regularly to usenet, which will eventually drive anyone insane, at least temporarily. > > > > > > But what we should be asking, is whether Mike Fontenot is correct, or not. When, it says, in the abstract: > > > > > > "According to an accelerating observer, for a 1g acceleration occurring when the separation is sufficiently great, the object's maximum (in magnitude) rate of aging is greater than the accelerating observer's rate of aging by a factor approximately equal to their separation, as measured in the object's frame, in lightâ€years. If the observer is accelerating toward the object, the object will be getting older at that rate. If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will > > > > > > You can, of course, put yourself into the role of the "object", in this scenario, and render the statement false, if you desire to misrepresent Mike Fontenot's argument, and claim he is insane. > > > > > > Or, you can put yourself into the role of the "observer", in this scenario, in which case, it renders the statement true, and it makes Mike Fontenot's statement correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it far more likely, though, that there is no way to actually transfer information via faster-than-light travel. > > > > > > Information does not...tranfer, via or ask the bus driver for a transfer > > to another bus. Information is..carried. > > > > Digital information can be carried through a conducting wire, or via wi-fi connection, or through fiber-optics. I wasn't refering to "digital" information...I'm talking about All information. If you write a letter to your mother and she gets it in the mail, that's information carried by post office. > > > > > When the information enters the bus, then it is carried to it's > > ...destination. > > > > > > And also...information uses different carriers. > > > > > > If you're looking for a carrier faster than light...Thought travels > > faster than light. So, information sometimes uses thought instead of > > light to...get around. > > > > Actually, no. Thought travels through neurons. The nerve signal has been measured to travel along the axon at speeds from 50 m/s to about 150 m/s... well that's measured with giant squid neurons... Human neurons were too small to get the probes into. "Thought" travels in different modes besides...neurons. For example, this thought of mine reached You...did it use "neurons" to reach you???? Remember, Thought is Information. Maybe you need to learn How Many different types of Information exist...and how it is carried. I don't want to go past your level of...maybe this is too much for you. Where did you get this idea nothing travels faster than the speed of light? Maybe, just maybe...NOTHING travels faster than the speed of light if you understand that NOTHING is...something. In other words, when some one tells you the Universe comes from NOTHING, maybe they don't want to you think beyond...nothing, so they can get there first before you do. NOTHING is just a brick wall they threw at you. For example, when information enters a black hole...where does it go? > > https://books.google.com/books?id=xETAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA647&lpg=PA647#v=onepage&q&f=false > > > Information use different methods for transportation...but it doesn't > > "tranfer". > > > > > > It takes a certain mode of transportation from beginning to end and > > then...gets off the train. > > > > How is that not transfering? > > > But information does not transfer from one carrier to another > > carrier...it goes all the way untill it reaches it's destination > > and delivers the message. > > > > Let's pose this as a question, rather than a statement of fact. Between source and destination, one might have something happen. Photons bounce several times off the sides of a fiber-optic cable. Photons refract through glass, or refract through your pupil to get to your retina, or through a prism to separate into various colors of light. Does that refraction of the light constitute a transfer of information? refraction of light diminishes ....information. > > > And it doesn't return at less than the speed of light... > > > > If it returns at all, it returns at the speed of light, or less. > > > > > I think all your ideas are...confused. > > I think your confusion about my ideas may be caused mostly by your incorrect belief that "thought travels faster than light" But it might also be caused by your ambiguous understanding of what, exactly constitutes information transfer. Oh, you're hanging on to "tranfer"...your loss, not mine. That's one of your ...Oops. > > What I meant by information was "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things." > > By information transfer, I meant any energy transfer, whether it happens via a collision (for instance, interaction of air molecules in the cochlea, or microphone, or any surface or gas) or electromagnetic interaction (for instance, interaction of visible light with the retina, or CCD, or any surface or gas). It's obvious you have a limit view on how many ways 'information' can travel and it's many forms. > > On the other hand, if you would want to discuss the question of whether information is transferred when a photon gets refracted, or reflected, and changes direction? I can only say, my personal belief is there is a momentum exchange between the optical device and the photon, and that momentum exchange, regardless of how small, would constitute an exchange of information as well. any information that is refracted, reflected or changes direction...gets diminished. What you don't know...you don't know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 09:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoeui4a.5to.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #416064 |
