Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424188 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 251 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 11:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 14:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 18:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-09 06:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-09 14:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-10 04:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-10 20:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-11 05:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-11 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 12:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-13 21:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-17 00:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 00:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-18 11:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-19 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 09:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 13:48 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 17:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 21:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 19:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 21:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 22:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 00:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 15:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:57 +0000
The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-08 20:52 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 05:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 06:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 06:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 07:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 15:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-16 06:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 17:13 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 10:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 22:04 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 21:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 16:06 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:46 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 10:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-18 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:02 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 07:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 15:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 06:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 07:38 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 09:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 11:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 17:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 19:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 17:43 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 11:25 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-14 16:32 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 09:34 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 22:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 04:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 04:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 07:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 01:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 02:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 02:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 03:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 05:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 09:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 18:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:35 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 05:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 21:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 23:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 00:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 01:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 02:33 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-19 09:22 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 08:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 06:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 12:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-26 20:38 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> - 2017-08-06 09:54 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:15 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 06:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 08:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 12:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 19:59 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 18:59 -0400
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 13:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-21 02:57 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-21 03:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-21 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-22 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-22 03:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-22 12:59 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 07:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 07:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 21:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 23:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 20:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 20:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 16:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 20:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 21:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 22:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 02:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 05:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 20:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 18:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Esteban Viars <esane@snbvten.vt> - 2017-07-21 18:53 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 17:37 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-23 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-26 01:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-26 07:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-27 07:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 12:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 13:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 13:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 21:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 17:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 08:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 13:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 14:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 01:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-29 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-29 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 07:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 08:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 03:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> - 2017-08-03 10:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-03 05:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 06:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-04 09:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 11:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:48 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 07:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-06 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 15:56 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 09:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 09:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 11:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 05:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-23 19:20 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 22:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 00:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 10:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 23:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:14 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:55 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 07:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-20 12:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-21 10:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:53 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 06:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-15 07:38 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 08:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 11:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:12 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olaujr$1lnc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426199 |
