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 | 2017-08-29 22:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 25 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 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 01:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-28 11:57 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 23:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 23:41 -0700
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 kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 09:48 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 12:46 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 14:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-29 14:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 08:21 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 15:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:14 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 16:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:58 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 19:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:53 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 07:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 08:20 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 11:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:21 -0700
Cretin Ken Sito at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-05 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Ken Sito at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:50 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-05 14:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-06 11:10 -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
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 22:41 -0700
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7063fc55-c57a-4235-b970-d5cc39920664@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429464 |
W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 22:05:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > It has been explained before to you and tyhis will be my last one. Both clocks > at the end of the gedanken show the accumulated reading (total number of ticks) > due to their respective paths through spacetime and, since those path are > clearly different, those reading should also be different and they are. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Yes, the readings should be different. No, they are not (check it at GPS).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 06:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32aafcb3-75e1-4729-b0f6-264134a60909@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429464 |
On Saturday, 19 August 2017 22:05:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 19 de agosto de 2017, 13:52:11 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > But they do, the reunited clocks are tested and sure enough they to > > > continue tick at the same rate. > > > > That is also my understanding > > The point is that the final readings are different, which implies that > > something must have happened inbetween. > > > > It has been explained before to you and this will be my last one. > Both clocks at the end of the gedanken show the accumulated reading > (total number of ticks) due to their respective paths through spacetime > and, since those path are clearly different, > those reading should also be different and they are. I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. The two figures are almost identical but they are not. The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. I think this is very complicated. Let me describe a realistic but difficult example. 1) Take a piece of paper and draw a point at the center. This is our Galaxy as a point mass. 2) Draw an arrow through this point. This is the direction of movement of our Galaxy. 3) Draw a cirkel around this point. This is the trajectory of our Sun. 4) Draw a point some where. This is the position or our Sun. 5) Draw a circle around the Sun. This is the trajectory of our Earth. 6) Draw a point at this trajectory. This is the Earth. 7) Draw a circle around the Earth. This is the trajectory of the Moon. 8) Draw a point at this trajectory. This the Moon. 9) Draw a small ellipse around the Sun. This is trajectory of Mercury. 10) Draw a point at this ellipse. This is Mercury. The first issue is where should I draw the points 4, 6, 8 and 10. IMO they should represent simultaneous events, for simplicity in the plane of the paper. Next draw all the world lines, with time in z dimension. The best way is to make an image in your brain. The position of our Galaxy is considered the origin. 1) The arrow (2) through the origin and point (x0,y0,0) becomes a straight line through the origin and point (x0,y0,z0) identifying the movement of our Galaxy. 2) The circle 3 becomes a spiral, starting at point (4) in the direction of this straight line, showing the movement. 3) Circle 5 (the earth) becomes a spiral around this spiral. 4) Circle 7 (the moon) becomes a spiral around a spiral around a spiral. 5) Circle 9 becomes the same as above. The reason is to study the perihelion shift over a large period. As such worldlines become extremely complex. The same is true if you want to calculate the readings of the clocks (or the proper time) which follow these worldlines. These calaculations are also difficult. IMO the only solution is only to use one fixed clock. This IMO makes certain issues much simpler (I expect). This, maybe, eliminates the concept of worldlines all together if your object is to study the evolution of the planet mercury. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2671e131-36b0-4c20-bd09-c4cf4769e6f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429606 |
