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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c68dbf0-7c90-4543-8412-613b3e8ea19c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426909 |
W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed > > > > of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), > > > > but not while travelling. > > > > > > > > > > Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated > > > ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you > > > will not understand what relativity is. > > > > The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical. > > > > Wrong again. Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. No, poor idiot, our senses don't detect any coordinates. That's because coordinates are abstract. Before we used to think > x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and > spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are. Since your moronic physics stopped requiring their constructs to be measurable... > All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental > measured values and b) be simple but as complete as possible. No - your idiot guru has proven they don't have. > Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as possible > within their domain of applicability. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4030b12e-58b1-40f3-9024-a4a341955857@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425892 |
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > > [...]What is your point? > > > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > Consider the following 2 options: > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > show 600 miles. > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > The odd meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. This means that the odometer analogy is useless. > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. > Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > same reading? > > > The usual twin paradox with > > instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure > > the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is > > hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle > > experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one. > > This implies (if my understanding is correct) that the second clock should > show less elapsed proper time. > In simple terminology; the second clocks runs behind > > > Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. > Okay > > Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed. > Here we have a problem. What do you mean? > > To solve the issue "how clocks perform" we have to made two (4) assumptions: > 1) We agree that every where, the universe, at this moment > has the same time after the Big Bang. This implies that the Universe > has everywhere the same age. > 2) We agree that every where in the universe at this moment, > all events that can be be indentified, are simultaneous events. > 3) As such we also agree that a self centered view of the Universe > (of what I see and observe) is irrelevent. > 4) As such it is our responsible to define a clock which shows > the age of the Universe. > > The problem is that an odometer is not very helpfull in this > exercise, which as far as I understand can only be used to measure > distances here on earth (?) and not in space. > > When you want to study the twin "paradox" different identical clocks > with different speeds are used. Different speeds require accelerations > and these accelerations change the performs of the clocks. > At the pages 26 and 27 in the book GRAVITATION the concept "good" and > "bad" clocks is introduced. "Bad" clocks undergo accelarations. > Accelerations imply different speeds. IMO when you change the speed > it is the inner workings of the clock that changes. This is important > for a clock which uses lightsignals to function, because the speed > of light does not change. The result is that the usual clock rate > changes. The most important lesson is "not" to use clocks with > different speeds when you want to unravel the laws of nature. > > A very interesting article to study is this: > http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273 > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ol2st9$mne$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425907 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: >> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: >> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. >> > > [...]What is your point? >> > >> > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure >> > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. >> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. >> >> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip >> > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. >> Consider the following 2 options: >> One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will >> show 600 miles. >> Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. >> The odometer will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. >With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. >This means that the odometer analogy is useless. Stupid Ken, nowhere in this party of the analogy were clocks mentioned. He is discussing how you can make different trips from Chicago to New York, and by doing so, you get different distance measurements by the odometers. Odometers strictly measure distance, not time, and they are not clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5975891E.5A55@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425918 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > >> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > >> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > >> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > >> > > [...]What is your point? > >> > > >> > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > >> > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > >> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > >> > >> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > >> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > >> > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > >> Consider the following 2 options: > >> One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > >> show 600 miles. > >> Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > >> The odometer will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > > >With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. > >This means that the odometer analogy is useless. > > Stupid Ken, nowhere in this party of the analogy were clocks mentioned. > He is discussing how you can make different trips from Chicago to New > York, and by doing so, you get different distance measurements by the > odometers. Odometers strictly measure distance, not time, and they are > not clocks. What time is it? It's six miles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 00:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59759E66.16FE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425947 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > > >On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:10:01 AM UTC-4, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > >> On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > >> > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > >> > > [...]What is your point? > > >> > > > >> > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > >> > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > > >> okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > >> > > >> On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > >> > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > >> > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > > >> Consider the following 2 options: > > >> One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > > >> show 600 miles. > > >> Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > > >> The odometer will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > > > > >With clocks: clock one will accumulate more clock seconds than clock two. > > >This means that the odometer analogy is useless. > > > > Stupid Ken, nowhere in this party of the analogy were clocks mentioned. > > He is discussing how you can make different trips from Chicago to New > > York, and by doing so, you get different distance measurements by the > > odometers. Odometers strictly measure distance, not time, and they are > > not clocks. > > What time is it? It's six miles. You can use a "space-time odometer", ..at the tone the time will be 6 and half miles past 3 o'clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 00:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6756473b-82c8-43b2-93f0-d9d696308df0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425952 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 lipca 2017 09:14:49 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > What time is it? It's six miles. > > > > You can use a "space-time odometer" Or the wand of Gandalf the White.