Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614915 > unrolled thread

Twin paradox article in Wikipedia

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:33 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 17:56 +0000
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:26 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 14:27 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 21:42 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Gernaro Close <lcgr@rrlgrane.ne> - 2023-07-10 21:58 +0000
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:12 +0000
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Emanuele Pezos <leop@mmpussos.zm> - 2023-07-12 08:34 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-11 11:03 -0400
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:11 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Wade Spyridis <didi@drdsippw.ss> - 2023-07-11 20:01 +0000
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:14 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:28 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Harry Angelopoulos <ouse@assapoyr.ug> - 2023-07-10 22:34 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:50 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:37 +0200
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:46 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:47 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-10 21:50 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 11:07 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:00 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:29 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maïkel Jacques-Sonne <mjs@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 16:03 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:03 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-11 18:53 +0200
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:18 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 17:38 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:39 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-12 23:34 -0400
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:11 -0400
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 06:27 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:32 +0200
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:05 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:46 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 19:07 +0200
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 17:36 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:16 +0200
                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:19 +0200
                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 19:47 +0000
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:30 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 12:02 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 07:19 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 08:32 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 13:24 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 20:43 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 01:31 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 07:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 08:31 -0700
                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:13 -0700
                    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:16 -0700
                      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:49 -0700
                        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:03 -0700
                          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:33 -0700
                            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 01:09 -0700
                            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:08 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 09:49 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:30 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-13 18:21 +0200
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:46 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 21:37 +0200
                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:37 -0700
                    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:52 -0700
                      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
                        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 03:54 -0700
                          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 13:36 +0200
                            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 09:03 -0500
                              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:18 -0700
                                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Elizardo Sklavenitis <otrv@vzoeaioo.tk> - 2023-07-16 19:08 +0000
                              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Meredith Adamou <utto@mddaeaem.tt> - 2023-07-16 18:55 +0000
                              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-17 11:49 -0700
                                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-17 22:07 +0200
                              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:41 -0700
                                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 22:49 -0500
                                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:06 -0700
                                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Honorio Christakos <iosi@asrsosch.rc> - 2023-07-19 08:46 +0000
                                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-19 10:58 -0700
                          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-16 06:09 -0700
                        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:35 -0700
                    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 23:29 +0200
                      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 18:37 -0500
                        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
                          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 23:28 -0500
                            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 22:06 -0700
                        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:31 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 10:21 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:01 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 14:06 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:18 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:51 -0700
                  Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:52 -0700
                    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 00:49 -0700
                      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:24 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-17 10:59 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:32 -0600
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:45 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 22:19 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 13:07 -0500
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:15 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 11:45 -0600
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 13:36 -0500
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 22:19 -0500
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 21:26 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-15 19:09 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-16 13:23 +0200
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:36 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Dallas Anetakis <aske@aaeeatli.as> - 2023-07-16 13:41 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#615466

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 12:03:52 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29?PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> 
> > > > wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > 
> > > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? 
> > > 
> > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim 
> > > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, 
> > > > 
> > > > Jan 
> > > Am I missing something here? 
> > > 
> > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-a 
> > > nd-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20t 
> > > he%20orders%20of%20diffraction. 
> > > 
> > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments 
> > > such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the 
> > > underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This 
> > > process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is 
> > > directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern 
> > > that results from the incident light's reflection off of or transmission 
> > > through the grating structure." 
> > 
> > I'm equally baffled.
> You have allowed yourself to be baffled by Jane-stupidity. 
> All this 'measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency' 
> is nothing but a red herring. 
> 
> With the redefinition of the meter in terms of c 
> the meter has been degraded to a secondary standard, 

If anyone was treating the orders of your bunch of idiots
seriously it would be, indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615415

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> 
> > > > wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> > > > > between emission models of light versus other models. 
> > > > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> > > > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> > > > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> > > > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913)
> > > > > and so on and so forth. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> > > > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> > > > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> > > > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> > > > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> > > > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> > > > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> > > > > frequency). 
> 
> > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question?
> 
> > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim 
> > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, 
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> Am I missing something here?

