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 254 — 27 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 kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:38 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-17 06:46 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:10 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-17 12:24 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-18 01:53 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 13:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:48 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 10:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 15:52 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 14:14 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 17:11 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-18 17:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 03:01 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 09:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-19 14:36 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:18 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:48 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:12 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:15 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:19 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-20 16:27 -0500
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:34 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 09:17 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-19 06:15 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-19 06:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 06:30 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 10:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-20 06:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 07:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:32 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-21 06:26 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-21 12:03 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 22:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:46 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 07:07 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 07:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 17:07 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-22 09:05 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 18:33 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 10:37 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-22 21:28 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 21:52 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:58 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:38 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:11 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 23:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 06:28 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 07:03 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 09:20 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-22 23:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 04:31 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:27 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:56 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 08:02 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 17:37 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 15:23 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:55 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 05:43 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 05:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-23 06:57 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-23 07:23 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:30 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-23 19:27 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-18 05:12 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 21:23 -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 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 18:29 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 11:43 -0800
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 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 19:58 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 21:09 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-15 22:25 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 22:37 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-16 05:45 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-15 23:19 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 21:11 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-15 23:29 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 23:40 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 00:22 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 04:46 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-16 22:36 -0600
Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 23:25 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-17 18:51 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-18 06:42 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-19 05:32 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-19 13:11 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-19 22:33 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 21:47 +0000
Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:21 -0800
Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-20 04:41 +0100
Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-19 22:36 +0000
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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 11:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <zuednZYznM-i0M7LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #370688 |
On 11/23/15 11/23/15 - 6:55 AM, paparios wrote: > In Physics there is a clear definition of what it means to measure a length, using rulers and clocks. For instance, to measure the length of a table, you must use a ruler and a pair of clocks. The length of the table is the number indicated by the ruler, when the front and the end of the table are observed at the same time. > To measure a moving table, you need TWO observers with Einstein synchronized clocks and rulers. Each observer notes the time when he observed the front and the end of the table passing by. That way they can later compare their observation and apply the following procedure: > > Observer 1 saw the front of the table passing by his location x=x1 at t=t0. > Observer 2 saw the end of the table passing by his location x=x2 at t=t0. > > The length of the table is then L=x1-x2 I disagree. STRONGLY. That measurement is NOT "the length of the table", it is rather "the length of the table measured in this frame". That distinction is important, and omitting it is at base the cause of much confusion. The length of the table is an INTRINSIC property which your procedure does not measure unless the table is at rest relative to the instruments used. The words you use MUST reflect this, or they are just plain wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 10:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a29a155-a160-4193-997c-7a79902c734f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370713 |