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5974E333.20CF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425892 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > > [...]What is your point? > > > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > Consider the following 2 options: > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > show 600 miles. > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. > Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > same reading? > > > The usual twin paradox with > > instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure > > the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is > > hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle > > experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one. > > This implies (if my understanding is correct) that the second clock should > show less elapsed proper time. > In simple terminology; the second clocks runs behind > > > Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. > Okay > > Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed. > Here we have a problem. What do you mean? > > To solve the issue "how clocks perform" we have to made two (4) assumptions: > 1) We agree that every where, the universe, at this moment > has the same time after the Big Bang. This implies that the Universe > has everywhere the same age. > 2) We agree that every where in the universe at this moment, > all events that can be be indentified, are simultaneous events. > 3) As such we also agree that a self centered view of the Universe > (of what I see and observe) is irrelevent. > 4) As such it is our responsible to define a clock which shows > the age of the Universe. > > The problem is that an odometer is not very helpfull in this > exercise, which as far as I understand can only be used to measure > distances here on earth (?) and not in space. > > When you want to study the twin "paradox" different identical clocks > with different speeds are used. Different speeds require accelerations > and these accelerations change the performs of the clocks. > At the pages 26 and 27 in the book GRAVITATION the concept "good" and > "bad" clocks is introduced. "Bad" clocks undergo accelarations. > Accelerations imply different speeds. IMO when you change the speed > it is the inner workings of the clock that changes. This is important > for a clock which uses lightsignals to function, because the speed > of light does not change. The result is that the usual clock rate > changes. The most important lesson is "not" to use clocks with > different speeds when you want to unravel the laws of nature. > > A very interesting article to study is this: > http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273 > > Nicolaas Vroom wat kind of clock was einstein using in his twin paradox thought experiment, a "good" clock or a "bad" clock?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 00:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59759F7C.C14@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425911 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > > > [...]What is your point? > > > > > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > > okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > > > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > > Consider the following 2 options: > > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > > show 600 miles. > > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > > The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. > > Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. > > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > > same reading? > > > > > The usual twin paradox with > > > instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure > > > the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is > > > hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle > > > experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one. > > > > This implies (if my understanding is correct) that the second clock should > > show less elapsed proper time. > > In simple terminology; the second clocks runs behind > > > > > Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. > > Okay > > > Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed. > > Here we have a problem. What do you mean? > > > > To solve the issue "how clocks perform" we have to made two (4) assumptions: > > 1) We agree that every where, the universe, at this moment > > has the same time after the Big Bang. This implies that the Universe > > has everywhere the same age. > > 2) We agree that every where in the universe at this moment, > > all events that can be be indentified, are simultaneous events. > > 3) As such we also agree that a self centered view of the Universe > > (of what I see and observe) is irrelevent. > > 4) As such it is our responsible to define a clock which shows > > the age of the Universe. > > > > The problem is that an odometer is not very helpfull in this > > exercise, which as far as I understand can only be used to measure > > distances here on earth (?) and not in space. > > > > When you want to study the twin "paradox" different identical clocks > > with different speeds are used. Different speeds require accelerations > > and these accelerations change the performs of the clocks. > > At the pages 26 and 27 in the book GRAVITATION the concept "good" and > > "bad" clocks is introduced. "Bad" clocks undergo accelarations. > > Accelerations imply different speeds. IMO when you change the speed > > it is the inner workings of the clock that changes. This is important > > for a clock which uses lightsignals to function, because the speed > > of light does not change. The result is that the usual clock rate > > changes. The most important lesson is "not" to use clocks with > > different speeds when you want to unravel the laws of nature. > > > > A very interesting article to study is this: > > http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273 > > > > Nicolaas Vroom > > wat kind of clock was einstein using in his twin paradox thought experiment, a "good" clock or a "bad" clock? most likely a "bad" clock since einstein doesn't really want to measure the exact time... but if you combine a light-clock with a space-time odometer..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 23:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5f98b05-e048-481e-9978-5d1aefffa7b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425892 |
W dniu niedziela, 23 lipca 2017 14:10:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Nicolaas Vroom napisał: > On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > > [...]What is your point? > > > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > Consider the following 2 options: > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > show 600 miles. > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. > Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > same reading? Get conscious, man. Have you ever seen 2 clocks with identical readings? The question is not whether clocks have identical indications or not. What matters is: is difference between them "proper" or "erroneous".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 08:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ol4a8h$h37$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425950 |
mlwozniak wrote: > Get conscious, man. Have you ever seen 2 clocks with identical readings? > The question is not whether clocks have identical indications or not. > What matters is: is difference between them "proper" or "erroneous". May I get again the last part??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 02:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <608c6141-42b2-4ae4-b280-1aaec68ccd00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425962 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 lipca 2017 10:14:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Ernard Hevalier napisał: > mlwozniak wrote: > > > Get conscious, man. Have you ever seen 2 clocks with identical readings? > > The question is not whether clocks have identical indications or not. > > What matters is: is difference between them "proper" or "erroneous". > > May I get again the last part?? Clocks ALWAYS differed. And differences in Newton's time were much greater than now, he surely knew about them. The real difference between the classical physics and The Shit of Einstein is: in the classical physics the diference between clocks, whatever it was, was erroneous and thus ignored. While poor idiot Einstein has "discovered" that unsynchronizing clocks are fine and proper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 20:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z5SdnRPn6OmV1eTEnZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #425892 |