Guess so. A claim that the grating measures wavelength,
must be based on a calibration of the spacing.
(in a length unit that no longer exists)
You can only calibrate the grating wrt to a frequency standard,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615423

On 7/15/23 4:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder 
>> wrote:
>>> Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim that 
>>> gratings measure wavelength, not frequency,
>> Am I missing something here?

I think Jan is confused. Every analysis I have seen of diffraction
gratings uses the wavelength of the wave, not its frequency.

> Guess so. A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be
> based on a calibration of the spacing.

Sure. Use a ruler and microscope to measure the spacing between lines in
the grating.

> (in a length unit that no longer exists)

Nonsense! The meter still exists, and is well defined.

> You can only calibrate the grating wrt to a frequency standard,

Nonsense! One can calibrate it to a meter stick (or equivalent).

Gedankenexperiment: set up a laser and a diffraction grating in a tank
of water and measure the angle of the diffraction peaks. Then replace
the water with air. Do you seriously think the diffraction peaks will be
at the same angle? -- After all, the frequency of the light is
unchanged, while its wavelength changed by ratio of the the indices of
refraction of water and air. This is simple enough it could easily
become a real experiment....

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615457

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 7/15/23 4:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder 
> >> wrote:
> >>> Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim that 
> >>> gratings measure wavelength, not frequency,
> >> Am I missing something here?
> 
> I think Jan is confused. Every analysis I have seen of diffraction
> gratings uses the wavelength of the wave, not its frequency.

Au contraire, it is you who is thoroughly confused about measurement.
For the kiddies: a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to a primary standard.
(at least in principle, and for real physics also in practice) 
The only primary standard left is the second.
(and hence the Hertz)

> > Guess so. A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be
> > based on a calibration of the spacing.
> 
> Sure. Use a ruler and microscope to measure the spacing between lines in
> the grating.

Yes, and that ruler and microscope advance screw are calibrated how?

> > (in a length unit that no longer exists)
> 
> Nonsense! The meter still exists, and is well defined.

Sure, it is defined -as a secondary standard-
by means of having light sources with known frequencies.
See NIST for a list of prefered ones.

> > You can only calibrate the grating wrt to a frequency standard,
> 
> Nonsense! One can calibrate it to a meter stick (or equivalent).

What is 'a meter stick'?
In particular, if you see something that pretends to be one,
how can you know it really is one?

[snip straw man argument]

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615634

On 7/16/23 5:03 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> For the kiddies: a measurement isn't a measurement unless it can be 
> traced to a primary standard.

Sure. But industrial tool manufacturers calibrate their tools using
length standards derived from the definition of the meter when their
calibration tools were built, and for many/most manufacturers that is
well before 1983.

Do you seriously think that all length measurements made using equipment
that predates 1983 suddenly became obsolete and useless? They didn't,
because the redefinition of the meter in 1983 was careful to be
consistent with the previous definition. Diffraction-grating ruling
engines that predate 1983 are still valid, and I strongly suspect that
many/most built today are calibrated using tools that trace back to a
pre-1983 definition of the meter.

	Ditto for the metersticks and rulers in classrooms,
	lathes and milling machines in machine shops, etc.

Bottom line: at this level of accuracy IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH
DEFINITION OF THE METER IS USED.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615638

On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 06:28:43 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:


> Do you seriously think that all length measurements made using equipment 
> that predates 1983 suddenly became obsolete and useless? They didn't, 
> because the redefinition of the meter in 1983 was careful to be 
> consistent with the previous definition. 

