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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c12254d-48b5-4e7a-8d05-5332facff35d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426173 |
W dniu środa, 26 lipca 2017 16:41:16 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > > First, every clock is at rest with respect to itself and with respect to co-moving clocks Your moronic mumble has nothing in common with reality and real clocks, however, as you've lost any contact with it a long time ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d08404d-5bb9-4ff3-a8a1-ff8e97c9abf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426173 |
Op woensdag 26 juli 2017 16:41:16 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following: > > 1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. > 2) The Traveling twin etc. > (See the second figure in > http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html) What the reader should study is: (Via Paradox selection) http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox.html The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2, ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years. I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway. > 3) When the twins reunite, they can make the final comparison between their > clocks. And what will you observe? That the stay at home clock aged 10 years and the moving clock aged 8 years. That is the result of the experiment. How do we explain this? > > The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a > > physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on > > lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change. > > > > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all. Please study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks > > When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds > > and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are > > the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) > > runs behind or ticks slower. > > > > First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all > Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc. In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality always accelerations are involved. You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base and you can compare clock readings. Please study this link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm Specific the "Reflection 1" which explains the behaviour of moving clocks. In principle you can have two types of clocks: 1) one in which the lightsignal moves vertical and the mirrors are horizontal. 2) one in which the lightsignal moves horizontal and the mirrors are vertical. In both clocks the moving clock runs the slowest but at a slightly different rate. The type one clock is described at page 270 of the book "Was Einstein right" by Glifford M. Will. The result of this clock is in agreement with the same prediction as SR as in Reflection 1. > > A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock > > runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more > > measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics > > sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks. > > > > SR and GR do predict the correct values for the reading of those clocks. Reflection 1 also shows the same result as SR. Nicolaas Vroom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b835545f-c312-49ab-991a-9e506ba066f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426292 |
El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 9:28:08 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > Op woensdag 26 juli 2017 16:41:16 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > > > What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following: > > > > 1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. > > 2) The Traveling twin etc. > > (See the second figure in > > http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html) > > What the reader should study is: (Via Paradox selection) > http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox.html > > The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2, > ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years. > I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway. > Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps: 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth). 3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This is an invariant value for both twins. 4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years. 5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years. 6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0. This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of view, the travel lasted only 4 years. 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete. > > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all. > > Please study: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks > These optical clock are on research studies and they are not related at all to your misconceptions. > > > > First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all > > Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc. > > In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality > always accelerations are involved. > You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c > -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base > and you can compare clock readings. > That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d3aa7bd-5df6-42de-9c39-22196c2705cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426295 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, And from a point of a walking on a street twin, trees and buildings are running around. An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <904d1628-50a3-41d7-bf22-a82e631411ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426302 |
El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 11:04:59 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > > > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. > > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, > > And from a point of a walking on a street twin, > trees and buildings are running around. > An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a > mistake. But, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you are wrong!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597A1C28.59C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426311 |
does the twin biological clock move faster or slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597A2102.6659@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426315 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... biologial clock, mechanical clock, atomic clock, light clock, a watch.. the question is, *WHEN* does the clock change? When? I mean, with all these clocks running, somebody must know ...at what time? Or just picture the twins looking at their watch one twin says... "Hey, I notice your watch is running slower, 'When' did that happen? "I don't know, I just got back.."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <353f4265-5b06-40fd-b226-7a2b9ac29192@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426320 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... Yes, poor idiot, it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597A41AE.7C1D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426343 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > Yes, poor idiot, it does. When does it go slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d12c9cac-f653-4b79-bb63-44cd11b99382@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426358 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > > > > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > > > Yes, poor idiot, it does. > > > > When does it go slower? It depends on technical details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597A4D59.7320@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426366 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > > > > > > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > > > > > Yes, poor idiot, it does. > > > > > > > > When does it go slower? > > It depends on technical details. Sorry, that's answer is ...unacceptable. Pick a clock of your choice, ... When does it go slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18687d15-e5ee-4402-9f4e-31115b683ed1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426366 |
Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 22:12:36 UTC+2 schreef mlwo...@wp.pl: > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker : > > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > The Starmaker napisał: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > > > > > > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > > > > > Yes, it does. > > > > When does it go slower? > > It depends on technical details. That is correct. It depends both on technical details of the clock self and how the clock is used (at "rest" versus "moving") An interesting document is: http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimekeeping.pdf This document starts with an overview of the evolution of time keeping or clocks. In fact IMO each clock requires different mathematics to describe its behaviour. Page 9 is interesting because it discusses the clock of John Harisson. At page 36 the issues related to SR and GR are discussed. Nicolaas Vroom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597B6840.59D6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426366 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 21:40:28 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:21:15 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > > > > > > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > > > > > Yes, poor idiot, it does. > > > > > > > > When does it go slower? > > It depends on technical details. okay, you don't want to pick a clock, pick a "technical detail".. When does it go slower?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 21:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <597AB92E.1C2E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #426320 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > does the twin biological clock move faster or slower? > > It doesn't make any difference what kind of clock is used... > > biologial clock, mechanical clock, atomic clock, light clock, a watch.. > > the question is, *WHEN* does the clock change? > > When? > > I mean, with all these clocks running, somebody must know ...at what time? > > Or just picture the twins > looking at their watch > one twin says... > > "Hey, I notice your watch is running slower, 'When' did that happen? > > "I don't know, I just got back.." Okay, maybe the word "When" ...and you're not sure what When means... "When" means...'at what time'. So, when does the clock run slower? 'at what time'? Summertime? Wintertime? a day later? a week later? a year later? a momment later? a few minutes after? When does the clock run slower????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <old76b$h17$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426311 |
Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> writes: >El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 11:04:59 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: >> W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: >> >> > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. >> > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, >> >> And from a point of a walking on a street twin, >> trees and buildings are running around. >> An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a >> mistake. >But, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you are wrong! And why call Galileo an idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <605bc3ed-efd9-4ce6-842d-01c82ec1b673@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426319 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 19:17:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> writes: > > >El jueves, 27 de julio de 2017, 11:04:59 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > >> W dniu czwartek, 27 lipca 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > >> > >> > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. > >> > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, > >> > >> And from a point of a walking on a street twin, > >> trees and buildings are running around. > >> An idiot said!! So, there is no possibility of a > >> mistake. > > >But, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, you are wrong! > > And why call Galileo an idiot? And why not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03920c93-b3c1-4e40-af53-86a37d872652@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426295 |
Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > > The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: > > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2, > > ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years. > > I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway. > > > > Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps: I do not think the problem is on my side. The reason is the text is not clear > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, > the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 > (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth). > 3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This > is an invariant value for both twins. Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1. Starting point is the equation: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2 t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r 4t = 5t0 That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest corresponds with 4 ticks (years) of the moving clock. > 4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years. > 5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years. > 6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0. > This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of > view, the travel lasted only 4 years. > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to > complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete. And what is the correct answer? > > > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all. > > > > Please study: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks > > > > These optical clock are on research studies and they are not related at all > to your misconceptions. The issue is what happens when you use such a clock to test its behaviour. > > > First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all > > > Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g etc. > > > > In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality > > always accelerations are involved. > > You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c > > -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base > > and you can compare clock readings. > > > That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate. What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes. The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame) The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates this change in behaviour of the two clocks. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b59c4aba-3bcb-4d9a-9cad-ae6904558622@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426444 |
