Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426883 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-24 18:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 05:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-03 22:35 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:44 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:47 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-04 07:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-05 01:22 +0200
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-05 10:02 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-07 09:22 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:28 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune hard at work, posting imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-09 11:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 10:14 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:31 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 14:04 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-10 12:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-16 07:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:59 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune "explains" the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-18 08:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-16 16:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-19 09:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-19 12:32 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 13:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-21 07:43 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 17:08 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-24 10:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 03:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:37 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 03:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:40 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 21:20 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 00:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 07:48 -0700
Ken Shito as cretin as Stephane Baune "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:30 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:55 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 10:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:09 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-11 00:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 05:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 00:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 03:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:13 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-11 10:23 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 12:18 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-13 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 10:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-13 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-17 04:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 23:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 08:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 09:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:33 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 07:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 08:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 16:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 05:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:44 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:56 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:38 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:41 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 09:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-24 16:29 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 15:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 02:24 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:25 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:11 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 22:09 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-23 07:19 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:25 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 21:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 08:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 09:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 16:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 16:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:54 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 04:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 04:42 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 21:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 05:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:33 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 19:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:42 -0700
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 00:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7912fce4-5e41-4826-855c-c2aab023b449@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428037 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:52:28 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 6:00:28 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:07:13 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > consider the Doppler effect - it only occurs when there is relative > > motion between the source and receiver and it collapses, for > > example, when the source and receiver are brought next to each > > other and the receiver or source stops. No legacy effects like > > in the age difference of twins. So the Doppler effect is a > > real time effect with no artefacts or permanent effects. > > > > Why is not the 'time dilation' or the relativistic transformation > > the same? > > They are the same. Put two clocks side by side with relative speed zero: they tick at the same rate. The thing is with clocks, they are counters; they keep track, log, and "add" their results. The Doppler effect does not do this (because its not meant to; it is interested only in the rate, and not in the cumulative effect.). So what says there a cumulative effect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 05:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8bc2199-0db9-4c96-a591-60b286d84de4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428218 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 3:58:26 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > So what says there a cumulative effect? You. A clock is a device meant to accumulate, to count the total. View it this way: 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.... The doppler effect measures the # of dots between two successive 1's. A clock counts the # of dots from start to your chosen end. Simple, no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd1187fe-571f-4a30-848b-5d2be9066cfd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428227 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:23:39 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 3:58:26 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > So what says there a cumulative effect? > > You. A clock is a device meant to accumulate, to count the total. View it this way: > > 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.... > > The doppler effect measures the # of dots between two successive 1's. > A clock counts the # of dots from start to your chosen end. > > Simple, no? Not only clocks but: Fuel flow meters Biological processes Crystal growth Nuclear reactors So the number of dots differs depending on? Are there 'lost dots' ? I guess the travelling twin loses some of this dots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec6d7857-1b97-4aa6-9d26-01b8ddb8d0fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428621 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > Not only clocks but: Because they don't - check in GPS. > > Fuel flow meters > Biological processes > Crystal growth > Nuclear reactors Unfortunately: - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light speed rocket - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light speed rocket - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light speed rocket - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2dfffd3-c356-44f6-980e-1bdce4db1bc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428622 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > Not only clocks but: > > Because they don't - check in GPS. > > > > > Fuel flow meters > > Biological processes > > Crystal growth > > Nuclear reactors > > Unfortunately: > - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light speed rocket > - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error. "proper time" is the rate of processes taking place within an inertial frame of reference. This article explains much: http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/ It admits that if you are moving along with your clocks and fuel flow meters and crystals, the laws of physics hold. "Time dilation" or the 'correction factor for translating measurements and times between two systems moving at a relatively large fraction of the speed of light' is, as pointed out.. how did tjrob put it: ""Time dilation" is a differential effect which depends only on the relative velocity between the clock in question and an inertial frame. It is a measurement effect for the inertial frame, and changes instantaneously when that relative velocity changes" Could it be that the two effects have been confused, where "time dilation" is a measurement effect to which permanence and cumulative effects have been wrongly attributed. Could it be..