Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424188 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 251 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 09:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 11:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 14:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 18:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-09 06:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-09 14:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-10 04:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-10 20:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-11 05:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-11 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 12:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-13 21:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-17 00:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 00:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-18 11:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-19 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 09:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-07 13:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-07 13:48 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 17:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 21:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 18:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 19:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 21:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 22:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 00:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 15:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-08 10:57 +0000
The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-07 16:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-08 10:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-08 20:52 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 05:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 06:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-14 06:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 07:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 15:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-16 06:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 17:13 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 10:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-16 22:04 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 21:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 16:06 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:46 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:51 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-17 10:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-18 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-18 15:02 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 08:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 07:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-19 14:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 15:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 06:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 07:38 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 09:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-20 11:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 17:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-17 19:24 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 17:43 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-14 11:49 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 11:25 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-14 16:32 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 09:34 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 22:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 04:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 04:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 07:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 10:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:35 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 01:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 02:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 02:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 03:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 05:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 08:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-18 09:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 09:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 18:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:35 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 22:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-18 05:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 21:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 21:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-18 23:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 00:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 00:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 01:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 02:33 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-19 09:22 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-19 08:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:26 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 06:20 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 12:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-26 20:38 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Vliert Snijders <ouwi@leolaph.wo> - 2017-08-06 09:54 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:15 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-27 19:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 20:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 06:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 08:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-20 12:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ustin Veterre <utve@nauoe.ct> - 2017-07-20 19:59 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-20 18:59 -0400
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-20 13:45 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-21 02:57 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-21 03:44 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-21 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-22 02:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-22 03:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-22 12:59 +0200
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 07:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 07:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 21:05 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 23:02 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 23:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 20:59 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 06:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-27 21:13 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 20:31 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 16:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 20:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 06:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 21:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 22:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 02:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 05:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:23 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 20:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 23:03 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-25 13:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 09:29 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 18:47 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Esteban Viars <esane@snbvten.vt> - 2017-07-21 18:53 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-21 17:37 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-23 