Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64AD9A4B.3A12@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #614972 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > you just added another crook... Let me explain...your link begins to read: "Twin paradox See also: Twin paradox The reciprocity of time dilation between two observers in separate inertial frames leads to the so-called twin paradox, articulated in its present form by Langevin in 1911.[41] Langevin imagined an adventurer wishing to explore the future of the Earth. This traveler boards a projectile capable of traveling at 99.995% of the speed of light. After making a round-trip journey to and from a nearby star lasting only two years of his own life, he returns to an Earth that is two hundred years older." The first sentence reads: "leads to the so-called twin paradox" by Langevin in 1911. 1) Langevin in 1911 didn't mentioned anything by a "twin paradox", or *any* second person. 2) traveling at 99.995% of the speed of light. There is no mention by Langevin in 1911 the speed of light or 99.995% I MEAN THIS WIKI IS ALL A FUCKING FRAUD!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time I could go on and on... but everybody knows already Wiki and it's 'user edited' site is filled with cooks, i mean CROOKS! I could go on and on but the first paragrah is filled with...mendacity. (why bother reading the second paragraph?) It belongs in the garbage. The Starmaker I could go on and on... but everybody knows already Wiki and it's 'user edited' site is filled with cooks, i mean CROOKS! FRAUD! Prokaryotic Capase Homolog is a cook! (i mean crook). Where does it say "twin"? or at 99.995% of the speed of light? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64AE29BC.6A9A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #615009 |
Like for example....what does this statement even means? "...articulated in its present form by Langevin in 1911." articulated in its present form by Langevin in 1911 WHAT DA FUCK DOES DAT MEAN???? I mean, 1911 is not the present, it's the past. i don't get it... i need an asprin.. it's giving me a headache. The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > > hard to read conglomeration. > > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > > > you just added another crook... > > Let me explain...your link begins to read: > > "Twin paradox > See also: Twin paradox > > The reciprocity of time dilation between two observers in separate > inertial frames leads to the so-called twin paradox, articulated > in its present form by Langevin in 1911.[41] Langevin imagined an > adventurer wishing to explore the future of the Earth. > This traveler boards a projectile capable of traveling at 99.995% of the > speed of light. > After making a round-trip journey to and from a nearby star lasting only > two years of his own life, he returns to an Earth that is two hundred > years older." > > The first sentence reads: "leads to the so-called twin paradox" by > Langevin in 1911. > > 1) Langevin in 1911 didn't mentioned anything by a "twin paradox", or > *any* second person. > > 2) traveling at 99.995% of the speed of light. > > There is no mention by Langevin in 1911 the speed of light or 99.995% > > I MEAN THIS WIKI IS ALL A FUCKING FRAUD!!!! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time > > I could go on and on... > > but everybody knows already Wiki and it's 'user edited' site is filled > with cooks, i mean CROOKS! > > I could go on and on but the first paragrah is filled with...mendacity. > (why bother reading the second paragraph?) > > It belongs in the garbage. > > The Starmaker > > I could go on and on... > > but everybody knows already Wiki and it's 'user edited' site is filled > with cooks, i mean CROOKS! > > FRAUD! > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog is a cook! (i mean crook). > > Where does it say "twin"? or at 99.995% of the speed of light? > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Evolution_of_Space_and_Time > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- 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]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7c0aa3c-f1c3-44f0-a0f9-26bc1a3bbd00n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! Your formula f't'_1 has a mistake in line 4 column 2. You could have simply have jumped directly to the last line in the table. Much simpler and cleaner. For accelerated movement, the wiki entry is the best.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8cadd1e-c659-4955-8f29-cdeeee37dd10n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614991 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 10:00:47 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > Your formula f't'_1 has a mistake in line 4 column 2. Thanks! > You could have simply have jumped directly to the last line in the table. Much simpler and cleaner. That would be my opinion as well. The result is totally obvious from just a cursory examination of the Minkowski diagram. HOWEVER, my three sources for the Doppler explanation all went into detail for each leg of travel, so I felt that I had to keep to the way that they explained it, in particular following A. P. French. > For accelerated movement, the wiki entry is the best. There are at least five different methods of explaining this puzzle: 1) rear-clock-ahead effect 2) looking out the portholes at an array of synchronized clocks 3) frame switch in Minkoski diagram 4) GR acceleration effect 5) Doppler effect ...not to mention all of the variations using triplets, circular and elliptical motions, etc. etc. I had to choose one, and I did not choose accelerated movement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maïkel Jacques-Sonne <mjs@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7vJvC0RfM9FBMsXHTR0j39q1qAk@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614994 |