El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Saturday, 19 August 2017 22:05:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 19 de agosto de 2017, 13:52:11 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > But they do, the reunited clocks are tested and sure enough they to > > > > continue tick at the same rate. > > > > > > That is also my understanding > > > The point is that the final readings are different, which implies that > > > something must have happened inbetween. > > > > > > > It has been explained before to you and this will be my last one. > > Both clocks at the end of the gedanken show the accumulated reading > > (total number of ticks) due to their respective paths through spacetime > > and, since those path are clearly different, > > those reading should also be different and they are. > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment i.e. > how can you calculate the clock readings. On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks displays). > IMO the only solution is only to use one fixed clock. > This IMO makes certain issues much simpler (I expect). > This, maybe, eliminates the concept of worldlines all together if your > object is to study the evolution of the planet mercury. > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599B2155.5DDD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429615 |
Paparios wrote: > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > On Saturday, 19 August 2017 22:05:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > El sábado, 19 de agosto de 2017, 13:52:11 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > But they do, the reunited clocks are tested and sure enough they to > > > > > continue tick at the same rate. > > > > > > > > That is also my understanding > > > > The point is that the final readings are different, which implies that > > > > something must have happened inbetween. > > > > > > > > > > It has been explained before to you and this will be my last one. > > > Both clocks at the end of the gedanken show the accumulated reading > > > (total number of ticks) due to their respective paths through spacetime > > > and, since those path are clearly different, > > > those reading should also be different and they are. > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment i.e. > > how can you calculate the clock readings. > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if that is quite easy to do with >simple geometrical diagrams). You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks displays). Which clock contains the correct time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7b8caaf-b6f5-48a5-96cd-9e63677d2687@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429627 |
On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:07:20 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote: > Paparios wrote: > > > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment > > > i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. > > > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of > > this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if > > that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). > > You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the > > clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks > > displays). When you want to understand the twin paradox you have to understand the concept of worldline and propertime of the moving twin (at least that is the message I get based on the different postings) That is why I showed the example based on the movement of Our Galaxy, the Sun, the Earth (or Marcury) and the Moon to demonstrate that it is very complicated to calculate the length of such a worldline. I do not think there are simple geometrical diagrams. It is easy to observe the readings but they are difficult to predict in general! Anyway it is much more then a thought experiment. > Which clock contains the correct time? That is a very good question. I do not know. That is why I think you should study all from one reference frame and use only one clock. (And in some sense to forget the whole concept of worldlines, except if there is some other reason to use it) Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599DBF68.90B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429823 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:07:20 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment > > > > i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. > > > > > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of > > > this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if > > > that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). > > > You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the > > > clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks > > > displays). > > When you want to understand the twin paradox you have to understand > the concept of worldline and propertime of the moving twin (at least > that is the message I get based on the different postings) > > That is why I showed the example based on the movement of Our Galaxy, > the Sun, the Earth (or Marcury) and the Moon to demonstrate that it is very > complicated to calculate the length of such a worldline. > > I do not think there are simple geometrical diagrams. > It is easy to observe the readings but they are difficult to predict > in general! > > Anyway it is much more