05:09 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-26 01:27 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-26 07:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-27 07:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 09:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:00 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:21 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 12:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 13:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 13:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 21:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 17:16 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 12:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 07:12 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 08:30 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-28 13:40 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-28 14:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-29 01:08 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-07-29 02:24 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-07-29 07:52 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-02 07:39 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-02 08:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-03 03:50 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> - 2017-08-03 10:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-03 05:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 06:16 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-04 09:06 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-04 10:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 11:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:48 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 18:40 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-06 07:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-06 08:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-06 15:56 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-06 09:32 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 09:41 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-06 11:28 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 05:01 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-23 19:20 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 22:43 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:14 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 00:25 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-23 10:56 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-24 00:19 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-23 23:55 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-24 08:14 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-24 02:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:55 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-25 09:22 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-20 23:11 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 07:04 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-20 12:54 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-21 10:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-26 20:53 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 00:18 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-21 06:42 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-15 07:38 -0500
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 08:07 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 11:34 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Winfred Plumer <lewru@pulwr.cn> - 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-16 13:15 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 21:58 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:10 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-15 10:53 -0700
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:12 +0000
Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-18 05:57 -0700
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfb255ed-e3c4-4dcf-8383-eaa8ab638524@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425358 |
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 5:56:44 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > But the satellite clock second for the GPS were redefined to have > 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation compared... That is totally irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing identical "clocks", "sources". They are all set to send out a pulse at 1 sec, say (when all at rest wrt each other). We then send them out at random speeds. All pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a522dff6-f294-401c-b75a-8c42e0a0e822@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425362 |
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:09:09 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 5:56:44 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > But the satellite clock second for the GPS were redefined to have > > 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation compared... > > That is totally irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing identical "clocks", "sources". They are all set to send out a pulse at 1 sec, say (when all at rest wrt each other). We then send them out at random speeds. > All pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. No they don’t receive each other’s signal at the same rate. A sends out a signal according to his A clock second and B sends out a signal according to his B clock second. Similarly, A receives the signal from B according to his clock second and B receives the signal from A according to his clock second. But A’s clock second does not contain the same amount of TIME as B’s clock second. In fact according to SR math and from A’s point of view A’s clock second is worth 1/gamma second of B’s clock second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okl7uh$301$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425452 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> That is totally irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing identical >"clocks", "sources". They are all set to send out a pulse at 1 sec, say >(when all at rest wrt each other). We then send them out at random speeds. >> All pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. >No they don't receive each other's signal at the same rate. >A sends out a signal according to his A clock second and B sends out a >signal according to his B clock second. And we already stated that the A and B clocks are identical, they send out a pulse once per second local time. > Similarly, A receives the signal from > B according to his clock second and B receives the signal from A according > to his clock second. And again as the A and B clocks are identical, and each one keeps proper local time, they will receive the identical signals from the other clock identically so A and B will see the exact same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9422372a-b785-4c6e-b870-fe860d8c14a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425472 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 lipca 2017 17:02:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > And again as the A and B clocks are identical, and each one keeps proper local > time, they will receive the identical signals from the other clock identically > so A and B will see the exact same thing. And jedi knights fight the evil.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d8a1302-48cb-4863-ac64-c1028e877fe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425452 |