A lie, of course,  as expected from relativistic scum.
Old (meridian related) and new definitions give systematic 
differences in results, potentially [in gedankens]  up to 100%.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615561

On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 00:37:19 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/15/23 4:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > Paul Alsing > wrote: 
> >> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder 
> >> wrote: 
> >>> Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim that 
> >>> gratings measure wavelength, not frequency,
> >> Am I missing something here?
> I think Jan is confused. Every analysis I have seen of diffraction 
> gratings uses the wavelength of the wave, not its frequency.
> > Guess so. A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be 
> > based on a calibration of the spacing.
> Sure. Use a ruler and microscope to measure the spacing between lines in 
> the grating.
> > (in a length unit that no longer exists)
> Nonsense! The meter still exists, and is well defined.
> > You can only calibrate the grating wrt to a frequency standard,
> Nonsense! One can calibrate it to a meter stick (or equivalent). 
> 
> Gedankenexperiment: set up a laser and a diffraction grating in a tank 
> of water and measure the angle of the diffraction peaks. Then replace 
> the water with air. Do you seriously think the diffraction peaks will be 
> at the same angle? -- After all, the frequency of the light is 
> unchanged, while its wavelength changed by ratio of the the indices of 
> refraction of water and air. This is simple enough it could easily 
> become a real experiment.... 
> 

It would be an interesting experiment to try. Because if you expect the angle of
maxima to change towards the blue when the light goes from air to water then
why isn’t this shift to blue colour not observed when light goes from air to water?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615168

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:30:24 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> 
> > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using 
> > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). 
> > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the 
> > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v.
> Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> between emission models of light versus other models. 

In that case why do relativists go on ad nauseum about
how Ives Stillwell rules out any emission model!! It’s even mentioned
doing as such in the Ives Stillwell wiki page.

> Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) 
> and so on and so forth. 
> 
> Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> frequency).

Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!😂🤣😂
If you studied physics you will realise it’s not the wavelength
that dictates the colour seen in the grating. It’s the frequency. Duh!
Because under emission theory the wavelength never changes from
source to grating. Just the speed of the wave (c+-v) relative to the grating.
So the same wavelength at c+-v in the grating frame will be appear to 
be more redshifted or blueshifted at the grating than a wavelength at c in 
the same frame.
It’s hilarious how you guys squirm and lie when outed. I’ve listened for years
to relativists claims that experiments like I-S rule out any emission model.
And yet when I point out how the I-S formula for emission W1=W(1+-v/c) is 
a falsified meaningless piece of relativistic garbage you change tack and 
lie and pretend relativists never claimed I-S did rule out emission.
Here’s a good example... from the same Wiki 1938 X I-S page I referred to 
earlier( and you probably wrote). 
Notice it falsely claims that emission theory predicts an equal offset 
that isn’t observed and therefore rules out any emission model:
“ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced”

And it’s not just I-S that is falsely used by relativists to rule out emission theories
as competition to SR. Proponents of SR also falsify the predictions of emission
for Sagnac an DeSitter among others to try to eliminate emission as competion.
Because emission theory does predict path difference in a rotating Sagnac 
And emission theory does not predict path pile up in deSitter thought experiment
in the double star system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615171

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:21:35 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:30:24 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> > 
> > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using 
> > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). 
> > > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the 
> > > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. 
> > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> > between emission models of light versus other models.
> In that case why do relativists go on ad nauseum about 
> how Ives Stillwell rules out any emission model!! It’s even mentioned 
> doing as such in the Ives Stillwell wiki page.

WHERE? Provide a quote.
It does mention emission LINES, not emission theory.

> > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> > down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) 
> > and so on and so forth. 
> > 
> > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> > frequency).
> Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!😂🤣😂 
> If you studied physics you will realise it’s not the wavelength 
> that dictates the colour seen in the grating. It’s the frequency. Duh! 
> Because under emission theory the wavelength never changes from 
> source to grating. Just the speed of the wave (c+-v) relative to the grating. 
> So the same wavelength at c+-v in the grating frame will be appear to 
> be more redshifted or blueshifted at the grating than a wavelength at c in 
> the same frame. 
> It’s hilarious how you guys squirm and lie when outed. I’ve listened for years 
> to relativists claims that experiments like I-S rule out any emission model. 

Who says that? NOBODY says that. 
You are deluded.

> And yet when I point out how the I-S formula for emission W1=W(1+-v/c) is 
> a falsified meaningless piece of relativistic garbage you change tack and 
> lie and pretend relativists never claimed I-S did rule out emission. 
> Here’s a good example... from the same Wiki 1938 X I-S page I referred to 
> earlier( and you probably wrote). 
> Notice it falsely claims that emission theory predicts an equal offset 
> that isn’t observed and therefore rules out any emission model: 
> “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced” 

Where in what you've quoted does it state that Ives-Stilwell 
has anything to do with the emission theory?