Le 11/07/2023 à 17:29, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit : > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 10:00:47 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: >> On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog >> wrote: >> > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in >> > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. >> > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the >> > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, >> > hard to read conglomeration. >> > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox >> > >> > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox >> > >> > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! >> Your formula f't'_1 has a mistake in line 4 column 2. > > Thanks! > >> You could have simply have jumped directly to the last line in the table. Much >> simpler and cleaner. > > That would be my opinion as well. The result is totally obvious > from just a cursory examination of the Minkowski diagram. > HOWEVER, my three sources for the Doppler explanation all went > into detail for each leg of travel, so I felt that I had to keep to the > way that they explained it, in particular following A. P. French. > >> For accelerated movement, the wiki entry is the best. > > There are at least five different methods of explaining this puzzle: > 1) rear-clock-ahead effect > 2) looking out the portholes at an array of synchronized clocks > 3) frame switch in Minkoski diagram > 4) GR acceleration effect > 5) Doppler effect > > ...not to mention all of the variations using triplets, circular and > elliptical motions, etc. etc. > > I had to choose one, and I did not choose accelerated movement. I think that if someone wants to understand the theory of arelativity, he must read everything that is said on it (hundreds of authors, diagrams, pdf). The only thing I advise against is reading the doctor Richard Hachel. This is a real sick person. His equations and concepts are pure crap. Maïkel Jacques-Sönne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <322d0b42-d5c0-42dc-8c46-9fd3868e588an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614994 |
On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 17:29:54 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 10:00:47 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > > hard to read conglomeration. > > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > Your formula f't'_1 has a mistake in line 4 column 2. > Thanks! > > You could have simply have jumped directly to the last line in the table. Much simpler and cleaner. > That would be my opinion as well. The result is totally obvious > from just a cursory examination of the Minkowski diagram. Of course it is, under the condition that you're a brainwashed by The Shit idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 18:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8k1e7$2vd79$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
Op 10/07/2023 om 19:26 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! You give a valid example, but with yet an additional "second step" method, one that describes not an action of *measuring/calculating* relativistic motion, but rather an action of actually *seeing, looking at* it. The former describes Lorentz parameters such as length contraction and time dilation. The latter includes Doppler effects of light signals arriving "now" at the observer. (As a matter of fact many relativity descriptions confuse both methods.) Of course in the end, when the twins meet again, by what they'll have "seen" they would still agree upon the end result, their age difference. But explaining how and why is in my opinion better done with a "measuring and calculation" method, rather than a mere "looking what happens" one! And to do that, we're back at the good old inertial-systems-involved description. My examples for the two methods: 1. Inertial systems involved, and Lorentz effects: https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Relaty.gif 2. Twins looking at each other, and Lorentz+Doppler effects: a. Home twin https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvHome.gif (~your graph 4.4-right...) b. Traveler twin https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif (...but with complications for your graph 4.4-left, if one wants to situate traveler's observations in his own inertial systems, not in hometwin's!!) -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ff60af4-c2ac-498c-9322-fd7ed932d2adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614998 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:53:30 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > Op 10/07/2023 om 19:26 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > You give a valid example, but with yet an additional "second step" > method, one that describes not an action of *measuring/calculating* > relativistic motion, but rather an action of actually *seeing, looking > at* it. The former describes Lorentz parameters such as length > contraction and time dilation. The latter includes Doppler effects of > light signals arriving "now" at the observer. (As a matter of fact many > relativity descriptions confuse both methods.) > > Of course in the end, when the twins meet again, by what they'll have > "seen" they would still agree upon the end result, their age difference. > But explaining how and why is in my opinion better done with a > "measuring and calculation" method, rather than a mere "looking what > happens" one! > > And to do that, we're back at the good old inertial-systems-involved > description. > > My examples for the two methods: > > 1. Inertial systems involved, and Lorentz effects: > https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Relaty.gif