On 7/23/17 7/23/17 7:09 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: >> Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip >> from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > Consider the following 2 options: > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > show 600 miles. > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. The ANALOGY is strictly in Euclidean geometry in which there is no time. You are to look ONLY at the values on the odometers. Driving speed is irrelevant. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f78160e-7d89-456f-832b-41369e40d05d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425751 |
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > [...]What is your point? > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed > (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. The usual twin paradox with instantaneous > accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure the elapsed (proper) time > along each path. As the geometry is hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides > of the triangle experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who > traversed one. > > Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. Each clock measured 1 > second for every second traversed. This is true only if a second is a universal interval of time. It is not. The SR math says that a second in A’s frame (or on A’s clock) is worth 1/gamma second in B’s frame (or on B’s clock).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 23:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8054066-9431-4ae0-b6a6-3200a99eb91b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425685 |
W dniu czwartek, 20 lipca 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > 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. Meantime, in the real world: -seconds are not miles -clocks and odometers work completely differently -while odometers can show different values and it's okay, ANY difference in clocks indication is an error (with the exception of clocks from different zones).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 07:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <900a34b6-202c-4951-b5d9-31e654c0181a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425685 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:08:45 AM UTC-4, 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: > > > 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 (i.e. clock) is different. This analogy is obsolete.....it says that the car that followed a longer path will accumulate more miles when they meet again simultaneously. Whereas with clocks the clock that follows the longer path will accumulate less clock seconds. Better explanation: the rate of accumulating clock seconds is dependent on the speed (absolute motion) of the clock in SPACE. The higher is the speed of the clock in SPACE (the E-Matrix) the slower is its rate of accumulating clock seconds. > > > 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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59710A65.72D1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425675 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > 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 At what point in time does the clock run faster? Is it one second after the traveling twin moves? Is it one minute after the traveling twin moves? Is it one hour after the traveling twin moves? Is it one day after the traveling twin moves? At what point in time does the clock run faster?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59723B34.467@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #425707 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > 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 > > At what point in time does the clock run faster? Is it one second after the traveling twin moves? > > Is it one minute after the traveling twin moves? > Is it one hour after the traveling twin moves? > Is it one day after the traveling twin moves? > > At what point in time does the clock run faster? In other words, 'when' does the clock run faster? Are both clocks the same time two days later after the traveling twin? How about a week later? Are the clocks still the same?? Or, are the clocks differnt times the moment the traveling twin ...travels? When does it speed up or slow down??? A year later? A second later? Or, ....whenever it feels like it. No one can answer this question cause...no one knows. I guess you gotta stop making 'thought experements' and measure it in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z5SdnRDn6OkP2uTEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #425675 |
On 7/20/17 7/20/17 8:37 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > 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) [First, as I keep saying, this is NOT ABOUT ONE CLOCK "RUNNING FASTER" THAN THE OTHER -- identical clocks ALWAYS run at identical rates. This is about the total elapsed proper time for each twin between their separation and reunion.] Given that the home twin remains at rest in an inertial frame the answer is clear: NO. Proof: Use the usual coordinates in the inertial frame of the home twin, denote the separation as happening at time T0, and the reunion at T1. The home twin's clock displays \integral_T0^T1 dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = T1-T0 (v=0) The traveling twin's clock displays \integral_T0^T1 dt sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) < T1-T0 (0 <= v < c) [Since the integrand for the traveling twin is always <= 1, and is < 1 for at least part of the journey, the traveling twin's clock displays less elapsed proper time than the home twin's.] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78608e21-184a-46f3-a5da-c0a7dce55733@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426232 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 03:53:30 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 8:37 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > 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) > > [First, as I keep saying, this is NOT ABOUT ONE CLOCK "RUNNING > FASTER" THAN THE OTHER -- identical clocks ALWAYS run at > identical rates. In the imagination of an insane halfbrain; in reality, however, it depends. > Proof: Use the usual coordinates in the inertial frame of the home twin, denote denote that a man walking a street observe trees and buildings running around him. And it's obvious truth! Because a moron said!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87f1cd8a-bd33-4c51-ae09-1c691a03b9cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425601 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:22:56 AM UTC-4, 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 time like 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. If the traveling clock accumulate less clock seconds than the stay at home clock when they meet again.....then the logical conclusion is that it “ticks slower” or accumulating clock seconds slower. The cause of this slower accumulating clock seconds by the traveling clock are due to the following reasons: 1. According to SR: the difference is due to the longer path length followed by the traveling clock. 2. According to IRT: the traveling clock travelled at a higher speed in SPACE than the stay at home clock and thus accumulating clock seconds at a slower rate. Why higher speed in SPACE causes the clock to accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate? The answer: The completion of each cycle of the Cs 133 atom is dependent on the arrival of a specific amount of energy from SPACE (the E-Matrix) and this is dependent on the speed (absolute motion) of the Cs 133 atom in SPACE (the E-Matrix). > > "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 There is no way to MEASURE the tick rate of a moving clock......the rate of a moving clock accumulates clock second is predicted using the LT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web