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:09:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:09:09 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > All pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. > > No they don’t receive each other’s signal at the same rate. Yes they do. Its an empirical fact. > A sends out a signal according to his A clock second and B sends > out a signal according to his B clock second. Similarly, A receives > the signal from B according to his clock second and B receives > the signal from A according to his clock second. Correct. > But A’s clock second does not contain the same amount of TIME as B’s > clock second. Perhaps, but one the calculations done (or empirical verification), it so happens that all pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. > In fact according to SR math and from A’s point of view A’s clock > second is worth 1/gamma second of B’s clock second. Something like that, but nonetheless, removing all those ambiguous words and doing the math, we get that all pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate; the time interval received by A and the time interval received by B will be the same. Can you show this using SR's math?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1d117e3-7da2-43f6-972d-2e94fcadf8d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425478 |
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 8:09:29 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:09:09 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > > All pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. > > > > No they don’t receive each other’s signal at the same rate. > > Yes they do. Its an empirical fact. I asked you for actual experiment measurements and you never show them. So I assumed that your claims are not empirical......just assumption. > > > A sends out a signal according to his A clock second and B sends > > out a signal according to his B clock second. Similarly, A receives > > the signal from B according to his clock second and B receives > > the signal from A according to his clock second. > > Correct. > > > But A’s clock second does not contain the same amount of TIME as B’s > > clock second. > > Perhaps, but one the calculations done (or empirical verification), it so happens that all pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate. No such reciprocal pairwise measurements are available....just assumptions. > > > > In fact according to SR math and from A’s point of view A’s clock > > second is worth 1/gamma second of B’s clock second. > > Something like that, but nonetheless, removing all those ambiguous words and doing the math, we get that all pairwise sats receive each others signal at the same rate; the time interval received by A and the time interval received by B will be the same. Can you show this using SR’s math? It is possible that pairwise sat clocks receive each others signal at the same rate......that’s because they are in the same frame. just as two clocks on earth’s surface will receive signals at the same rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 07:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <334f9690-f45d-4dd7-afef-a8054749d8f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425599 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:59:24 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > I asked you for actual experiment measurements and you never show them. I told you already; it will take me some time to re-find the data, time that i currently dont have. But *you* can search for them in the meanwhile. Also, write to a few sat/space agencies about it [pairwise timing verifications]. Or, you can "inexpensively" do the exp yourself these days. > So I assumed that your claims are not empirical......just assumption. You make wrong assumptions again > No such reciprocal pairwise measurements are available.... You are a reality denier. That wont get you far. > > Something like that, but nonetheless, removing all those ambiguous > > words and doing the math, we get that all pairwise sats receive > > each others signal at the same rate; the time interval received by A and > > the time interval received by B will be the same. Can you show > > this using SR’s math? > > It is possible that pairwise sat clocks receive each others signal > at the same rate...... Exps show otherwise. > that’s because they are in the same frame. No. Most pairwise sats (and the ones we are referring to) have a relative speed amongst them. hence they are in different (inertial) frames. > just as two clocks on earth’s surface will receive signals at > the same rate. Clocks on earth are NOT in a same (inertial) frame. Only approximately. And this is irrelevant to the discussion. Stay on topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9420e7de-2fe5-4ee6-b340-d60015e014b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425600 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 10:20:32 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:59:24 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > I asked you for actual experiment measurements and you never show them. > > I told you already; it will take me some time to re-find the data, time that i currently dont have. But *you* can search for them in the meanwhile. Also, write to a few sat/space agencies about it [pairwise timing verifications]. Bullshit.....no such data exist. > > Or, you can "inexpensively" do the exp yourself these days. > > > So I assumed that your claims are not empirical......just assumption. > > You make wrong assumptions again > > > No such reciprocal pairwise measurements are available.... > > You are a reality denier. That wont get you far. > > > > > Something like that, but nonetheless, removing all those ambiguous > > > words and doing the math, we get that all pairwise sats receive > > > each others signal at the same rate; the time interval received by A and > > > the time interval received by B will be the same. Can you show > > > this using SR’s math? > > > > It is possible that pairwise sat clocks receive each others signal > > at the same rate...... > > Exps show otherwise. > > > > that’s because they are in the same frame. > > No. Most pairwise sats (and the ones we are referring to) have a relative speed amongst them. hence they are in different (inertial) frames. > > > > just as two clocks on earth’s surface will receive signals at > > the same rate. > > Clocks on earth are NOT in a same (inertial) frame. Only approximately. > And this is irrelevant to the discussion. Stay on topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb13691c-312e-45ad-ad7e-3d42bf83e312@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425630 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:56:55 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Bullshit.....no such data exist. That is a very unscientific attitude. If you dont know something, dont imply that it doesn't exist. And dont be lazy; if *you* want the data, then *you* can look for it too. Dont expect everyone to do all the work for you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c3b382a-34c6-4312-ba83-a870af7372f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425633 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 6:52:52 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:56:55 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Bullshit.....no such data exist. > > That is a very unscientific attitude. If you dont know something, dont imply that it doesn't exist. And dont be lazy; if *you* want the data, then *you* can look for it too. Dont expect everyone to do all the work for you! You claimed that such reciprocal data exists and they do them everyday.....so produce them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb9761e3-e379-4bec-8a6d-7ccea140c24f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425674 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:27:03 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > You claimed that such reciprocal data exists and they do > them everyday.....so produce them. YOU want the data, so YOU can search for it TOO. Why dont you want to look for it? Is it because you are afraid of the truth and that it will show that you were wrong all along and that your theory falls apart ? Better for you to not seek the truth and to remain in your happy place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09d458a4-0946-4719-9305-4ff2bb6d105f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425677 