This is the well-known, highly popular explanation using frame switching. I considered this one for a while before finally deciding on the Doppler explanation. > 2. Twins looking at each other, and Lorentz+Doppler effects: > > a. Home twin > https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvHome.gif > (~your graph 4.4-right...) > > b. Traveler twin > https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif > (...but with complications for your graph 4.4-left, if one wants to > situate traveler's observations in his own inertial systems, not in > hometwin's!!) I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins looking at each other" method. Is this a published method? If so, perhaps it should be added to the main article on the Twin Paradox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > -- > guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <akGj7Pkf32jpmuGWAxfNP-fZ_OU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615002 |
Le 11/07/2023 à 19:18, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit : > > I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins > looking at each other" method. > > Is this a published method? > If so, perhaps it should be added to the main > article on the Twin Paradox? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox It is however the method which it is necessary to take. And yet, it's a method that we take little, and (it's sad to cry) when we take it, we take it badly. I explained all this years ago. I still do not understand why this does not seem obvious to those who read me. The most beautiful comics on the subject were still posted by me here a few hours ago. The question remains: "What Hachel says, is it true or is it not true?" And there, we come back full force on the word of Jesus Christ: "The things that you see me doing, do they come from God, or do they come from the devil?" They dare not answer. Obviously. If they say "from God", they will get their ass kicked by the public, because the public will say: "So why don't you listen to him?". If they say about the devil, we will answer them: "Nah but wait, I don't understand, if the devil starts correcting the devil's crap, giving sight to the sighted, orulles to the deaf, and legs to the paralytics, he is divided against him, his shitty kingdom will never hold". So the question still remains. "What Hachel says, and in particular the extraordinary description of the Langevin in telescopal vision (what we see in live-live telescopes): is it true or is it not true? If it's not true, say so. If that's true, why don't we take it for granted, or as an object of study of the very interesting phenomenon. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8926b5d8-5a81-4b8d-88fd-291df5486e39n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615002 |
On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 19:18:29 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:53:30 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > > Op 10/07/2023 om 19:26 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > > hard to read conglomeration. > > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > You give a valid example, but with yet an additional "second step" > > method, one that describes not an action of *measuring/calculating* > > relativistic motion, but rather an action of actually *seeing, looking > > at* it. The former describes Lorentz parameters such as length > > contraction and time dilation. The latter includes Doppler effects of > > light signals arriving "now" at the observer. (As a matter of fact many > > relativity descriptions confuse both methods.) > > > > Of course in the end, when the twins meet again, by what they'll have > > "seen" they would still agree upon the end result, their age difference. > > But explaining how and why is in my opinion better done with a > > "measuring and calculation" method, rather than a mere "looking what > > happens" one! > > > > And to do that, we're back at the good old inertial-systems-involved > > description. > > > > My examples for the two methods: > > > > 1. Inertial systems involved, and Lorentz effects: > > https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Relaty.gif > This is the well-known, highly popular explanation > using frame switching. This is some inconsistent mumble of some insane halfbrains.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 23:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8nrbh$3hshv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615005 |
On 7/11/2023 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > This is some inconsistent mumble of some insane > halfbrains. Yes, janitor, all your posts are inconsistent mumbles of some insane halfbrain. Yourself. Even the self-referential post I am responding to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9dd4fde3-ff1b-4788-b479-685a47732e09n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615126 |
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 05:34:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/11/2023 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > This is some inconsistent mumble of some insane > > halfbrains. > Yes, janitor, all your posts are inconsistent mumbles of some insane And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 09:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8ot5k$3lgb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615139 |