JanPB wrote: > But SR is based on a geometry, not coordinates, and it can be formulated > entirely in terms of light signals, measuring sticks, > and clocks which are not presumed synchronised (they only need to be > identical in construction, just like the measuring sticks). > It's a bit tedious, that's why most textbooks avoid it. Not so. SR is only based on the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. From this to the rest is just algebra. Btw, geometry demands coordinates. I believe you just did a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09e4b23d-5380-404b-b7c8-31657bfbef49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426212 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ernard Hevalier wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > > But SR is based on a geometry, not coordinates, and it can be formulated > > entirely in terms of light signals, measuring sticks, > > and clocks which are not presumed synchronised (they only need to be > > identical in construction, just like the measuring sticks). > > It's a bit tedious, that's why most textbooks avoid it. > > Not so. SR is only based on the assumption of the constancy of the speed > of light. This is encapsulated in part in "SR is based on a geometry". > From this to the rest is just algebra. Btw, geometry demands > coordinates. No. You only need the ability to measure lengths, angles (right angle is enough, I believe; then the flatness of space follows from verifying Pythagorean theorem with measuring sticks), and elapsed times measured by clocks. You don't need any notion of "clock synchronisation" which is for convenience (and for recovering Newtonian mechanics for low speeds). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 00:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27b5f5b4-acca-4f87-aa07-49c079643bb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426221 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 00:09:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ernard Hevalier wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > But SR is based on a geometry, not coordinates, and it can be formulated > > > entirely in terms of light signals, measuring sticks, > > > and clocks which are not presumed synchronised (they only need to be > > > identical in construction, just like the measuring sticks). > > > It's a bit tedious, that's why most textbooks avoid it. > > > > Not so. SR is only based on the assumption of the constancy of the speed > > of light. > > This is encapsulated in part in "SR is based on a geometry". > > > From this to the rest is just algebra. Btw, geometry demands > > coordinates. > > No. You only need the ability to measure lengths, angles More precisely - you only need the ability to measure it RIGHT (i.e. the way described by The Shit of great Einstein).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <489128d1-e3d3-4511-9ac1-5c50ae1c6647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426253 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:15:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 00:09:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ernard Hevalier wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > But SR is based on a geometry, not coordinates, and it can be formulated > > > > entirely in terms of light signals, measuring sticks, > > > > and clocks which are not presumed synchronised (they only need to be > > > > identical in construction, just like the measuring sticks). > > > > It's a bit tedious, that's why most textbooks avoid it. > > > > > > Not so. SR is only based on the assumption of the constancy of the speed > > > of light. > > > > This is encapsulated in part in "SR is based on a geometry". > > > > > From this to the rest is just algebra. Btw, geometry demands > > > coordinates. > > > > No. You only need the ability to measure lengths, angles > > > More precisely - you only need the ability to measure it RIGHT > (i.e. the way described by The Shit of great Einstein). Calling names stuff you don't understand won't get you anywhere. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 09:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om6p0p$14m6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426221 |
JanPB wrote: >> From this to the rest is just algebra. Btw, geometry demands >> coordinates. > > No. You only need the ability to measure lengths, angles (right angle is :) same mistake as the many others. You unit demands coordinates as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 00:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <691636df-4c49-41e6-8af1-b4fce29a9372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426199 |
W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 21:10:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:21:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 01:26:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 19 lipca 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > > > > > > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow > > > > > between their meetings.For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed > > > > > proper time. > > > > > > > > No. The paradox is about the fact that some idiots > > > > imagined that proper clocks are unsynchronized clocks. > > > > > > No. Elapsed times difference has nothing to do with synchronisation. > > > > And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > > Special relativity has nothing to do with synchronisation per se. > (I'm not surprised you didn't know that.) When repeated, an idiocy stays idiotic. (I'm not surprised you didn't know that.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02c437ea-5674-49e9-98f0-f67a873db6fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426252 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 21:10:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:21:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 01:26:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 19 lipca 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow > > > > > > between their meetings.For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed > > > > > > proper time. > > > > > > > > > > No. The paradox is about the fact that some idiots > > > > > imagined that proper clocks are unsynchronized clocks. > > > > > > > > No. Elapsed times difference has nothing to do with synchronisation. > > > > > > And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > Special relativity has nothing to do with synchronisation per se. > > (I'm not surprised you didn't know that.) > > When repeated, an idiocy stays idiotic. You are painting yourself in the corner now. I told you in both replies: MTW has a paragraph on it (I forget the page, you should be able to find it yourself - if you have trouble finding it, let me know and I'll post the page numbers). Bluffing won't work for you either. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d32bb1f7-bb7f-4e41-a4a6-67e405177cbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426304 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 18:07:01 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:12:06 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 21:10:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:21:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 01:26:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:28:28 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 19 lipca 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > > > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow > > > > > > > between their meetings.For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed > > > > > > > proper time. > > > > > > > > > > > > No. The paradox is about the fact that some idiots > > > > > > imagined that proper clocks are unsynchronized clocks. > > > > > > > > > > No. Elapsed times difference has nothing to do with synchronisation. > > > > > > > > And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > > > > > > Special relativity has nothing to do with synchronisation per se. > > > (I'm not surprised you didn't know that.) > > > > When repeated, an idiocy stays idiotic. > > You are painting yourself in the corner now. And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > I told you in both replies: Yes, you did. You're so stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olde4e$1gc7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426340 |