Emission theory is simply not relevant to Ives-Stilwell, 
having failed EVERY SINGLE TEST.
 
> And it’s not just I-S that is falsely used by relativists to rule out emission theories 
> as competition to SR. Proponents of SR also falsify the predictions of emission 
> for Sagnac an DeSitter among others to try to eliminate emission as competion. 
> Because emission theory does predict path difference in a rotating Sagnac 
> And emission theory does not predict path pile up in deSitter thought experiment 
> in the double star system.

You are deluded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615185

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 19:01:45 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:21:35 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:30:24 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using 
> > > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). 
> > > > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the 
> > > > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. 
> > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> > > between emission models of light versus other models. 
> > In that case why do relativists go on ad nauseum about 
> > how Ives Stillwell rules out any emission model!! It’s even mentioned 
> > doing as such in the Ives Stillwell wiki page.
> WHERE? Provide a quote. 
> It does mention emission LINES, not emission theory.

You are getting desperate if you are trying to pretend “classical theory”
mentioned in the wiki quote doesn’t refer to any emission theory.
That’s a first and a new low for a relativist.

> > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) 
> > > and so on and so forth. 
> > > 
> > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> > > frequency). 
> > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!😂🤣😂 
> > If you studied physics you will realise it’s not the wavelength 
> > that dictates the colour seen in the grating. It’s the frequency. Duh! 
> > Because under emission theory the wavelength never changes from 
> > source to grating. Just the speed of the wave (c+-v) relative to the grating. 
> > So the same wavelength at c+-v in the grating frame will be appear to 
> > be more redshifted or blueshifted at the grating than a wavelength at c in 
> > the same frame. 
> > It’s hilarious how you guys squirm and lie when outed. I’ve listened for years 
> > to relativists claims that experiments like I-S rule out any emission model.
> Who says that? NOBODY says that. 
> You are deluded.

Like I said. You and your relativistic gang have for years being trying to
con everyone into thinking an emission theory ( classical theory) cannot
explain the offset seen in Ives Stillwell. Now I’ve pointed out how bad 
your maths is...you pretend you never said I-S cannot predict an offset.
Despite the fact that the I-S page itself, probably written by you, claims
emission theory (classical theory) cannot explain the observations seen
in I-S

> > And yet when I point out how the I-S formula for emission W1=W(1+-v/c) is 
> > a falsified meaningless piece of relativistic garbage you change tack and 
> > lie and pretend relativists never claimed I-S did rule out emission. 
> > Here’s a good example... from the same Wiki 1938 X I-S page I referred to 
> > earlier( and you probably wrote). 
> > Notice it falsely claims that emission theory predicts an equal offset 
> > that isn’t observed and therefore rules out any emission model: 
> > “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced”
> Where in what you've quoted does it state that Ives-Stilwell 
> has anything to do with the emission theory? 

Classical theory if you wish to be so evasive. 
Or, are you now stretching your twisted narrative to such extremes that 
you are pretending that when I-S refer to “classical theory” they don’t 
mean a non relativistic emission theory?!😂🤣

> Emission theory is simply not relevant to Ives-Stilwell, 
> having failed EVERY SINGLE TEST.

Failed Every single test? Presumably you don’t mean the I-S experiment itself
as your new story now seems to be that Emission theory can succesfully predict
the offset in I-S. Or is that only on sundays, Wednesdays and fridays?

> > And it’s not just I-S that is falsely used by relativists to rule out emission theories 
> > as competition to SR. Proponents of SR also falsify the predictions of emission 
> > for Sagnac an DeSitter among others to try to eliminate emission as competion. 
> > Because emission theory does predict path difference in a rotating Sagnac 
> > And emission theory does not predict path pile up in deSitter thought experiment 
> > in the double star system.
> You are deluded.