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 9:27:03 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > You claimed that such reciprocal data exists and they do > > them everyday.....so produce them. > > YOU want the data, so YOU can search for it TOO. I don’t want the data because it doesn’t exist....I just want to point out to you that your claim of reciprocity data is a false claim. > Why dont you want to look for it? Is it because you are afraid of the truth and that it will show that you were wrong all along and that your theory falls apart ? Better for you to not seek the truth and to remain in your happy place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cbc931f-fe9a-460d-b522-7da27530d719@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425681 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:38:23 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > YOU want the data, so YOU can search for it TOO. > > I don’t want the data because it doesn’t exist.... Can you prove your claim ? > I just want to point out to you that your claim of reciprocity > data is a false claim. But you cant back up your claim [that the data does not exist]. You are just handwaving. If you never encountered it, you cant claim that it doesnt exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec8045d1-de6f-448c-a3b8-1f3b272f48d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425691 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 12:02:49 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 10:38:23 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > > YOU want the data, so YOU can search for it TOO. > > > > I don’t want the data because it doesn’t exist.... > > Can you prove your claim ? > > > I just want to point out to you that your claim of reciprocity > > data is a false claim. > > But you cant back up your claim [that the data does not exist]. > You are just handwaving. You can’t back up your claim that reciprocity data exist....so it is you who is handwaving. > > If you never encountered it, you cant claim that it doesnt exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-20 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81cac85a-b669-4c6b-8b7b-b45c20197229@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425704 |
On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:51:01 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > You can’t back up your claim that reciprocity data exist.... > so it is you who is handwaving. AND you too. At least I am working on looking for it. Are you? > > If you never encountered it, you cant claim that it doesnt exist. No answer? looks like you have been cornered again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <926c6eee-64cd-4e2e-b21d-90d636c63b16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425600 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 7:50:32 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:59:24 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > I asked you for actual experiment measurements and you never show them. > > I told you already; it will take me some time to re-find the data, time that i currently dont have. But *you* can search for them in the meanwhile. Also, write to a few sat/space agencies about it [pairwise timing verifications]. > > Or, you can "inexpensively" do the exp yourself these days. > > > So I assumed that your claims are not empirical......just assumption. > > You make wrong assumptions again > > > No such reciprocal pairwise measurements are available.... > > You are a reality denier. That wont get you far. > > > > > Something like that, but nonetheless, removing all those ambiguous > > > words and doing the math, we get that all pairwise sats receive > > > each others signal at the same rate; the time interval received by A and > > > the time interval received by B will be the same. Can you show > > > this using SR’s math? > > > > It is possible that pairwise sat clocks receive each others signal > > at the same rate...... > > Exps show otherwise. > > > > that’s because they are in the same frame. > > No. Most pairwise sats (and the ones we are referring to) have a relative speed amongst them. hence they are in different (inertial) frames. > > > > just as two clocks on earth’s surface will receive signals at > > the same rate. > > Clocks on earth are NOT in a same (inertial) frame. Only approximately. > And this is irrelevant to the discussion. Stay on topic. So what are the calculations for the time dilation on each of the satellites in the reference frame of a clock situated at Mt Rainer for example at a specific height? A simple calculation will show that t1 <> t2 <> t3 <> te, is that correct? What are the margins of error?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okj2tj$9di$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425358 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 5:56:44 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> Yes, but It will take some time to sleuth around for the actual data. For >> instance, most satellites (private comms, NASA) pairwise measure the rate >> at which they receive the other's signal. Each sat in a given pair always >> has received at the same rate. They do this for verification & timing test >> of their equipment. >But the satellite clock second for the GPS were redefined to have 4.4647 >more periods of Cs 133 radiation compared to the ground clock. So that means >that the measurement were not reciprocal. No, Stupid Ken, no matter how often you autisticly repeat that phrase, it will never be correct. The measurements are reciprocal. Deal with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okavrm$t56$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #424835 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:28:32 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: <snip Ken's incorrect interpretation> >> For the nth time: two spaceships pass each other in space, containing >twins and flying on the same plane but in opposite directions. >> >> A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. The correct statement is that B will measure A's clock as running slow, and A will measure B's clock as running slow. >No such symmetry exists in nature. The following possibilities exist between >A and B: >1. A accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than B. >2. A accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate than B. >3. A and B accumulate clock seconds at the same rate. If we assume identical perfect clocks, it's #3 that's true, but this isn't the point. Because of the motion, each will measure the other's clock as running slow. Not a contradiction since they aren't measuring the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <789761e9-48fa-4bdd-a2f6-0858b53d431a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424891 |
W dniu piątek, 14 lipca 2017 19:43:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > >> A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. > > The correct statement is that B will measure A's clock as running slow, and > A will measure B's clock as running slow. And shouldn't they believe THE MEASUREMENTS, poor idiot, like you do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51280021-6cd4-4c23-870d-bdb69b186e2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424897 |
W dniu piątek, 14 lipca 2017 20:15:12 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > W dniu piątek, 14 lipca 2017 19:43:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > > > >> A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. > > > > The correct statement is that B will measure A's clock as running slow, and > > A will measure B's clock as running slow. > > And shouldn't they believe THE MEASUREMENTS, poor > idiot, like you do? Or maybe let's take it differently: should they believe a mumbling moron telling them the world is different than they measured, in the name of Great Mystical Symmetry?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web