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 | 13 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 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 08:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a08b33b5-9c34-40ff-b79d-d3d29e8620d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416219 |
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > 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 Well, there are two premises here to be considered. 1. One is whether distant events swing forward and backward in time whenever you accelerate toward and away from them. 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and send thoughts faster than the speed of light. If both premise 1 and premise 2 are true, then it should be possible, in principle, to send a thought backward in time to yourself. But if it is not possible to send a thought backward in time to yourself, either premise 1 or premise 2 must be false. I think, though, many people are more prepared to give up premise 1 than premise 2, though they are incorrect in doing so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe1b0ae8-a0bd-4a90-bb40-fe23ca70a912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416304 |
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 9:27:57 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > > > > 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 Indeed. We all believe in causality, don't we? > Well, there are two premises here to be considered. > > 1. One is whether distant events swing forward and backward in time > whenever you accelerate toward and away from them. This would be absurdly anthromorphic. Who in his right mind would beleve that by merely deciding to start moving he could actually affect what time it is spacelike distances away? > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and send > thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > If both premise 1 and premise 2 are true, then it should be possible, in principle, to send a thought backward in time to yourself. > > But if it is not possible to send a thought backward in time to yourself, > either premise 1 or premise 2 must be false. I think, though, many people > are more prepared to give up premise 1 than premise 2, though they are > incorrect in doing so. Only if they are solipsists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a9f49f1-0ff7-4952-a8e4-84b813f7af28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416419 |
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 7:49:49 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 9:27:57 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 3:41:01 PM UTC-5, Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > Indeed. We all believe in causality, don't we? > > > Well, there are two premises here to be considered. > > > > 1. One is whether distant events swing forward and backward in time > > whenever you accelerate toward and away from them. > > This would be absurdly anthromorphic. Who in his right mind would beleve > that by merely deciding to start moving he could actually affect what time > it is spacelike distances away? > "What time it is" is an observer dependent quantity. Much like "what is in front of you" and "what is behind you" and "what is to your left, or right." You can certainly affect what distant objects are in front of you by turning. Similarly, you can change what distant events are simultaneous, by accelerating. > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and send > > thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > > > If both premise 1 and premise 2 are true, then it should be possible, in principle, to send a thought backward in time to yourself. > > > > But if it is not possible to send a thought backward in time to yourself, > > either premise 1 or premise 2 must be false. I think, though, many people > > are more prepared to give up premise 1 than premise 2, though they are > > incorrect in doing so. > > Only if they are solipsists. You don't have to be a solipsist. But you do have to acknowledge your own existence, and recognize that you cannot actually observe the universe from any perspective other than your own. That doesn't mean denying the existence of other perspectives. It does mean, though, you have to give up the possibility of realistic multiplayer video games with relativistic travel. For instance, though MIT's "A Slower Speed of Light" makes a fine simulation of the effects of Special Relativity, it couldn't be implemented in multiplayer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c355f1b7-a838-416b-8b6c-9a9bd920b460@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416419 |
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 7:49:49 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > Only if they are solipsists. I may have misinterpreted your incomplete sentences. I had two premises. 1. One is whether distant events swing forward and backward in time whenever you accelerate toward and away from them. 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and send thoughts faster than the speed of light. You then suggested that people that would agree with statement 1 were not in their right mind. So I classified you as one of those "most people" who were more prepared to give up premise 1 than premise 2. Then you seem to have said, only solipsists are more prepared to give up premise 1 than premise 2. Which would mean you were self-identifying as a solipsist. However, I interpreted your meaning to say exactly the opposite, that only solipsists are more prepared to give up premise 2 than premise 1. If you really intended to self-identify as a solipsist, I completely misunderstood you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nocasto Aboyar <oocaao@syeoby.ao> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od2ne0$504$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416505 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. Choose a carrier first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0baaf42c-cbb5-4c42-ae7c-08711f7490f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416508 |
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-5, Nocasto Aboyar wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > Choose a carrier first. I'm the wrong person to ask this question, since I am fairly certain no such mechanism or carrier exists. Ask Starmaker to choose a carrier, if you like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58F4FF24.4DCA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #416514 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-5, Nocasto Aboyar wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > > > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > > > Choose a carrier first. > > I'm the wrong person to ask this question, since I am fairly certain no such mechanism or carrier exists. Ask Starmaker to choose a carrier, if you like. if a galaxy can move faster than the speed of light, and inside that galxy contains...information, then ... unless you think my thoughts lack any information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58F5018B.2C6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #416514 |
Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-5, Nocasto Aboyar wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > > > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > > > Choose a carrier first. > > I'm the wrong person to ask this question, since I am fairly certain no such mechanism or carrier exists. Ask Starmaker to choose a carrier, if you like. When the post office was invented, they used a pony to carry information. That information in the hands of the 'letter carrier' contain thoughts. Everyday information is moving faster and faster...faster than the speed of light. It could be that You are forbidden to measure it.. 'They' will not have you Think unless you get 'their' permission. Throw away the textbooks...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-19 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad9af810-5fdd-41c1-9328-7a880ed554ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416508 |
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-5, Nocasto Aboyar wrote: > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > Choose a carrier first. I did recently get exposed to this article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf In it, it claims that within the context of the lambda-CDM model, there are indeed galaxies that move faster than the speed of light. In fact, Davis and Lineweaver go so far as to say "Recession velocities cannot exceed the speed of light" is a misconception. This is sophistry, of course. But it seems to be a commonly held view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-20 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cc4f665-3cb5-4aed-8262-46262effc151@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416679 |
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:14:25 PM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-5, Nocasto Aboyar wrote: > > Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > > 2. The other is the question of whether it is possible to receive and > > > send thoughts faster than the speed of light. > > > > Choose a carrier first. > > I did recently get exposed to this article: > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf > > In it, it claims that within the context of the lambda-CDM model, there are indeed galaxies that move faster than the speed of light. > > In fact, Davis and Lineweaver go so far as to say "Recession velocities cannot exceed the speed of light" is a misconception. > > This is sophistry, of course. But it seems to be a commonly held view. I should clarify here. If someone were to uphold the idea of the Lambda-CDM model, and claim "Recession velocities of distant galaxies cannot go faster than the speed of light" within the context of the Lambda-CDM model, and espousing to support the Lambda-CDM model, then it would be their misconception. But generally, those who say "Recession velocities cannot exceed the speed of light" would be arguing, (whether they knew it or not) *against* the Lambda-CDM model, and they would not need to be under any delusions or misconceptions, to make that argument. Except, they might not be aware that they are making an argument against the supposedly commonly-held view, supported by Davis and Lineweaver.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc50d37a-9ba6-4d7d-9f73-f878064e680d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416419 |
W dniu niedziela, 16 kwietnia 2017 14:49:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > This would be absurdly anthromorphic. Who in his right mind would beleve > that by merely deciding to start moving he could actually affect what time > it is spacelike distances away? Your idiot guru?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58E9150B.30AF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #415490 |
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? I forgot to add that the 'returning traveling twin' is also ...biologically younger then his twin upon returning, is that correct?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c265e968-ea71-41c5-8b20-9af38625f9bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #415521 |
Of two identical twins made of Matter, while avoiding sources of gravitational acceleration, upon both twins being returned to a common synchronized frame, The Twin that has traveled farther WILL BE HOTTER with lower Entropy
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web