mlwozniak wrote: >> You are painting yourself in the corner now. > > And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > >> I told you in both replies: > > Yes, you did. You're so stupid. Okay, solve this: __ + __ = 8 + + __ - __ = 6 = = 13 8 Both horizontal and vertical. Substitute "__" with your numbers. Fill in the blanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olde75$1gc7$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426346 |
Ernard Hevalier wrote: > mlwozniak wrote: > >>> You are painting yourself in the corner now. >> >> And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. >> >>> I told you in both replies: >> >> Yes, you did. You're so stupid. > > Okay, solve this: > > __ + __ = 8 > + + > __ - __ = 6 > = = > 13 8 > > Both horizontal and vertical. Substitute "__" with your numbers. > Fill in the blanks. Use console monospace fonts, unwrapped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7364547-2087-438b-ace8-b1f920002c67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426348 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:16:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Ernard Hevalier napisał: > Ernard Hevalier wrote: > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > >>> You are painting yourself in the corner now. > >> > >> And you're a queen of England, poor idiot. > >> > >>> I told you in both replies: > >> > >> Yes, you did. You're so stupid. > > > > Okay, solve this: > > > > __ + __ = 8 > > + + > > __ - __ = 6 > > = = > > 13 8 > > > > Both horizontal and vertical. Substitute "__" with your numbers. > > Fill in the blanks. > > Use console monospace fonts, unwrapped. Sorry, poor idiots, I'm not taking commands from an anonymous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <365df58c-151d-4f07-ac52-e3427bcbef47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425601 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:52:56 PM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, ;;@gmail.com wrote: > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two twins follow > between their meetings. For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed > proper time. The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin followed has > less elapsed proper time. > > "Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it > is a different geometrical property related to the projection > of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame > that is measuring it. > > Tom Roberts I think I get the concept: time is a variable, so in the travels of the twin, the particular combination of space coordinate changes and time changes results in t <> t'. As a concept I can accept that. Stated that way, it's a lot better than 'travelling twin' and 'stay at home twin' these are really misleading. Are there internal inconsistencies if this concept is applied? Never mind the experiments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d4ffa90-a36f-4ea0-86d3-eb8956d94861@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425601 |
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two > twins follow between their meetings. > For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. > The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin > followed has less elapsed proper time. The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome of a certain experiment: Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. Observer A is considered to stay at home. Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation. Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers? IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of the clock relatif to the speed of light. > "Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it > is a different geometrical property related to the projection > of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame > that is measuring it. The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this question and putting it a different coat) The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. (has more elapsed proper time, if you like) Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed3ddec9-3ce9-42fb-a572-329afa377b34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425675 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome > of a certain experiment:... > When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks > and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? "How come" as in "cause" is not part of physics but of metaphysics. No matter the "cause", it wont change the prediction of the model; it wont change the math of SR. > The real question to answer first is: what is considered > a "valid" explanation. And physicist answered that a long time ago: Physics has no explanation; such a concept does not apply; its the prediction of the model, to "pop out value" that matters. > IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of > clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). Perhaps. But such metaphysical concepts are not necessary, so why carry them around? Thats why the modern philosophy is to remove such concepts from physics, since it wont change the models (the equations, the predicted results). > The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of > the moving twin runs behind. NO. Perhaps *you* would like such a dynamical view or understanding, but physicist moved past that and realized that such views become obsolete and unnecessary. > The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock > of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. > (has more elapsed proper time, if you like) SR-compute. Conclusion: As the twins reunite, its the non inertial twin's value that is less than the other twin (& by the gamma factor).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e54850b-ea98-4902-b7b2-85ef765772f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425675 |
El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 8:37:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/18/17 7/18/17 11:14 PM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > > So the twin paradox is not about time dilation? What is it? > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two > > twins follow between their meetings. > > For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. > > The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin > > followed has less elapsed proper time. > > The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome > of a certain experiment: > Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. > Observer A is considered to stay at home. > Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" > When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks > and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? > No matter how many times this is explained to people like you in this group, you do not understand. Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. While the odometers (ie the clocks) are both measuring miles (ie seconds), due to the different routes (ie spacetime path) the trip accumulated distance in miles of each odometer (ie clock) is different. > The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" explanation. > > Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers? > > IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of > clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). > This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour > of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of > the clock relatif to the speed of light. > nonsense. > > "Time dilation" is ALSO not about "clocks ticking slower", it > > is a different geometrical property related to the projection > > of the moving clock's tick rate onto the inertial frame > > that is measuring it. > > The issue in the twin paradox is to explain why the clock of > the moving twin runs behind. (of course you can rephrase this > question and putting it a different coat) > The real question to answer is: is it possible that the clock > of the moving observer runs faster than the stay at home. > (has more elapsed proper time, if you like) > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 12:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2057cab3-d71d-4bcc-8728-5cac413e935d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425685 |