On 7/13/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 05:34:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >> On 7/11/2023 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> >>> This is some inconsistent mumble of some insane >>> halfbrains. >> Yes, janitor, all your posts are inconsistent mumbles of some insane halfbrain. Yourself. > > > And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy > is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, > stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your > moronic religion. And once again, the "not even wrong" mumbles of an insane halfbrain such as yourself cannot be answered with a yes/no answer. Because "not even wrong" statements are blithering nonsense, or at best, word salad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa793864-973d-4898-93bd-b9d836b88a8bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615149 |
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 15:11:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/13/2023 1:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 05:34:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/11/2023 1:39 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >> > >>> This is some inconsistent mumble of some insane > >>> halfbrains. > >> Yes, janitor, all your posts are inconsistent mumbles of some insane halfbrain. Yourself. > > > > > > And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy > > is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, > > stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your > > moronic religion. > And once again, the "not even wrong" Sorry, stupid Mike, you've written many times - 9 192 631 770 Cs clocks are in "Newton mode" for you. t least you're ashamed of that an deny it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 17:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8mh31$3akpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615002 |
Op 11/07/2023 om 19:18 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:53:30 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: >> Op 10/07/2023 om 19:26 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: >>> I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in >>> Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. >>> The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the >>> net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, >>> hard to read conglomeration. >>> https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox >>> >>> Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox >>> >>> I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! >> You give a valid example, but with yet an additional "second step" >> method, one that describes not an action of *measuring/calculating* >> relativistic motion, but rather an action of actually *seeing, looking >> at* it. The former describes Lorentz parameters such as length >> contraction and time dilation. The latter includes Doppler effects of >> light signals arriving "now" at the observer. (As a matter of fact many >> relativity descriptions confuse both methods.) >> >> Of course in the end, when the twins meet again, by what they'll have >> "seen" they would still agree upon the end result, their age difference. >> But explaining how and why is in my opinion better done with a >> "measuring and calculation" method, rather than a mere "looking what >> happens" one! >> >> And to do that, we're back at the good old inertial-systems-involved >> description. >> >> My examples for the two methods: >> >> 1. Inertial systems involved, and Lorentz effects: >> https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Relaty.gif > > This is the well-known, highly popular explanation > using frame switching. I considered this one for a > while before finally deciding on the Doppler explanation. > >> 2. Twins looking at each other, and Lorentz+Doppler effects: >> >> a. Home twin >> https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvHome.gif >> (~your graph 4.4-right...) >> >> b. Traveler twin >> https://www.wugi.be/animgif/RelaSee_ObsvTrav.gif >> (...but with complications for your graph 4.4-left, if one wants to >> situate traveler's observations in his own inertial systems, not in >> hometwin's!!) > > I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins > looking at each other" method. I shouldn't wonder. > Is this a published method? No (unless you'd include my site and channel;). I ended up formulating it, because it is common sense but seems "unknown" or at best ignored in "published" material. > If so, perhaps it should be added to the main > article on the Twin Paradox? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox Surely it should, but it wouldn't, would it? And so should much more graphic explanatory material on SRT and TP, of which some here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDSSE1qfb6zyVKJbe8POgj-8ijmh5o0 https://www.wugi.be/paratwin.htm Concerning your twins looking at each other, I have also these for you: 3. "POV simulators": 3a. "Lorentz" twins: (measuring and calculation results) 3a1. https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Twinty_StandpHome.gif 3a2. https://www.wugi.be/animgif/Twinty_StandpTrav.gif 3b. "Einstein" twins: (looking at each other, as you describe) 3b1. https://www.wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvHome.gif 3b2. https://www.wugi.be/animgif/TwinSee_ObsvTrav.gif Of the latter, also visible in my graph sub 2.b. above, notice the following *spectacular result* which I haven't seen described anywhere else. If the traveller's turning-back maneuvre is approximated to an instantaneous event (like in my graphs, but not in the animations, done in magenta), he will *instantaneously see* his twin being "warped" from a relatively nearer location, in the outbound system, to a much farther location, in the inbound system!! (*) Hence the (magenta) "warps" in graphs and simulation (and the importance of implying traveling twin's *reference systems* in graphs describing *his* action of looking at). 