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:30:42 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/23/15 11/23/15 - 6:55 AM, paparios wrote: > > In Physics there is a clear definition of what it means to measure a length, using rulers and clocks. For instance, to measure the length of a table, you must use a ruler and a pair of clocks. The length of the table is the number indicated by the ruler, when the front and the end of the table are observed at the same time. > > To measure a moving table, you need TWO observers with Einstein synchronized clocks and rulers. Each observer notes the time when he observed the front and the end of the table passing by. That way they can later compare their observation and apply the following procedure: > > > > Observer 1 saw the front of the table passing by his location x=x1 at t=t0. > > Observer 2 saw the end of the table passing by his location x=x2 at t=t0. > > > > The length of the table is then L=x1-x2 > > I disagree. STRONGLY. > > That measurement is NOT "the length of the table", it is rather "the length of > the table measured in this frame". That distinction is important, and omitting > it is at base the cause of much confusion. From the context, that is exactly what it was implied (the two observers measuring the length of the moving table are located in a given frame of reference). > > The length of the table is an INTRINSIC property which your > procedure does not measure unless the table is at rest > relative to the instruments used. The words you use MUST > reflect this, or they are just plain wrong. > > > Tom Roberts Again, that is obviously correct and it was implied we were comparing the length of the table when it is a) at rest with the observer and then b) moving with respect to two observers which are in a given frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 11:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <uYCdnS_zov-_0c7LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #370680 |
On 11/23/15 11/23/15 - 1:49 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 21 listopada 2015 19:03:43 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: >>> Why does motion affects the length of a meter stick? >> IT DOESN'T. >> What is affected is HOW SOME OTHER OBSERVER MEASURES ITS LENGTH. > > So, the length of the stick is not affected > by its motion, but the result of measurement > is? Yes, where "motion" is really motion RELATIVE TO THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT (aka observer). > Isn't "length" and "result of measurement of > length" the same thing, if measurement is > done properly? Yes and no, depending on the meanings of your words. The length of an object is NOT the result of a measurement made by an instrument relative to which the object is moving -- that is rather "the length of that moving object measured by this instrument". Length is an intrinsic property of an object. That is, it cannot depend on anything else. Measurements by instruments relative to which the object is moving depend on the relative speed, and thus cannot possibly measure the object's length, they measure SOMETHING ELSE. And the only sensible name for that something is "length of the object measured by this instrument" -- certainly just calling it "length" will cause confusion. IOW: "properly" in your statement must include the object being at rest relative to the measuring instrument. If you think about this, you'll find it makes sense -- there is no requirement whatsoever that measurements of moving objects be identical to measurements of the objects at rest. Especially because the measurement procedures are usually different. In the world we inhabit, measurements of the tick rate of a clock are NOT the same when it is moving as when it is at rest. Unfortunately, we do not currently have technology capable of detecting this difference for measurements of length. But the measurements of clocks that we do have make it highly believable. Indeed "length contraction" is absolutely required for consistency, given the observations of "time dilation". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 19:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n2vlr1$k7$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370712 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:uYCdnS_zov-_0c7LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com... |Yes and no, depending on the meanings of your words. The length of an object is |NOT the result of a measurement made by an instrument relative to which the |object is moving -- that is rather "the length of that moving object measured by |this instrument". So, we have a proper instrument, we apply a proper procedure of length measurement and we don't get a proper length measured, but only a proper length measured. No, it doesn't make sense, sorry. |Length is an intrinsic property of an object. That is, it |cannot depend on anything else. Do you have any experiments confirming the above?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2vsfk$l8k$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370535 |
On 11/21/2015 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > How does the meter stick know when the motion stops?.....stop wrt what? The aether? > Why does motion affects the length of a meter stick? Why does a meter stick recover > its length and the clock does not recover its loss seconds???? The clock recovers its RATE of ticking. When you bring a clock to rest, you will find it is no longer ticking slowly. This is exactly like the meter stick at rest no longer being shorter. All you're doing is fussing that you don't understand what relativity says and that you have open questions. From this you are claiming that relativity must be wrong BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 14:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n2vsh4$l8k$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370535 |
On 11/21/2015 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >> Even in ordinary life, your assertion doesn't hold. If I have a spring >> >and I give it a push to get it moving, it will compress. You can watch >> >it do that. When I let it stop, it will return to original length. So >> >are you going to say that the compression you actually WATCHED is not real? > ROTFLOL....so the meter stick is a spring or a rubber meter stick? But we are talking about a metal meter stick. Ken, Ken, Ken. Springs are metal too. How do you think a metal spring compresses? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[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 | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-18 05:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <db2c5uFgtapU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #369315 |
Am 07.11.2015 16:49, schrieb kenseto: .. >> 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. > If time is 'relative' there would be no way to define 'absolute time'. As a consequence I would say, that time is a local measure and in any possible FoR there exist such a measure. Only the times are not the same and observers could disagree about the length of a second. But also they could disagree about the order of events, if those occur remote enough. We could also think about a world, where time runs into the opposite direction and the future there is our past. (This world would be like 'behind the mirror', since everything is in the other direction.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-17 21:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2618c2ca-eaef-4f19-92f0-a823a56abf13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370356 |
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.11.2015 16:49, schrieb kenseto: > .. > >> 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. > > > > If time is 'relative' there would be no way to define 'absolute time'. > > As a consequence I would say, that time is a local measure and in any > possible FoR there exist such a measure. Only the times are not the same > and observers could disagree about the length of a second. > > But also they could disagree about the order of events, if those occur > remote enough. > > We could also think about a world, where time runs into the opposite > direction and the future there is our past. > > (This world would be like 'behind the mirror', since everything is in > the other direction.) > > > TH Some have that time is a ray. Furthermore, some have that time is only in the past. "Now" is always at the tip of the ray (for whether the ray starts at Big Bang or not). Then, we model future points of time as "then", basically with the ray of time in the usual continuous variable we call "t". When the only constant is change, it's a delta called time. Abstractly, of course, you can model reversibility in condition as however you so see fit. I've been recommending this "Time, Chance, and Reduction" collection of monographs.
[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]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web