then a thought experiment. > > > Which clock contains the correct time? > > That is a very good question. I do not know. That is why I think > you should study all from one reference frame and use only one clock. > (And in some sense to forget the whole concept of worldlines, except > if there is some other reason to use it) > > Nicolaas Vroom well, if your watch is running slow..it means you have the incorrect time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599F0D92.3D23@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429843 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:07:20 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > > > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > > > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > > > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > > > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment > > > > > i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. > > > > > > > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of > > > > this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if > > > > that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). > > > > You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the > > > > clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks > > > > displays). > > > > When you want to understand the twin paradox you have to understand > > the concept of worldline and propertime of the moving twin (at least > > that is the message I get based on the different postings) > > > > That is why I showed the example based on the movement of Our Galaxy, > > the Sun, the Earth (or Marcury) and the Moon to demonstrate that it is very > > complicated to calculate the length of such a worldline. > > > > I do not think there are simple geometrical diagrams. > > It is easy to observe the readings but they are difficult to predict > > in general! > > > > Anyway it is much more then a thought experiment. > > > > > Which clock contains the correct time? > > > > That is a very good question. I do not know. That is why I think > > you should study all from one reference frame and use only one clock. > > (And in some sense to forget the whole concept of worldlines, except > > if there is some other reason to use it) > > > > Nicolaas Vroom > > well, if your watch is running slow..it means you have the incorrect time. It simply not possible for the Twins Paradox without at least a 'third observer'. Get on your mark, get set....GO!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599F0ECA.278A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429923 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, 21 August 2017 20:07:20 UTC+2, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paparios wrote: > > > > > > > > > > El lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017, 10:58:38 (UTC-3), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that. Part of the problem is described at the pages 21 > > > > > > and 315 of the book GRAVITATION. > > > > > > The two figures are almost identical but they are not. > > > > > > The mathematics is the same, which makes it difficult. > > > > > > For me one problem is to calculate the path length in a real experiment > > > > > > i.e. how can you calculate the clock readings. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, in the case of the twin paradox (which is the subject of > > > > > this thread) you do not need to calculate the clock readings (even if > > > > > that is quite easy to do with simple geometrical diagrams). > > > > > You only need to compare the clocks readings when they reunite (the > > > > > clocks then are side by side and you only need to look at the clocks > > > > > displays). > > > > > > When you want to understand the twin paradox you have to understand > > > the concept of worldline and propertime of the moving twin (at least > > > that is the message I get based on the different postings) > > > > > > That is why I showed the example based on the movement of Our Galaxy, > > > the Sun, the Earth (or Marcury) and the Moon to demonstrate that it is very > > > complicated to calculate the length of such a worldline. > > > > > > I do not think there are simple geometrical diagrams. > > > It is easy to observe the readings but they are difficult to predict > > > in general! > > > > > > Anyway it is much more then a thought experiment. > > > > > > > Which clock contains the correct time? > > > > > > That is a very good question. I do not know. That is why I think > > > you should study all from one reference frame and use only one clock. > > > (And in some sense to forget the whole concept of worldlines, except > > > if there is some other reason to use it) > > > > > > Nicolaas Vroom > > > > well, if your watch is running slow..it means you have the incorrect time. > > It simply not possible for the Twins Paradox without at least a 'third > observer'. > > Get on your mark, get set....GO!!!! "Wait a second, where you're going?" "I'm going on a rocket and then I'll return, I only moved a second!" "No, come back here, the time is already running slow..no need to make that long trip."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 17:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Q9idnUz5R63L-ArEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #428992 |