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 8:37:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two > > > twins follow between their meetings. > > > For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. > > > The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > > > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin > > > followed has less elapsed proper time. > > > > The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome > > of a certain experiment: > > Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. > > Observer A is considered to stay at home. > > Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" > > When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks > > and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? > > > > No matter how many times this is explained to people like you in this > group, you do not understand. What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. For me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. With the aid of different experiments I try to understand. What is wrong with that? > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from > Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. While the odometers > (ie the clocks) are both measuring miles (ie seconds), due to the different > routes (ie spacetime path) the trip accumulated distance in miles of each > odometer (ie clock) is different. My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odometer IMO they cannot be used to measure time. As such when you go from A to B using different routes I expect the odometer will indicate different distances. What is your point? > > The real question to answer first is: what is considered a "valid" > > explanation. > > > > Can you use as part of the explanation complex numbers? > > > > IMO the explanation is physical in the sense that the behaviour of > > clocks is affected by how fast you move a clock (and gravity). > > This is also the case for clocks who use light signals. The behaviour > > of such a clock depents on the speed of light and the speed of > > the clock relatif to the speed of light. > > nonsense. > Why nonsense? Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices It's all about physics Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okr22j$p1k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425706 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? > In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. > Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict > the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. For > me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. > With the aid of different experiments I try to understand. > > What is wrong with that? Which one. You didn't say anything at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 18:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597135e3$0$60299$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #425708 |
On 7/20/2017 3:59 PM, Ustin Veterre wrote: > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > >> What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? >> In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. >> Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict >> the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. For >> me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. >> With the aid of different experiments I try to understand. >> >> What is wrong with that? > > Which one. You didn't say anything at all. > Fantasy and ego are Ustin's golden rule. You have defined the scientific method which Ustin rejects as "wrong". His own fantasies are the only thing that have any meaning to him. He is very ignorant and quite the nutjob. You'll find little help in this den of kooks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94795c57-f26b-454e-8674-4f30d69c4f07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425706 |
El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 14:50:06 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El jueves, 20 de julio de 2017, 8:37:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:22:56 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > It is about the lengths of the paths through spacetime that the two > > > > twins follow between their meetings. > > > > For timelike paths the path length is the total elapsed proper time. > > > > The traveling twin's clock does NOT "tick slower" than the home > > > > twin's clock, but rather the length of the path the traveling twin > > > > followed has less elapsed proper time. > > > > > > The twin paradox (wrong name) involves the explanation of the outome > > > of a certain experiment: > > > Consider two obsevers A and B who each have an identical clock. > > > Observer A is considered to stay at home. > > > Observer B travels for some time and returns back "home" > > > When they meet and compare clocks the clock of A shows 20 ticks > > > and the clock of B shows 15 ticks. How come? > > > > > > > No matter how many times this is explained to people like you in this > > group, you do not understand. > > What is your golden rule to decide that I do not understand? > In general what I understand are the outcomes from experiments. > Some people start with postulates and using these postulates to predict > the future. Finally they need experiments to prove these postulates. > For me the most important are the outcomes of these experiments. > With the aid of different experiments I try to understand. > > What is wrong with that? > > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip from > > Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. While the odometers > > (ie the clocks) are both measuring miles (ie seconds), due to the different > > routes (ie spacetime path) the trip accumulated distance in miles of each > > odometer (ie clock) is different. > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odometer > IMO they cannot be used to measure time. > As such when you go from A to B using different routes I expect the > odometer will indicate different distances. What is your point? You clearly demonstrate that you do not know what an analogy is, and for that you are unable to understand the reason the twin paradox is not a paradox. I will put the explanation without "odometers", but for sure you will not understand. a)Both clocks (of the stay at home (point A) and the traveller twins) are accurate clocks (may be atomic clocks). b)When the traveller departs and travels at a speed v<c and after a while (after reaching point B) he turns back and returns to meet again the stay at home twin at point A, his atomic clock continues to tick at its specified frequency, which is the same of the stay at home clock. c)the traveller twin clock follows a path through spacetime, which it turns out is shorter than the path through spacetime the stay at home twin followed. Yes, even if the stay at home twin did not move or travel, its time coordinate changed. Yes, the traveller twin path through spacetime changed all of the coordinates (x,y,z and t). d)From the above, the accumulated time(the sum of ticks) of the traveling clock is then LESS than the accumulated time of the stay at home twin. Why is traveller’s proper time shorter than that of the stay at home twin? the answer is the particular structure of the relativistic spacetime that is responsible for the difference of accumulated or proper times. Let us see why. In classical mechanics and ordinary space, the Pythagorean theorem indicates that z^2 = x^2 + y^2, as in any right-angled triangle, which implies that z < x + y. But Special Relativity requires the introduction of a four-dimensional geometrical structure, the Poincaré-Minkowski space-time, which couples space and time through the speed of light. The Pythagorean theorem becomes s^2 = x^2 – c^2t^2, and a straightforward algebraic manipulation allows us to deduce that s is always longer than x + ct. As said previously, s measures the proper time. In Poincaré-Minkowski geometry, the worldlines of inertially moving bodies maximize the proper time elapsed between two events.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7d7f5a2-4e49-4cb2-a541-da91c26d0883@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425710 |
W dniu czwartek, 20 lipca 2017 22:45:17 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > a)Both clocks (of the stay at home (point A) and the traveller twins) are > accurate clocks (may be atomic clocks). Unfortunately, any final differences between them are inconsistent with this assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web