Look at low IQ de Sitter’s garbage of an argument about how classical emission
theories would have light pile up when it arrives to an observer on earth.
To make up this ridiculous maths free argument he first admits that emission
theory always has light at c in the source frame. Good so far. 
And then, like all other relativists he calculates what emission theory predicts 
by...having the light travel at variable speeds in the source frame!!!.
Despite having just agreed that emission theory cannot allow light to
travel at variable speeds in the source frame.
What’s amazing is how you are so unable to understand even the most
basic and simple physics and geometry.
Because if light is travelling at c in the source frame and that source rotates
in the observer frame then a simple galilean translation means that light at c
in the source frame will travel at a VARIABLE speed in the observer frame.
Not a a constant c+-v in the observer frame as deSitter incorrectly fantasised.
If you can’t understand this simple fact then...physics is definitely not your
strong point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615187

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 19:01:45 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 12:21:35 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:30:24 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using 
> > > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). 
> > > > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the 
> > > > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. 
> > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> > > between emission models of light versus other models. 
> > In that case why do relativists go on ad nauseum about 
> > how Ives Stillwell rules out any emission model!! It’s even mentioned 
> > doing as such in the Ives Stillwell wiki page.
> WHERE? Provide a quote. 
> It does mention emission LINES, not emission theory.
> > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) 
> > > and so on and so forth. 
> > > 
> > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> > > frequency). 
> > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!😂🤣😂 
> > If you studied physics you will realise it’s not the wavelength 
> > that dictates the colour seen in the grating. It’s the frequency. Duh! 
> > Because under emission theory the wavelength never changes from 
> > source to grating. Just the speed of the wave (c+-v) relative to the grating. 
> > So the same wavelength at c+-v in the grating frame will be appear to 
> > be more redshifted or blueshifted at the grating than a wavelength at c in 
> > the same frame. 
> > It’s hilarious how you guys squirm and lie when outed. I’ve listened for years 
> > to relativists claims that experiments like I-S rule out any emission model.
> Who says that? NOBODY says that. 
> You are deluded.
> > And yet when I point out how the I-S formula for emission W1=W(1+-v/c) is 
> > a falsified meaningless piece of relativistic garbage you change tack and 
> > lie and pretend relativists never claimed I-S did rule out emission. 
> > Here’s a good example... from the same Wiki 1938 X I-S page I referred to 
> > earlier( and you probably wrote). 
> > Notice it falsely claims that emission theory predicts an equal offset 
> > that isn’t observed and therefore rules out any emission model: 
> > “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced”
> Where in what you've quoted does it state that Ives-Stilwell 
> has anything to do with the emission theory? 
> 
> Emission theory is simply not relevant to Ives-Stilwell, 
> having failed EVERY SINGLE TEST.
> > And it’s not just I-S that is falsely used by relativists to rule out emission theories 
> > as competition to SR. Proponents of SR also falsify the predictions of emission 
> > for Sagnac an DeSitter among others to try to eliminate emission as competion. 
> > Because emission theory does predict path difference in a rotating Sagnac 
> > And emission theory does not predict path pile up in deSitter thought experiment 
> > in the double star system.
> You are deluded.

Here’s a quote, probably written by a relativist like yourself, from the wiki
page on emission theory of light:
“ Emission theories use the Galilean transformation, according to which time coordinates are invariant when changing frames ("absolute time"). Thus the Ives–Stilwell experiment, which confirms relativistic time dilation, also refutes the emission theory of light. ”
Let me guess your response...it will be something like:

“Oh, but but when it says it Refutes the emission theory of light....it doesn’t 
mean it refutes the emission theory of light. That is aside from when it does 
refute the emission theory of light. Except of course in those instances when 
it doesn’t refute the emission theory of light. With caveats of course where 
in certain instances it does refute the emission theory of light etc etc Blah blah...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615176

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

> Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!


Can't fix crank.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615186

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 20:18:38 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> 
> > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!!
> Can't fix crank.