On 8/16/17 8/16/17 9:25 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 21:04:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: >> SR can certainly explain the twin paradox, quantitatively. Including >> instantaneous or finite accelerations. GR can be used as well, but in flat >> spacetime it of course gives results identical to those of SR. >> >> Acceleration most definitely is NOT the root cause: > > I do not understand this. (See bootom) Hmmmm. Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. GPS satellite clocks are likewise unaffected by their acceleration, giving us confidence to apply the same idea to all clocks: they are unaffected by acceleration. And that is how SR and GR model it. > In any experiment where you want to test the behaviour of identical > clocks with different speeds (the initial condition considered being > that all the clocks are at rest) there are always accelerations involved > specific if the final condition is that all the clocks meet at the same > point. No. You are assuming things which are not present. >> 1. Good clocks are unaffected by acceleration (as long as they are not >> broken by it). Experiments show that the timekeeping mechanism >> governing muon decay is not affected by a proper acceleration of >> 10^18 g (!). > > The condition of the experiment should be such that after all the clocks > meet again they should all tick at the same rate. Can't be done. Experiments are what they are, not what you WISH them to be. >> 2. The triplet paradox, in which there is no acceleration, gives the same >> result as the twin paradox with instantaneous frame changes. > > In a real triplet experiment there are also accelerations involved, except > they are outside the direct scope(?) of the experiment. Perhaps, but perhaps the triplets were each born in their inertial frame. In this scenario there is no need for them to be born together. But that's irrelevant -- activities before the experiment started don't matter. > The point of the experiment is that: the longer the duration of the full > experiment (with constant speeds) the larger the final difference between > the clocks (or the more the staying at home twin has aged) This is a GEDANKEN, not a real experiment. The gedanken certainly behaves that way. >> 5. The basic calculation is of the elapsed proper time over a (timelike) >> path through spacetime. When calculated in flat spacetime using an >> inertial frame, acceleration does not appear in the integral, but >> speed does. > > If you want to do it accurate you have to take all the speeds into account involved (starting 'slowly' from zero to v and back at each dt) which > implies acceleration. THIS calculation can handle arbitrary accelerations. But the accelerations do not contribute to the result, only the resulting path and its speed (relative to that inertial frame) contribute. That is, acceleration affects the path but not the calculation itself, but the calculation depends on the path. > The root cause is that the physical behaviour of clocks is affected by speed. No! NOT AT ALL! Experiments show the opposite: speed does not affect the physical behavior of clocks. It only affects how observers MEASURE them. That, however, does not make it "imaginary", or "fictitious", or "illusory", because it can have real physical consequences (such as pion beams 1 km long being useful). If what you claim were true, Einstein's first postulate of SR could not possibly be valid. But myriad experiments show that SR is valid. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1fc04e74-261e-4dab-86ae-f0697dc664b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429332 |
W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 00:08:29 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > No! NOT AT ALL! Experiments show the opposite: speed does not affect the > physical behavior of clocks. Your gedanken experiments only, poor idiot. As for reality, clocks of GPS satellite coun second with different numer of ticks than clocks on Earth. As you've said, experiments are what they are, not what you WISH them to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 03:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8cbdd349-4c74-43cf-ab92-22834a42e8fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429332 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the > same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a > straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect > the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. Acceleration should not have _no_effect_at_all_ on muon decay, merely _unmeasurable_ effects. Are there any sorts of heuristic arguments that one might apply to estimate what level of acceleration might significantly affect muon decay? By analogy, I was considering singly-ionized helium traveling around a ring. Given Coulomb's law and the dimensions of the helium ion, I imagine that the second electron should be stripped from the helium ion, leaving an alpha particle, at accelerations above, say, 5e21 g or so. Looking at a table of muon properties, I see nothing obvious that would allow me to perform any sort of "Fermi-estimate" on what accelerations might begin to have a significant effect on muon lifespan. It seems fun to speculate, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vOednU4XGfWocAPEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #429374 |
