Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 06:36 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 07:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 07:32 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:15 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 14:22 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-08 19:05 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 20:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 14:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> - 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1cd5026-313d-4faa-8d66-5fd8a8f722eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369679 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/11/2015 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Sure you can say that 9 is greater than 5 and that's because the basic unit of one (1) is equal in both cases. > > But in the case of clock time you can't say that an A second is equal to a B second. SR math says that a B second > > is worth gamma seconds on observer A's clock. > > And can I say that an inch is greater than a centimeter? Idiot there is no common unit of inch equal to a common unit of a cm. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n20ad5$b4q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369696 |
On 11/11/2015 2:47 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/11/2015 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Sure you can say that 9 is greater than 5 and that's because the basic unit of one (1) is equal in both cases. >>> But in the case of clock time you can't say that an A second is equal to a B second. SR math says that a B second >>> is worth gamma seconds on observer A's clock. >> >> And can I say that an inch is greater than a centimeter? > > Idiot there is no common unit of inch equal to a common unit of a cm. And so you're telling me I can't say an inch is greater than a centimeter? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <082c6686-b401-4533-90e8-6d2bf0d7abb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369697 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:02:34 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/11/2015 2:47 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/11/2015 8:19 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Sure you can say that 9 is greater than 5 and that's because the basic unit of one (1) is equal in both cases. > >>> But in the case of clock time you can't say that an A second is equal to a B second. SR math says that a B second > >>> is worth gamma seconds on observer A's clock. > >> > >> And can I say that an inch is greater than a centimeter? > > > > Idiot there is no common unit of inch equal to a common unit of a cm. > > And so you're telling me I can't say an inch is greater than a centimeter? No idiot.....I am telling you that you can't compare an A second directly with a B second. Why? Because they each represents a different amount of time (different duration). When you insisted that you can compare them directly.....you are saying that a second is a universal interval of time...it is not. > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n27mka$f0p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369963 |
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik kenseto napisał: >> And so you're telling me I can't say an inch is greater than a >> centimeter? > > No idiot.....I am telling you that you can't compare an A second > directly with a B second. Why? Because they each represents a different > amount of time (different duration). When you insisted that you can > compare them directly.....you are saying that a second is a universal > interval of time...it is not. Excellent point. What we need are more engineers to taka loot at the math in IRT and Divergent Matter. I said explicitly "engineers" and not half- engineers. I'm tired of these wannabes not even half-engineers trying to make sense where is obvious they never will. Be that inside Relativity, DIvergent Matter or IRT, in this order.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <002dbcad-7247-4d72-bccc-4e5d59aa3ed2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368634 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:03:46 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/30/15 10/30/15 5:40 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > As we all know, a twins will age slower > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > In the usual twin scenario of SR, neither twin "ages slower" > than the other. They do, however, have different elapsed > proper times between meetings, because they follow different > trajectories (worldlines) through spacetime. The twin scenario > does not demonstrate "time dilation", it demonstrates the > path dependence of path length. > > > > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > > Yes. At least in the context of GR and modern cosmological models. > > Note, however, in modern cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, > there is a unique congruence of timelike geodesics corresponding to the dust > particles of the FRW manifold; in cosmological models these dust particles are > identified with the galaxies. For every observer following a geodesic of this > congruence, the "age of the universe" is simply the elapsed proper time since > the big bang (i.e. when the universe "started"). This, of course, includes > observers located on earth (though we cannot trace our own proper time back to > the big bang, we CAN trace back along the geodesic on which we currently evolve). > > Fortunately the motion of earth relative to the galaxy is > small enough that the difference between earth's geodesic > and the galaxy's [#] is negligible -- errors due to that > are smaller than the uncertainties in the measurements. > > [#] Insofar as this exists and is well defined. > > > > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Here, too, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. > > If you mean that differently-moving observers can obtain different values for > the age of the universe, then: yes that's true. But for observers following > geodesics of the congruence mentioned above, they obtain the same value for the > age of the universe at simultaneous points of their worldlines, once a sensible > definition of simultaneity is applied. This is so even though the observers on > different geodesics are indeed moving differently (i.e. have nonzero relative > velocity). But an observer NOT on one of those geodesics can indeed obtain some > different value at simultaneous points on her worldline. > > So this is more subtle than you think, and "relative motion" may or may not > imply a difference in the observed age of the universe. Note also the the > definition of simultaneity is important as well (it makes no sense to compare > measurements of the age of the universe at points along the observers' > worldlines that are not "simultaneous"). Simultaneity