4. https://www.wugi.be/MySRT/TravtwinSee%20pt-of-vw.PNG "Looking" events, perceived by travelling twin. Left = events in spacetime, contributing to travtwin's perception at time t (light arriving at time t) Right = perception itself, at time t. Hometwin is seen along ARv- during outbound trip, and along Rv+C during inbound trip. At turnback, hometwin appears being "warped" from Rv- to Rv+. (*) Logical, considering that travelling twin experiences equal time intervals outbound and homebound, but *sees* hometwin going much slower during regression, outbound, than during approach, homebound. So the turn-back distance must appear different in either case. -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 09:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61af563b-1579-4bdb-bbfc-1d4fa39d1523n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615084 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > Op 11/07/2023 om 19:18 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins > > looking at each other" method. > I shouldn't wonder. > > Is this a published method? > No (unless you'd include my site and channel;). I ended up formulating > it, because it is common sense but seems "unknown" or at best ignored in > "published" material. > > If so, perhaps it should be added to the main > > article on the Twin Paradox? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > Surely it should, but it wouldn't, would it? Sorry, no. It needs to be published in a reliable source, and it should preferably have been evaluated by a reliable secondary source. Just because I thought that it looked rather interesting means nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05060d64-507b-4621-a230-2a2b5e73543fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615086 |
On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 18:05:19 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: > > Op 11/07/2023 om 19:18 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > > > I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins > > > looking at each other" method. > > I shouldn't wonder. > > > Is this a published method? > > No (unless you'd include my site and channel;). I ended up formulating > > it, because it is common sense but seems "unknown" or at best ignored in > > "published" material. > > > If so, perhaps it should be added to the main > > > article on the Twin Paradox? > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > Surely it should, but it wouldn't, would it? > Sorry, no. > It needs to be published in a reliable source, and it should > preferably have been evaluated by a reliable secondary > source. A religious maniac doesn't have his own opinion, of course, he has to rely on his holy scripts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 19:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8mml7$3b871$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615086 |
Op 12/07/2023 om 18:05 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC-5, wugi wrote: >> Op 11/07/2023 om 19:18 schreef Prokaryotic Capase Homolog: > >>> I'm not familiar with this variation of the "Twins >>> looking at each other" method. >> I shouldn't wonder. >>> Is this a published method? >> No (unless you'd include my site and channel;). I ended up formulating >> it, because it is common sense but seems "unknown" or at best ignored in >> "published" material. >>> If so, perhaps it should be added to the main >>> article on the Twin Paradox? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox >> Surely it should, but it wouldn't, would it? > > Sorry, no. > It needs to be published in a reliable source, and it should > preferably have been evaluated by a reliable secondary > source. > > Just because I thought that it looked rather interesting > means nothing. How sad. Not that I sympathize with SRT cranks or, worse, consider myself one, but I do understand the frustration of being isolated from published mainstreamness. But then again, too bad for the latter anyway. I OTOH did cite some "published" sources, or at least some trustworthy sites: https://www.wugi.be/paratwin.htm#Other%20TP%20websites. In case you would have read on further my answer, here is the sole image I found that sort of mimicks my 4. https://www.wugi.be/MySRT/TravtwinSee%20pt-of-vw.PNG namely here: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/images/twin2.GIF from http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm at least showing that your preferred picture https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg/330px-Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg.png (left side, traveller's "observation") is a rather dull and incomplete description of traveller's POV. -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615088 |
Le 12/07/2023 à 19:07, wugi a écrit : > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg/330px-Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg.png And the space-zoom effect? <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:1> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:2> R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 21:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8mu79$3bv2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615090 |
Op 12/07/2023 om 19:36 schreef Richard Hachel: > Le 12/07/2023 à 19:07, wugi a écrit : > >> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg/330px-Twin_paradox_Doppler_analysis.svg.png > > And the space-zoom effect? > > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:1> > > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:2> > Nice! The second resembles indeed my graph https://www.wugi.be/MySRT/TravtwinSe"e%20pt-of-vw.PNG I only don't understand the red lines in your link as light signals (wrong arrows, wrong inclination), as in my graph (45° light rays in the left version, horizontal simultaneity-of-perception lines in the right version). Any parent page? -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web