On 8/19/17 5:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the >> same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a >> straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect >> the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. > > Acceleration should not have _no_effect_at_all_ on muon decay, merely > _unmeasurable_ effects. Hmmmm. From the structure of the standard model, specifically its Lorentz invariance, then insofar as the SM is valid, acceleration itself can have no effect on muon decay. There certainly are interactions with the vacuum that affect muon decay. But the vacuum is itself Lorentz invariant, so they are already included when comparing muon decay at rest to muon decay in flight, or muon decay over different paths (e.g. ring or straight). > Are there any sorts of heuristic arguments that one > might apply to estimate what level of acceleration might significantly affect > muon decay? Yes. More solid than merely "heuristic", see above. The result is zero, insofar as the SM is valid. > By analogy, I was considering singly-ionized helium traveling around a ring. > Given Coulomb's law and the dimensions of the helium ion, I imagine that the > second electron should be stripped from the helium ion, leaving an alpha > particle, at accelerations above, say, 5e21 g or so. Hmmm. Certainly magnets can strip electrons from atoms and ions [#]. But we model this as due to the magnet, not the acceleration. I don't know what it would take to strip He+ to alpha. [#] Large, high-energy accelerators at Fermilab, CERN, KEK, etc. all start by accelerating H- ions, because stripping H- to H+ (proton) is the best way to inject the beam into a ring; this means that before the injection one must design the beam transport with magnets weak enough to not strip the H- beam prematurely. BTW injection stripping is done with a foil, not a magnet (to preserve the beam emittance). > Looking at a table of muon properties, I see nothing obvious that would allow > me to perform any sort of "Fermi-estimate" on what accelerations might begin to > have a significant effect on muon lifespan. In the standard model there is no such effect. One can speculate on how "physics beyond the standard model" might affect muon decay, but that is a wide-open speculation, and there are more fruitful avenues to explore (i.e. reactions that are more amenable to experimental tests). Some searches that are actively being pursued: mu- A => e- A (neutrinoless) mu+ -> e+ gamma (neutrinoless) neutrinoless double beta decay (numerous nuclei) endpoint of tritium beta decay neutrino oscillations This last is so solidly established experimentally that many physicists consider the SM to be enhanced with nonzero neutrino masses and flavor mixing. But there are several different ways to do that.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <692ef002-ca41-4360-a474-a8f9834050e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429901 |
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:14:04 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/19/17 5:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the > >> same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a > >> straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect > >> the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. > > > > Acceleration should not have _no_effect_at_all_ on muon decay, merely > > _unmeasurable_ effects. > > Hmmmm. From the structure of the standard model, specifically its Lorentz > invariance, then insofar as the SM is valid, acceleration itself can have no > effect on muon decay. > > There certainly are interactions with the vacuum that affect muon decay. But the > vacuum is itself Lorentz invariant, so they are already included when comparing > muon decay at rest to muon decay in flight, or muon decay over different paths > (e.g. ring or straight). > > > Are there any sorts of heuristic arguments that one > > might apply to estimate what level of acceleration might significantly affect > > muon decay? > > Yes. More solid than merely "heuristic", see above. The result is zero, insofar > as the SM is valid. > > > By analogy, I was considering singly-ionized helium traveling around a ring. > > Given Coulomb's law and the dimensions of the helium ion, I imagine that the > > second electron should be stripped from the helium ion, leaving an alpha > > particle, at accelerations above, say, 5e21 g or so. > > Hmmm. Certainly magnets can strip electrons from atoms and ions [#]. But we > model this as due to the magnet, not the acceleration. I don't know what it > would take to strip He+ to alpha. > > [#] Large, high-energy accelerators at Fermilab, CERN, KEK, > etc. all start by accelerating H- ions, because stripping > H- to H+ (proton) is the best way to inject the beam into > a ring; this means that before the injection one must design > the beam transport with magnets weak enough to not strip the > H- beam prematurely. BTW injection stripping is done with a > foil, not a magnet (to preserve the beam emittance). > > > Looking at a table of muon properties, I see nothing obvious that would allow > > me to perform any sort of "Fermi-estimate" on what accelerations might begin to > > have a significant effect on muon lifespan. > > In the standard model there is no such effect. > > One can speculate on how "physics beyond the standard model" might affect muon > decay, but that is a wide-open speculation, and there are more fruitful avenues > to explore (i.e. reactions that are more amenable to experimental tests). Some > searches that are actively being pursued: > mu- A => e- A (neutrinoless) > mu+ -> e+ gamma (neutrinoless) > neutrinoless double beta decay (numerous nuclei) > endpoint of tritium beta decay > neutrino oscillations > > This last is so solidly established experimentally that many physicists consider > the SM to be enhanced with nonzero neutrino masses and flavor mixing. But there > are several different ways to do that.... Thanks! Lots of interesting detail in your response!