got nothing to do with it. Clocks in relative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates. The reason is that a clock second in each frame reepresents a different amount of absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0589656d-2dd0-47af-9e96-97eaf526794f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368621 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:40:58 PM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > As we all know, a twins will age slower > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Did I miss something? Again the twins paradox. If one of the Twins is physically Mechanically Accelerated with enough force to Slow the twin's Clock in relation to the Slower Moving twin, the Accelerated Twin will be Physically VIOLENTLY HEATED CAUSING RAPID AGING the Twin. the Twin paradox is a MOOT POINT due to THERMAL DAMAGE to the Accelerated twin. The "Variation to the impedance of the vacuum" Due to mechanical acceleration or Gravitational acceleration causes the time Dilation effect one of the Twins. The Vacuum impedance is ALWAYS RE-BALANCING ITSELF so the Clock will automatically fall out of Any preparatory clock synchronization, Invalidating the Gedanken ............... no More twins Paradoxes .....!!!!!! Ahhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9j03nFf1c5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368621 |
Am 30.10.2015 23:40, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > As we all know, a twins will age slower > Still, the age of the universe is observer independent. > Seems, that a twins counted as twins will age slower, > than the same twins counted as a part of the universe... > > Did I miss something? Usually we measure time locally. The one who measures time is called 'observer'. That is usually a human being, (since animals cannot use a clock). We humans live on the surface of planet Earth and can use clocks. These clocks operate around the globe in (somehow) similar manner. What we in fact do not know is, whether or not they would work similar in any other place of the universe. This is so, because humans have not been too far away from the surface of our home-planet (until now). But I would think, the universe itself has other ideas about time then we have. Also SRT and GR assume, that time is not a universal constant phenomenon, but observer dependent. We have - for example - the Pioneer anomaly or the experiments at the Harvard towers, that suggest, that time flows at other pace in other locations. Such 'other locations' with a different pace and direction of time I call 'time domain' and the surface of the Earth is apparently one. But you could imagine a 'world behind the mirror' where time flows into the opposite direction. In the view of such a world our future is their past. Inhabitants of such a world would certainly have an entirely different assumption about the age of the universe. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n11ta7$mdc$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368647 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d9j03nFf1c5U1@mid.individual.net... |Usually we measure time locally. |But I would think, the universe itself has other ideas about time then I think, ideas require a brain. And even more, a language. See no reason to think universe has one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9jf3rFiee1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368661 |
Am 31.10.2015 09:14, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d9j03nFf1c5U1@mid.individual.net... > > > |Usually we measure time locally. > > |But I would think, the universe itself has other ideas about time then > > I think, ideas require a brain. And even more, a language. > See no reason to think universe has one. > Well, yes. But the OP asked a question. This was: is the age of the universe observer independent? 'Age' means number time-intervals (like: years) since 'birth'. The 'length' of such intervals is now in question, since different length of - say- a year would give a different number of counts from such an event. So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)? I would say: no, it's not. We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards (in our - external - view). This would also exclude, to assign a certain age to the universe, since what is birth to us is death to 'them'. So the correct answer to the question of the OP would be: no. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n124bc$t52$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368664 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d9jf3rFiee1U1@mid.individual.net... |So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)? |I would say: no, it's not. |We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of |events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards |(in our - external - view). And we could assume jedi knights waving their lightsabers, too. Couldn't we? No, observers don't encounter the same order of events. Read the history, You'll know, that order of event can mix. Still, historicians are DOING THEIR BEST to clear it, because disorder in events between observers is amongst the last things a sane person would like. Anyway, "ordering events" is an idea. I'm afraid ideas can't exist without a brain, and even more - language. That leads me to a conclusion, that the only order of events we can meet, is the one we created/will create. It's just - if we do it a stupid way, we'll get a sorry mess to deal with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9li1nF436uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368665 |
Am 31.10.2015 11:14, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d9jf3rFiee1U1@mid.individual.net... > > |So is the length of the year always the same (for all possible observers)? > |I would say: no, it's not. > > |We don't even know, if any observer would encounter the same order of > |events. So we could assume a world, where time runs kind of backwards > |(in our - external - view). > > > And we could assume jedi knights waving their lightsabers, too. Couldn't > we? > > No, observers don't encounter the same order of events. Read the history, > You'll know, that order of event can mix. Still, historicians are DOING > THEIR > BEST to clear it, because disorder in events between observers is amongst > the last things a sane person would like. > The order of event is apparent and ascribed by the observer. This is caused by the speed of light. Since light is fast in comparison to human measures, but slow in respect to the distances in the universe, we must keep in mind, that what we see at the same time did not happen simultaneous. But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the order of events is 'relative'. Since a certain timeline means, that the events along such an axis of time happen in the supposed order. This is mainly governed by the second law of thermodynamics, which claims, that entropy must increase. But apparently the universe has not been cancelled out and and has not yet died from increasing entropy. So there must be a process acting, that prevents the universe from getting filled with somehow even temperatures and mean distribution of matter. I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the opposite direction. So, a black hole in one direction is actually a white hole with time reversed. And 'the' big-bang is actually the 'birth' of OUR universe and we measure time as OUR (local) time from that 'birth'. The age of this universe is then depending on us (humans) as observers here on planet Earth, since we are in fact in the centre of this 'universe', since actually the term 'universe' is ascribed to what we see in the sky. And this is a picture caused by the delay due to the limited speed of light. And all other observers do similar, but see a different 'universe' (and also ascribe a different age to it). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n14hgg$b43$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #368755 |
Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:d9li1nF436uU1@mid.individual.net... |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the |order of events is 'relative'. Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of different things. But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is good and wise. Or has it? |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the |opposite direction. And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess we have to deal with later. But let us return to my question. Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. What is the age of the Universe now?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96009321-d5e8-4df3-9fef-2b3a205a4dfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368767 |
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 3:12:02 AM UTC-5, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Thomas Heger" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:d9li1nF436uU1@mid.individual.net... > > |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the > |order of events is 'relative'. > > Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of > different things. > But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is > good and wise. Or has it? > > |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder > |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the > |opposite direction. > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > we have to deal with later. > But let us return to my question. > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. > What is the age of the Universe now? t0+t1 and t0+t2 will give different answers. As this is obvious I assume you are not happy with two twins aging at different rates. Mr Muon ages much slower when falling to earth at .99 c than when at rest. That one is known to be true as they tested in the 1950s. There in is empirical evidence that supports twins aging at different rates. The age of the universe would depend on which twin you asked t0+t1 or t0=t2. At the end of the day it is relative to the observer. It should be noted that as space expands you can effectively move faster than light but not within that expanding space. This is how BB gets away with expansion faster than light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a23a590-4a41-45bd-a5fc-0ab108d91b1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368792 |
W dniu niedziela, 1 listopada 2015 16:13:35 UTC+1 użytkownik John Heath napisał: > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > > we have to deal with later. > > But let us return to my question. > > Suppose age of the Universe is t0. We do a common twins > > case, after travel clocks indicate t0+t1, t0+t2. > > What is the age of the Universe now? > > t0+t1 and t0+t2 will give different answers. Fine. Now, suppose the travelling twins, with his point of view "age of the universe is t0+t2", after returning marry a stationary woman with a point of view "t0+t1". What is the point of view of their child? What do mr Muon and Your brilliant experimens say? BTW, are You sure, that You weren't travelling since 9000 000 000 B.c to 1 000 000 000 B.C? Without any mass, You could even reach c... So, maybe from Your point of view the Universe is 8000 000 000 younger, than from mine? Mr Muon doesn't say "no"... Common sense does, but it's just a set of prejudices, isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9qs9rFeve6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368767 |
Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > |But if we assume, that simultaneousness is 'relative' we also mean, the > |order of events is 'relative'. > > Mathematic has proven, that we can assume a lot of > different things. > But it has never proven, that whatever we assume is > good and wise. Or has it? > > |I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the disorder > |in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows in the > |opposite direction. > > And I assume, that stupid assumptions result in a sorry mess > we have to deal with later. If we look at the world, we find places like the Earth. There are also all sorts of other objects visible in the sky at night. So we actually see an increase of order and not the creation of some sort of average foggy 'soup'. This is astonishing, since that would bring the second law of thermodynamics into question, which states, that entropy must increase. But on large scale the universe does (apparently) not follow this rule. How did that happen? This is an important question, since its solution would allow a more profound understanding about natural phenomena. My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to which of each is associated an entire universe. Such a 'universe' could be 'born' in a big bang and kind of 'die' in a 'big crunch'. This gives a large circle, that we could 'mirror' and continue to another circle. This would than look like '8'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c24150e-a6aa-4fa5-a388-6c23eb4a5646@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368940 |
W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 05:42:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > > My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, Unfortunately, this assumption is samely worthless in GPS, as it is in the cosmology. G in GPS means "global". Not "local". Cosmology is even more "global". Your concept of local timelines won't work. Simple?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d9t24lF1vmdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #368961 |