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 03:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62677074-a401-46eb-ab3a-0e260c3c6f65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428630 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 12:08:56 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > Not only clocks but: > > > > Because they don't - check in GPS. > > > > > > > > Fuel flow meters > > > Biological processes > > > Crystal growth > > > Nuclear reactors > > > > Unfortunately: > > - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light speed rocket > > - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket > > - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light speed rocket > > - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light speed rocket > > - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error. > > "proper time" is the rate of processes taking place within an inertial frame of reference. This article explains much: :) And proper system is communism. It's explained here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/ "within an inertial frame of reference" sounds like "nowhere" to me, BTW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15586b6b-a5e6-4474-a942-41c06faea384@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428631 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:09:21 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 12:08:56 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > > > Not only clocks but: > > > > > > Because they don't - check in GPS. > > > > > > > > > > > Fuel flow meters > > > > Biological processes > > > > Crystal growth > > > > Nuclear reactors > > > > > > Unfortunately: > > > - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light speed rocket > > > - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket > > > - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light speed rocket > > > - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light speed rocket > > > - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error. > > > > "proper time" is the rate of processes taking place within an inertial frame of reference. This article explains much: > > :) > And proper system is communism. It's explained here: > https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/ > > "within an inertial frame of reference" sounds like > "nowhere" to me, BTW. No need to check, because they all happen as they always happen. Unless you are speeding by in a rocket trying to measure your experiments which are in the other rocket, you need to make sure nothing gets lost in the translation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f57bd0d-6cd3-40c3-bb83-f86185c0adc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428648 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 15:30:06 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:09:21 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 12:08:56 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:53:11 PM UTC+5:30, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > > > > > Not only clocks but: > > > > > > > > Because they don't - check in GPS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fuel flow meters > > > > > Biological processes > > > > > Crystal growth > > > > > Nuclear reactors > > > > > > > > Unfortunately: > > > > - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light speed rocket > > > > - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket > > > > - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light speed rocket > > > > - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light speed rocket > > > > - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error. > > > > > > "proper time" is the rate of processes taking place within an inertial frame of reference. This article explains much: > > > > :) > > And proper system is communism. It's explained here: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/ > > > > "within an inertial frame of reference" sounds like > > "nowhere" to me, BTW. > > No need to check, because they all happen as they always happen. That's right, things in near-light-speed rockets are as usual, no doubt. there is no need to check, for sure. But, still, nobody has ever checked them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 04:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7345fc82-d9a7-4dcd-9d83-a60021f3212e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428622 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:23:11 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 14 sierpnia 2017 08:25:16 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > Not only clocks but: > > Because they don't - check in GPS. > > > Fuel flow meters > > Biological processes > > Crystal growth > > Nuclear reactors > > Unfortunately: > - nobody has ever checked how biological processes flow in a near light > speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked how crystals grow in a near light speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked what fuel flow metters show in a near light > speed rocket > - nobody has ever checked how nuclear reactors work in a in a near light > speed rocket > - and clocks in GPS indicate t'=t. With the precision of an acceptable error. And nobody has ever checked Wozzie-boy's mental problems ... of have they? He certainly is dealing with autism (or not dealing with it because he is ignoring it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-11 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <A4udnatIHedFVhDEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #428218 |
On 8/11/17 2:58 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > So what says there a cumulative effect? The way they are calculated: "Time dilation" is a differential effect which depends only on the relative velocity between the clock in question and an inertial frame. It is a measurement effect for the inertial frame, and changes instantaneously when that relative velocity changes. Path length is an integral effect which for elapsed proper time of a clock moving relative to an inertial frame depends on the entire path, including the relative velocity relative to the frame at each and every point along the path. Path length (elapsed proper time) is cumulative, "time dilation" is not. The usual twin paradox demonstrates the former, not the latter. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb9b7824-fdc8-4967-8ef0-43f77a5053eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428269 |
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:53:11 PM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/11/17 2:58 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > So what says there a cumulative effect? > > The way they are calculated: > > "Time dilation" is a differential effect which depends only on the relative > velocity between the clock in question and an inertial frame. It is a > measurement effect for the inertial frame, and changes instantaneously when that > relative velocity changes. > > Path length is an integral effect which for elapsed proper time of a clock > moving relative to an inertial frame depends on the entire path, including the > relative velocity relative to the frame at each and every point along the path. > > Path length (elapsed proper time) is cumulative, "time dilation" is not. The > usual twin paradox demonstrates the former, not the latter. > > Tom Roberts Need to get up to speed on 'proper time' "The essence of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is that it connects three distinct quantities to each other: space, time, and proper time. ‘Time’ is also called coordinate time or real time, to distinguish it from ‘proper time’. Proper time is also called clock time, or process time, and it is a measure of the amount of physical process that a system undergoes. For example, proper time for an ordinary mechanical clock is recorded by the number of rotations of the hands of the clock. Alternatively, we might take a gyroscope, or a freely spinning wheel, and measure the number of rotations in a given period. We could also take a chemical process with a natural rate, such as the burning of a candle, and measure the proportion of candle that is burnt over a given period." http://www.iep.utm.edu/proper-t/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 12:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <P62dnTwG7NJ23hbEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #427854 |
On 8/9/17 8/9/17 7:30 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote:
> [Tom Roberts wrote] "Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are
> really geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to
> an object will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact
> at all -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed,
> but it isn't."