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599F0915.4871@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429910 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:14:04 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/19/17 5:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the > > >> same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a > > >> straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect > > >> the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. > > > > > > Acceleration should not have _no_effect_at_all_ on muon decay, merely > > > _unmeasurable_ effects. > > > > Hmmmm. From the structure of the standard model, specifically its Lorentz > > invariance, then insofar as the SM is valid, acceleration itself can have no > > effect on muon decay. > > > > There certainly are interactions with the vacuum that affect muon decay. But the > > vacuum is itself Lorentz invariant, so they are already included when comparing > > muon decay at rest to muon decay in flight, or muon decay over different paths > > (e.g. ring or straight). > > > > > Are there any sorts of heuristic arguments that one > > > might apply to estimate what level of acceleration might significantly affect > > > muon decay? > > > > Yes. More solid than merely "heuristic", see above. The result is zero, insofar > > as the SM is valid. > > > > > By analogy, I was considering singly-ionized helium traveling around a ring. > > > Given Coulomb's law and the dimensions of the helium ion, I imagine that the > > > second electron should be stripped from the helium ion, leaving an alpha > > > particle, at accelerations above, say, 5e21 g or so. > > > > Hmmm. Certainly magnets can strip electrons from atoms and ions [#]. But we > > model this as due to the magnet, not the acceleration. I don't know what it > > would take to strip He+ to alpha. > > > > [#] Large, high-energy accelerators at Fermilab, CERN, KEK, > > etc. all start by accelerating H- ions, because stripping > > H- to H+ (proton) is the best way to inject the beam into > > a ring; this means that before the injection one must design > > the beam transport with magnets weak enough to not strip the > > H- beam prematurely. BTW injection stripping is done with a > > foil, not a magnet (to preserve the beam emittance). > > > > > Looking at a table of muon properties, I see nothing obvious that would allow > > > me to perform any sort of "Fermi-estimate" on what accelerations might begin to > > > have a significant effect on muon lifespan. > > > > In the standard model there is no such effect. > > > > One can speculate on how "physics beyond the standard model" might affect muon > > decay, but that is a wide-open speculation, and there are more fruitful avenues > > to explore (i.e. reactions that are more amenable to experimental tests). Some > > searches that are actively being pursued: > > mu- A => e- A (neutrinoless) > > mu+ -> e+ gamma (neutrinoless) > > neutrinoless double beta decay (numerous nuclei) > > endpoint of tritium beta decay > > neutrino oscillations > > > > This last is so solidly established experimentally that many physicists consider > > the SM to be enhanced with nonzero neutrino masses and flavor mixing. But there > > are several different ways to do that.... > > Thanks! Lots of interesting detail in your response! another Tom Roberts responding to himself with a different handle of Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog??? wats that all about? it's lonely at the top, isn't it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599F0C1C.490F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429920 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:14:04 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > On 8/19/17 5:30 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 5:08:29 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >> Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have the > > > >> same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same speed along a > > > >> straight line with essentially no acceleration. So acceleration does not affect > > > >> the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. > > > > > > > > Acceleration should not have _no_effect_at_all_ on muon decay, merely > > > > _unmeasurable_ effects. > > > > > > Hmmmm. From the structure of the standard model, specifically its Lorentz > > > invariance, then insofar as the SM is valid, acceleration itself can have no > > > effect on muon decay. > > > > > > There certainly are interactions with the vacuum that affect muon decay. But the > > > vacuum is itself Lorentz invariant, so they are already included when comparing > > > muon decay at rest to muon decay in flight, or muon decay over different paths > > > (e.g. ring or straight). > > > > > > > Are there any sorts of heuristic arguments that one > > > > might apply to estimate what level of acceleration might significantly affect > > > > muon decay? > > > > > > Yes. More solid than merely "heuristic", see above. The result is zero, insofar > > > as the SM is valid. > > > > > > > By analogy, I was considering singly-ionized helium traveling around a ring. > > > > Given Coulomb's law and the dimensions of the helium ion, I imagine that the > > > > second electron should be stripped from the helium ion, leaving an alpha > > > > particle, at accelerations above, say, 5e21 g or so. > > > > > > Hmmm. Certainly magnets can strip electrons from atoms and ions [#]. But we > > > model this as due to the magnet, not the acceleration. I don't know what it > > > would take to strip He+ to alpha. > > > > > > [#] Large, high-energy