Am 03.11.2015 10:31, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 05:42:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: >> Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: >> >> My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, > > Unfortunately, this assumption is samely > worthless in GPS, as it is in the cosmology. > G in GPS means "global". Not "local". > Cosmology is even more "global". > Your concept of local timelines won't work. Why? It's a question of definition of the term 'time'. If we would follow Einstein, then time is what a clock measures. A clock is a device and devices are mainly local. In other words: there is something, that clocks measure and that we call 'time'. This is obviously a local phenomenon, since these devices are localised machines. How time behaves on larger scales we simply don't know, since we don't have an 'outside view' (upon the universe). Since 'all inertial observers are of equal rights', we should assume, that all observers measure proper time, thou along different timelines. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd9c1523-e8aa-4cdb-a834-054967154221@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369009 |
W dniu środa, 4 listopada 2015 01:34:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Am 03.11.2015 10:31, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl: > > W dniu wtorek, 3 listopada 2015 05:42:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > >> Am 01.11.2015 09:11, schrieb Maciej Woźniak: > >> > >> My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, > > > > Unfortunately, this assumption is samely > > worthless in GPS, as it is in the cosmology. > > G in GPS means "global". Not "local". > > Cosmology is even more "global". > > Your concept of local timelines won't work. > > Why? Because it's local, and cosmology and GPS are global. > > It's a question of definition of the term 'time'. No matter, how You will define "time", GPS requires synchronized clocks to work, and won't work with clocks unsynchronized. Of course, after redefining "time", You can also redefine "work" to "prove", that Your "time" "works". > If we would follow Einstein, then time is what a clock measures. > A clock is a device and devices are mainly local. > In other words: there is something, that clocks measure and that we call > 'time'. > This is obviously a local phenomenon, since these devices are localised > machines. Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these devices are not localised machines. > How time behaves on larger scales we simply don't know, since we don't > have an 'outside view' (upon the universe). GPS is large enough. Time, understood as "what clocks indicate" is global and matching t'=t equation, with the precision of acceptable error. > Since 'all inertial observers are of equal rights', 1)there are no inertial observers in the real world 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <MPSdnWWl8_72aqfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369030 |
On 11/4/15 11/4/15 1:51 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > Because it's local, and cosmology and GPS > are global. HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it means "in the vicinity of earth". Whenever physicists discuss the local vs global distinction, global means "throughout the entire manifold", or "throughout the entire universe" (depending on context). The GPS is most definitely NOT "global" in that sense. But cosmology is. When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you are doomed to writing AND THINKING nonsense. > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > devices are not localised machines. But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. And actually, each individual device is VERY local. But the system they implement is NOT. (I.e. the GPS is not local in any meaningful sense, but it is global ONLY the the RESTRICTED sense described above.) > GPS is large enough. Time, understood as "what clocks > indicate" is global and matching t'=t equation, with > the precision of acceptable error. This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then the system would not work. For them, t' != t, and the errors due to ignoring that difference would be completely unacceptable. The designers were COMPELLED to modify the "clocks" in the satellites in order to make the system work and meet its specifications (the compulsion comes from the world we inhabit, not from any model or theory of physics -- these permit them to deal with it, however). Some people around here with no experience whatsoever in engineering large and complex systems claim that a satnav system would work with unmodified clocks. While at the level to which they think about it this might be imagined to work, whenever REAL systems designers look at the engineering problems of a REAL system, they come back to modifying the satellite "clocks", for the same reasons that the GPS did. The Galileo system did PRECISELY this -- they initially planned to use standard (unmodified) satellite clocks, but the final design uses modified "clocks" (modified in precisely the same way as GPS satellite clocks, using GR). > 1)there are no inertial observers in the real > world But physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One does not need "exactly inertial observers" as you imagine, one only needs observers for whom their non-inertialness is negligible (i.e. induces errors smaller than their measurement resolution). In practice, this applies to most measurements on earth (e.g. essentially any experiment performed inside a volume < 300 meters cubed). > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > in the real world. You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1f6pi$78l$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369109 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:MPSdnWWl8_72aqfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... |HUGE PUN, which destroys your argument. Imagination. |The "G" in "GPS" does indeed stand for "global", but in that context it means |"in the vicinity of earth". "Global in the vincinity of earth" - is still not "local". And, as we all can see, GPS is global enough for your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > Take a look at GPS. No, in the real world these > devices are not localised machines. |But they are ALL near earth. As I said above. |And actually, each individual device is VERY local. Maybe it is "VERY local", but it is global enough for your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. If your local concept is useless even in "VERY local" system... Well, too bad for it. |This is simply not true. If one put standard clocks into the GPS satellites then |the system would not work. Right. GPS, though "VERY local", is global enough for your brilliant concept of "local time" to be useless. > 2)there are no "equal rights for everybody" > in the real world. |You confuse physics with politics. And you also confuse physics with a |poorly-worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. No. Physics is exactly this: a poorly worded claim by someone who does not understand the real issues. At least, modern physics. And what about your "class"? Are children of our travelling twins in it, or not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web