>
> Thanks Tom, that makes it all the more clearer. This is all about a
> 'transformation' when describing events in a moving frame to time and space
> measures in our stationary frame, adjusting for the fact that speeds
> approaching that of light are not additive.
>
> But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time
> one at that?
Illusions are what stage magicians do, or what certain pictures do that exploit
subtleties in human vision processing. This is not that.
Geometrical projections can and do have real, physical consequences:
1. the geometrical projection of a ladder's length onto the width of a
doorway determines whether it can be carried through the doorway.
2. The geometrical projection of a pion's proper time onto the lab
frame determines how far it can travel in a beamline before decaying.
Etc.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2c06776-a50a-4442-845a-1e63650aec3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427897 |
W dniu środa, 9 sierpnia 2017 19:18:41 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > Geometrical projections can and do have real, physical consequences: Sure, they can toggle some switches in a mind of insane halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48f61326-75a7-4f83-bf6e-0407a40ddd4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427897 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 10:18:41 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/9/17 8/9/17 7:30 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > [Tom Roberts wrote] "Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are > > really geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to > > an object will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact > > at all -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, > > but it isn't." > > > > Thanks Tom, that makes it all the more clearer. This is all about a > > 'transformation' when describing events in a moving frame to time and space > > measures in our stationary frame, adjusting for the fact that speeds > > approaching that of light are not additive. > > > > But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time > > one at that? > > Illusions are what stage magicians do, or what certain pictures do that exploit > subtleties in human vision processing. This is not that. > > Geometrical projections can and do have real, physical consequences: > 1. the geometrical projection of a ladder's length onto the width of a > doorway determines whether it can be carried through the doorway. > 2. The geometrical projection of a pion's proper time onto the lab > frame determines how far it can travel in a beamline before decaying. Although there is a difference between the two in the sense that the doorway is a physical object while spacetime is an abstraction (this may change in future theories but in current space and time are not substances). So the bottom line is that in relativity we have a model and a means of quantification (for the elapsed time differences, say) but we don't have any _underlying_ model from which the elapsed time differences (and the geometry) would _emerge_. -- Jan -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 20:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ksmdnQho2_ZQLBbEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #427915 |
On 8/9/17 8/9/17 2:23 PM, JanPB wrote: >> Geometrical projections can and do have real, physical consequences: >> 1. the geometrical projection of a ladder's length onto the width of a >> doorway determines whether it can be carried through the doorway. >> 2. The geometrical projection of a pion's proper time onto the lab >> frame determines how far it can travel in a beamline before decaying. > > Although there is a difference between the two in the sense that the doorway > is a physical object while spacetime is an abstraction (this may change > in future theories but in current space and time are not substances). Geometrical projections are ALWAYS part of the model, not the world. The pion beamline is a physical object, just like the doorway. Those moving pions "fit" in the beamline just as the ladder "fits" through the doorway, IF AND ONLY IF the geometrical projection is favorable. Of course the ladder/doorway is a projection in space, while the pion/beamline is a projection in spaceTIME. > So the bottom line is that in relativity we have a model and a means > of quantification (for the elapsed time differences, say) but we don't > have any _underlying_ model from which the elapsed time differences (and > the geometry) would _emerge_. Yes. The relationship between geometrical projections in the model and physically fitting in the world demonstrates that the model is an excellent one. But don't be fooled into thinking that therefore the geometry "corresponds" to "something" in the world.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6563b373-600e-4136-b67d-d5876486468b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427973 |
W dniu czwartek, 10 sierpnia 2017 03:07:33 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 8/9/17 8/9/17 2:23 PM, JanPB wrote: > >> Geometrical projections can and do have real, physical consequences: > >> 1. the geometrical projection of a ladder's length onto the width of a > >> doorway determines whether it can be carried through the doorway. > >> 2. The geometrical projection of a pion's proper time onto the lab > >> frame determines how far it can travel in a beamline before decaying. > > > > Although there is a difference between the two in the sense that the doorway > > is a physical object while spacetime is an abstraction (this may change > > in future theories but in current space and time are not substances). > > Geometrical projections are ALWAYS part of the model, not the world. And though they are not a pat of the world, they can and do have real, physical consequences: they can toggle some switches in the brain of a fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7ce3586-3916-4ad9-9ffa-0501ec11d95c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427616 |