El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 9:12:37 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > Op donderdag 27 juli 2017 17:19:03 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > > > The space-time interval applicable to this scenario is expressed as follows: > > > ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2, > > > ds^2 = 52 - 32 = 16 square light-years. > > > I do not understand this. It is wrong anyway. > > > > > > > Well, it is clear you do not understand this. Let us take baby steps: > > I do not think the problem is on my side. The reason is the text is not clear > > > 1)The flying distance is d = 3 light-years. > > 2)The plane speed is v = 0.6c. Then, from the point of view of the Earth twin, > > the plane takes d/c = 5 years to complete the travel from event1 to event2 > > (and, of course 5 years to return to Earth). > > 3)The interval (distance through spacetime) is ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2. This > > is an invariant value for both twins. > > Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1. > Starting point is the equation: > c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2 > t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock > Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 > or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 > or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r 4t = 5t0 > That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest corresponds with 4 ticks > (years) of the moving clock. > Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers reading at different distance rates in km/km). What the interval measures is the total distance along a spacetime world line, which does not depend on the clock ticking (actually we know accurate clocks ticking is not affected by gravitation, ie they tick always at 1 sec/sec). > > 4)Replacing numbers ds^2 = 5^2 - 3^2 = 25 - 9 = 16 square light-years. > > 5)For the traveling twin ds'^2 = ds^2 = dt'^2 - dx'^2 = 16 square light-years. > > 6)The traveling twin is present at both event1 and event2, so his dx'^2 = 0. > > This implies (from 5)) that dt'^ = 16. So from the traveling twin point of > > view, the travel lasted only 4 years. > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took 10 years to > > complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip took 8 years to complete. > > And what is the correct answer? > The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime. > > > In the above experiment they used an ideal setup. In reality > > > always accelerations are involved. > > > You start from 0c, 0.1c 0.2c, 0.3c, 0.2c, 0.1c, 0c -0.1c -0.2c -0.3c > > > -0.2c, -0.1c and finally 0c. Now your spacecraft is back to base > > > and you can compare clock readings. > > > > > That does not make any sense unless you specify the time coordinate. > > What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock > always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. > During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes. This is your assertion and experiments have proven it is false. > The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings > the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame) > > The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates > this change in behaviour of the two clocks. > > Nicolaas Vroom No it does not demonstrate anything of the sort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b41036f1-a28c-4490-ab0a-c643051349f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426451 |
Op vrijdag 28 juli 2017 17:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 9:12:37 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > Now compare this with the equation in reflection 1. > > Starting point is the equation: > > c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = L^2 which L^2 = c^2*t0^2 > > t0 = time with clock at rest t = time with moving clock > > Now you get: c^2*t^2 - v^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 > > or: c^2*t^2 - 0.6^2*c^2*t^2 = c^2*t0^2 > > or t^2 - 0.6^2*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.64*t^2 = t0^2 0r 0.8*t = t0 0r > > 4t = 5t0. That means that 5 ticks (years) for the clock at rest > > corresponds with 4 ticks (years) of the moving clock. > > > > Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would > be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers > reading at different distance rates in km/km). The twin scenario (horrible description, it is more about clock comparison under different conditions) is all about clock ticks. See: http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years. > > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took > > > 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip > > > took 8 years to complete. > > > > And what is the correct answer? > > The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime > is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime. You invented a new answer. The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one. > > What I want to say in principle when you want to test a moving clock > > always accelerations and deaccelerations are involved. > > During such an acceleration slowly the behaviour of a clock changes. > > This is your assertion and experiments have proven it is false. > IMO most experiments try to stay away from accelerations, because it makes the whole situation much more complex. > > The same with deaccelerations to stop the spacecraft which brings > > the behaviour back to normal (Considered from one frame) > > > > The result of the experiment as mentioned under (7) above demonstrates > > this change in behaviour of the two clocks. > > No it does not demonstrate anything of the sort. IMO if after an experiment the readings of their clocks are different than in some way or another the behaviour (internal operation) has changed. This has all to do with clock accuracy. See: http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimekeeping.pdf specific the pages 36 etc. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <147a2d22-1374-4621-bee5-00a35de2ee17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426471 |
El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > Op vrijdag 28 juli 2017 17:31:00 UTC+2 schreef Paparios: > > > > Comparing clock ticks is not the answer to the twin scenario (that would > > be equivalent to say the different odometer lectures are due to odometers > > reading at different distance rates in km/km). > > The twin scenario (horrible description, it is more about clock comparison > under different conditions) is all about clock ticks. See: > http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html > The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. > The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years. > You are so much confused about what a comparison means: 1) One clock (the traveling clock) travels far away at a high speed and after a while it returns to Earth to reunite with its staying at Earth twin clock. 2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking faster or slower than the other. Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken. 3) The clock comparison is related to the reading shown on each clock, where the Earth clock shows 10 years have passed by, while the traveling clock shows 8 years have passed by. This is the accumulated time on each of the clocks (similarly to the accumulated distance shown by the odometers) followed through each clock path through spacetime. > > > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took > > > > 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip > > > > took 8 years to complete. > > > > > > And what is the correct answer? > > > > The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime > > is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime. > > You invented a new answer. > The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows > the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one. > Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime. So your conclusion above is total nonsense. When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock showing the time of two years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web