accelerators at Fermilab, CERN, KEK, > > > etc. all start by accelerating H- ions, because stripping > > > H- to H+ (proton) is the best way to inject the beam into > > > a ring; this means that before the injection one must design > > > the beam transport with magnets weak enough to not strip the > > > H- beam prematurely. BTW injection stripping is done with a > > > foil, not a magnet (to preserve the beam emittance). > > > > > > > Looking at a table of muon properties, I see nothing obvious that would allow > > > > me to perform any sort of "Fermi-estimate" on what accelerations might begin to > > > > have a significant effect on muon lifespan. > > > > > > In the standard model there is no such effect. > > > > > > One can speculate on how "physics beyond the standard model" might affect muon > > > decay, but that is a wide-open speculation, and there are more fruitful avenues > > > to explore (i.e. reactions that are more amenable to experimental tests). Some > > > searches that are actively being pursued: > > > mu- A => e- A (neutrinoless) > > > mu+ -> e+ gamma (neutrinoless) > > > neutrinoless double beta decay (numerous nuclei) > > > endpoint of tritium beta decay > > > neutrino oscillations > > > > > > This last is so solidly established experimentally that many physicists consider > > > the SM to be enhanced with nonzero neutrino masses and flavor mixing. But there > > > are several different ways to do that.... > > > > Thanks! Lots of interesting detail in your response! > > another Tom Roberts responding to himself with a different handle of > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog??? wats that all about? > > it's lonely at the top, isn't it... why do people create new handles? like PD changes to Odd then claims he don't know who PD is?? i've been using starmaker for so long i forgot to change it. am i suppose to change it????? or create new people to answer my own post? I can answer my own post with my own handle, why change it???? Thanks! Lots of interesting detail in my response!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 03:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ab8a81d-2802-4b9e-bf0e-d90aaef6e752@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429332 |
On Saturday, 19 August 2017 00:08:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/16/17 8/16/17 9:25 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 21:04:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > >> SR can certainly explain the twin paradox, quantitatively. Including > >> instantaneous or finite accelerations. GR can be used as well, but in > >> flat spacetime it of course gives results identical to those of SR. > >> > >> Acceleration most definitely is NOT the root cause: > > > > I do not understand this. (See bottom) > > Hmmmm. Note that muons experiencing 10^18 g as they go around a ring have > the same lifetime measured in the lab as muons that travel at the same > speed along a straight line with essentially no acceleration. > So acceleration does not affect the timekeeping mechanism of muon decay. Okay But muon decay is a physical process which has its own (quantum mechanical) rules. Let us emphasize the experiments mentioned at page 167 of the book GRAVITATION in chapter 6 (Accelerated observers) which are about to the Twin paradox. > GPS satellite clocks are likewise unaffected by their acceleration, > giving us confidence to apply the same idea to all clocks: > they are unaffected by acceleration. And that is only true if these clocks work based on muon decay and I doubt that. Anyway GPS clocks require continuous synchronisation and there must be a reason why. > And that is how SR and GR model it. IMO SR, GR and Newton's supply the descriptions in mathematical form how the universe changes and evolves. The cause are primarily forces. > >> 1. Good clocks are unaffected by acceleration (as long as they are not > >> broken by it). Experiments show that the timekeeping mechanism > >> governing muon decay is not affected by a proper acceleration of > >> 10^18 g (!). > > > > The condition of the experiment should be such that after all the clocks > > meet again they should all tick at the same rate. > > Can't be done. Experiments are what they are, not what you WISH them to be. What I understand of all the experiments is when you start the experiments you should test that all clocks tick at the same rate and when the experiment is finished you should test again. Muon decay is a different process. > >> 5. The basic calculation is of the elapsed proper time over a (timelike) > >> path through spacetime. When calculated in flat spacetime using an > >> inertial frame, acceleration does not appear in the integral, but > >> speed does. > > > > If you want to do it accurate you have to take all the speeds into > > account involved (starting 'slowly' from zero to v and back > > at each dt) whichimplies acceleration. > > THIS calculation can handle arbitrary accelerations. But the > accelerations do not contribute to the result, only the resulting path > and its speed (relative to that inertial frame) > contribute. That is, acceleration affects the path but not > the calculation itself, but the calculation depends on the path. Okay > > The root cause is that the physical behaviour of clocks is affected > > by speed. > > No! NOT AT ALL! Experiments show the opposite: speed does not affect > the physical behavior of clocks. Speed affects the innerworking and the positions of the dials on the clock using light signals. This is equivalent as the number of revolutions or ticks of the clocks. > It only affects how