On Monday, 7 August 2017 16:22:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> [...] > > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > > double-quotes, as if it were not). > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are > VERY POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" > time does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT > actually contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, > which in all cases is UNAFFECTED. > Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical > projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all > -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, > but it isn't. Is the concept geometrical projections equivalent with something mathematical? Does this also indicate that both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are not something physical? In the sense that when you heat an iron rod its length becomes longer? But what about a moving clock i.e. when two clocks are moved along different path and when they meet the number of ticks is different? Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599092D8.532C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #428515 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Monday, 7 August 2017 16:22:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> [...] > > > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > > > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > > > double-quotes, as if it were not). > > > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are > > VERY POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" > > time does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT > > actually contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, > > which in all cases is UNAFFECTED. > > Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical > > projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all > > -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, > > but it isn't. > > Is the concept geometrical projections equivalent with something mathematical? > > Does this also indicate that both "time dilation" and "length contraction" > are not something physical? In the sense that when you heat an iron rod its > length becomes longer? > > But what about a moving clock i.e. when two clocks are moved along > different path and when they meet the number of ticks is different? > > Nicolaas Vroom > But the question is...When did the number of ticks become different? At what time did the number of ticks become different? 1) right away 2) a little while later 3) a week later 4) sometimes 5) all the time 6) the first tick I gotta get into my car and go varrrooooooooooooommmm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-13 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ceda247-8382-4eef-ae0b-9b2956a065d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428515 |
El domingo, 13 de agosto de 2017, 11:23:15 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Monday, 7 August 2017 16:22:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> [...] > > > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > > > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > > > double-quotes, as if it were not). > > > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are > > VERY POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" > > time does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT > > actually contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, > > which in all cases is UNAFFECTED. > > Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical > > projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all > > -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, > > but it isn't. > > Is the concept geometrical projections equivalent with something mathematical? > > Does this also indicate that both "time dilation" and "length contraction" > are not something physical? In the sense that when you heat an iron rod its > length becomes longer? > It is a geometrical projection that has physical consequences. Like if you try to pass a ladder through a door, the geometrical orientation of the ladder projects the ladder onto the door. If the projection is less than the door width, you can pass the ladder through the door. > But what about a moving clock i.e. when two clocks are moved along > different path and when they meet the number of ticks is different? > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2cec887b-e9c9-4545-81b6-041cf79bbeef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428567 |
On Monday, 14 August 2017 00:05:42 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 13 de agosto de 2017, 11:23:15 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > On Monday, 7 August 2017 16:22:34 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are > > > VERY POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" > > > time does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT > > > actually contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, > > > which in all cases is UNAFFECTED. > > > Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical > > > projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > > > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all > > > -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, > > > but it isn't. > > > > Is the concept geometrical projections equivalent with something mathematical? > > > > Does this also indicate that both "time dilation" and "length contraction" > > are not something physical? In the sense that when you heat an iron rod its > > length becomes longer? > > > > It is a geometrical projection that has physical consequences. > Like if you try to pass a ladder through a door, the geometrical orientation > of the ladder projects the ladder onto the door. If the projection is less > than the door width, you can pass the ladder through the door. I do not fully understand. You can pass a ladder of 5 by 20 by 200 cm through a hole of 6 by 21 cm. If you have a box of 20 * 20 by 200 cm you cannot pass that box through that same hole, > > But what about a moving clock i.e. when two clocks are moved along > > different path and when they meet the number of ticks is different? IMO that is something physical > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web