The Starmaker wrote in <58EEA101.3051@ix.netcom.com>: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: ----snip---- > > Thought travels through neurons. The nerve signal has been measured > > to travel along the axon at speeds from 50 m/s to about 150 m/s... > > (well that's measured with giant squid neurons... Human neurons > > are too small to get the probes into.) > > > "Thought" travels in different modes besides...neurons. Wrong. > For example, this thought of mine reached You... Wrong. Your statement reached him. And me. Your thought never left your (ahem) neurons. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b65284ed-f258-42c7-be83-30538b55c84e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416103 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:44:47 AM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > The Starmaker wrote in <58EEA101.3051@ix.netcom.com>: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > > Thought travels through neurons. The nerve signal has been measured > > > to travel along the axon at speeds from 50 m/s to about 150 m/s... > > > (well that's measured with giant squid neurons... Human neurons > > > are too small to get the probes into.) > > > > > > "Thought" travels in different modes besides...neurons. > > Wrong. > > > For example, this thought of mine reached You... > > Wrong. Your statement reached him. And me. Your thought never left > your (ahem) neurons. > > ----snip---- > > Ned Starmaker is supporting the hypothesis that there may be some method of information transfer that is instantaneous--faster than the speed of light. Obviously, the way that Starmaker's thought reached us is through a number of channels, including impulses through his fingers, touching the keyboard, capacitor elements in the keyboard, translation into ascii code, conversion to a frequency modulated signal, through wires, wifi, or fiber-optic cable, or satellite, to our computers, where it was converted, probably into some light-signal via a graphics card, which carried to our eyes, refracted by our pupil, absorbed by rods and cones, interpreted in our brains, until each of us probably, at least momentarily wondered what sort of thoughts are actually in Starmaker's head. After thinking a while on it, it occurs to me that Starmaker is genuinely of the opinion that thought, can, in principle, travel at faster than the speed of light. This idea has been promoted in such science fiction as "Ender's Game" and "Kirlian Quest", books that I enjoyed, growing up; that though energy and matter could not travel faster than the speed of light (in these fictional universes), souls, and thought might be able to be sent instantaneously across the galaxy. Of course, these fictional stories invoked technologies that certainly don't exist, and probably cannot exist within the real universe. But my concern wasn't so much with dispelling the possibility that thought could travel faster than the speed of light. My point was, IF information could be transferred faster than the speed of light, along any "CADO - Current Age of Distant Object" space-like-interval, THEN time travel would also be possible, for all intents and purposes, that one could use information from their own future to affect their own present
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnoevoio.n6o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #416127 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: ----starmaker stuff snipped---- > But my concern wasn't so much with dispelling the possibility that > thought could travel faster than the speed of light. My point was, > IF information could be transferred faster than the speed of light, > along any "CADO - Current Age of Distant Object" space-like-interval, > THEN time travel would also be possible, for all intents and > purposes, that one could use information from their own future > to affect their own present I don't thonk so. No matter how you define (time) intervals, and no matter how you postulate thought actually leaving your mind and travelling, and no matter what speeds you imagine, your thought cannot get to a destination before you have it. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 10:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <26qdnWJnluD2BG3FnZ2dnUU78X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #416219 |
"Ned Latham" wrote in message news:slrnoevoio.n6o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz... Jonathan Doolin wrote: ----starmaker stuff snipped---- >> But my concern wasn't so much with dispelling the possibility that >> thought could travel faster than the speed of light. My point was, >> IF information could be transferred faster than the speed of light, >> along any "CADO - Current Age of Distant Object" space-like-interval, >> THEN time travel would also be possible, for all intents and >> purposes, that one could use information from their own future >> to affect their own present >I don't thonk so. No matter how you define (time) intervals, and no >matter how you postulate thought actually leaving your mind and >travelling, and no matter what speeds you imagine, your thought >cannot get to a destination before you have it. Sure, I do see that as a key flaw in the interpretation of space-time as "is", rather than "as if" over a limited range. Gödel's proof of "closed time-like paths" in GR really is support for the notion that space-time really is only a behavioural model. Going back in time, just doesn't seem reasonable. It means for the person going back, his atoms and stuff keep moving in a forward time manner for him, yet he is passing by atoms and stuff, going in reverse. Most bizarre. Its quite typical of behavioural models, that they give nonsense outside specific ranges of validity. Equating the stress energy tensor to the Riemann curvature tensor is just a curve fit, with no physical basis as to why, by design. So, it is not surprising that it might generate garbage with certain ranges of x and t. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web