Obviously you don’t understand..”sarcasm”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615189

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 20:18:38 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> > 
> > > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!! 
> > Can't fix crank.
> Obviously you don’t understand..”sarcasm”
I understand. That you are an imbecile. Unfixable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615233

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 22:52:33 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 20:18:38 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!! 
> > > Can't fix crank. 
> > Obviously you don’t understand..”sarcasm”
> I understand. That you are an imbecile. Unfixable.

Said the guy who couldnt even figure out how to invert the relationship
of the I-S formula from f to w.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615254

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:49:21 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 22:52:33 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:51:30 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 20:18:38 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > Doppler shifting of light is a Fantasy theory!! 
> > > > Can't fix crank. 
> > > Obviously you don’t understand..”sarcasm” 
> > I understand. That you are an imbecile. Unfixable.
> Said the guy who couldnt even figure out how to invert the relationship 
> of the I-S formula from f to w.


I can't decide if "Lou" is an old imbecile or a new imbecile. Anybody?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615529

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 12:30:24 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: 
> 
> > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using 
> > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). 
> > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the 
> > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v.
> Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing 
> between emission models of light versus other models. 
> Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, 
> down and sideways by experiments such as those by 
> Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), 
> Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) 
> and so on and so forth. 
> 
> Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, 
> "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints 
> about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally 
> irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked 
> at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, 
> unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how 
> diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not 
> frequency).


You say that any emission theory using c+-v cannot be consistent with 
diffraction grating images. As you contend that the angle of the diffraction 
peaks remains the same for any specific wavelength regardless of whether 
or not it travels at c or is travelling at c+-v in the grating setup. 
Obviously you are referring to the classic image seen in reference of two 
sets of circular wavefronts emanating from the grating, overlapping in 
space and creating interference patterns and diffraction angles as seen in 
the image at this link

https://www.newport.com/n/diffraction-grating-physics

However this claim of yours is spurious and falls apart under scrutiny. 
Because you make the mistake of assuming this image (cited above) of the 
two same reflected wavelengths creating a specific angle of deflection 
is a depiction both of the wavelength at c or at c+- v for any emission theory.
It isn’t. For starters It’s impossible to take a picture of lightwaves from 
above as seen in images like this. And this sort of illustration is only a “map” 
showing how far a a single “peak” in any light wave travels at speed c in any 
given time x. In other words it’s still a picture only of frequency, not wavelength. 
As JJ Lodder also says.

The understandable mistake you make is you forget to add in the extra 
distance the peak travels in the *same time* at the additional speed of c+-v 
than it does at c in any illustration of grating diffraction patterns.
Because if you did that correctly then the “map” of the diffracted 
wavefronts in the illustration would have to show how far the peak travelled 
in the *same time* as it did at c,  but at a different speed of c+-v.
And thus the wavelength in the diffraction angle illustration would have to 
be shorter or longer  to accommodate this fact. At least to correctly 
illustrate any emission theory of light at c+-v.
Which defeats your argument that the angle of deflection for a 
wavelength in the source frame at c would be the same for the angle of 
deflection for the same wave at c+-v in any diffraction grating image.
It wouldnt. Because under emission theory the wave travels a different 
distance at c+-v in the same time than it does at c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615262

Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the other 
twin is aging more slowly.  Yet they each agree that the home twin (she) 
is older at their reunion.  The only way that can be true is that the 
traveling twin (he) must conclude that she instantaneously ages by a 
large amount during his instantaneous turnaround.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615265

On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 18:32:38 UTC+2, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the other 
> twin is aging more slowly. Yet they each agree that the home twin (she) 
> is older at their reunion. The only way that can be true is that the 
> traveling twin (he) must conclude that she instantaneously ages by a 
> large amount during his instantaneous turnaround.

You're talking about a delusional, gedanken world; everything is
possible there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#615267

Mike Fontenot wrote:
> 
> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the other
> twin is aging more slowly.  Yet they each agree that the home twin (she)
> is older at their reunion.  The only way that can be true is that the
> traveling twin (he) must conclude that she instantaneously ages by a
> large amount during his instantaneous turnaround.

"instantaneous turnaround."???? is dat even possible? 

don't you need to slow down
come to a complete stop
stop
refuel
then turn
around



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web