observers MEASURE them. Observing the time on the clock, the event of looking, has nothing to do with the physical behaviour of a clock. (It is the same as when you open the box) > That, however, does not make it "imaginary", or "fictitious", > or "illusory", because it can have real physical consequences > (such as pion beams 1 km long being useful). > > If what you claim were true, Einstein's first postulate of SR > could not possibly be valid. But myriad experiments show that > SR is valid. For a clock, based on the speed of light, it is important that the speed of light is constant. The more there is a discrepancy the less accurate this clock is, > Tom Roberts Thanks Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 09:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omf6mg$ckm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427854 |
On 8/9/17 7:30 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time one at that? In the sense that it affects reproducible measurements that fully adhere to the defining characteristics of that measurement, then it is real. Be careful about asking metaphysical questions like "is it real" while carrying hidden baggage about what that term means. Some people, for example, assume that real properties are completely independent of the observer. If this were true, then properties like velocity and kinetic energy and electric field could not be considered real -- under THAT assumption of what "real" means. But for physicists, kinetic energy and electric field are assuredly real, and so the hidden assumption about what "real" means has to fall by the wayside. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6c92d07-d026-422b-a49a-e746223db2b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427870 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:07:13 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/9/17 7:30 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > > But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time one at that? > > In the sense that it affects reproducible measurements that fully adhere > to the defining characteristics of that measurement, then it is real. > > Be careful about asking metaphysical questions like "is it real" while > carrying hidden baggage about what that term means. Some people, for > example, assume that real properties are completely independent of the > observer. If this were true, then properties like velocity and kinetic > energy and electric field could not be considered real -- under THAT > assumption of what "real" means. But for physicists, kinetic energy and > electric field are assuredly real, and so the hidden assumption about > what "real" means has to fall by the wayside. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Do explore a somewhat obtuse parallel example, 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? Does time have something to do with it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omhno2$ga8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428007 |
On 8/10/17 5:00 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:07:13 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/9/17 7:30 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: >>> But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time one at that? >> >> In the sense that it affects reproducible measurements that fully adhere >> to the defining characteristics of that measurement, then it is real. >> >> Be careful about asking metaphysical questions like "is it real" while >> carrying hidden baggage about what that term means. Some people, for >> example, assume that real properties are completely independent of the >> observer. If this were true, then properties like velocity and kinetic >> energy and electric field could not be considered real -- under THAT >> assumption of what "real" means. But for physicists, kinetic energy and >> electric field are assuredly real, and so the hidden assumption about >> what "real" means has to fall by the wayside. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Do explore a somewhat obtuse parallel example, 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? Does time have something to do with it? > When the two clocks in the twin puzzle join again, it is found that their rates are identical. So in this way they are exactly the same as the Doppler effect that goes away when the source and receiver come to relative rest. The difference in *accumulated* time in the twins case then must have something to do with the paths that they took, considered in totality. (And you're going to be frustrated looking for one defining characteristic that marks the difference.) So in the case of Doppler, you should be looking at some parameter that is different for the two light sources that has to do with the different paths that the light took -- say for example the total delivered energy. I think where you are getting confused is in attempting to compare apples to oranges in the two cases. Compare things that are physically more like apples to apples, and you'll see that the analogy is actually pretty close. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <151a7453-4f88-472b-831c-51caf0698199@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428024 |
W dniu czwartek, 10 sierpnia 2017 15:40:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > When the two clocks in the twin puzzle join again, it is found that > their rates are identical. Wrong, poor idiot, of course. It's not theory anymore, we have GPS. The rates are not identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web