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 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 20:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ojr9kj$pck$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424283 |
Op 08-jul-2017 om 19:03 schreef kenseto: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:56:49 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) > Fuller wrote: >> The Hyperlink doesn’t work.... 404 file not found > > Talking about? What hyperlink you are talking about? My theory of > relativity called IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechаnics.org/2015gravity.pdf The Hyperlink does NOT work.... 404 file not found Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ecda924-3461-419e-84c9-7b4800de7bf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424188 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:52:03 PM UTC+5:30, kenseto wrote: > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. 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. As long as they do not meet, stop, turn around or otherwise break the symmetry. A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. Einsteinians, you will agree. Ken, let's keep in simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4cc2596-dfe4-44a0-a91e-08afbf42962e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424829 |
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: > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > 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. 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. > > As long as they do not meet, stop, turn around or otherwise break the symmetry.and B > > A's clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. > > > Einsteinians, you will agree. > > Ken, let's keep in simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <750d0a79-da54-4569-8ea9-d33da7900917@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424835 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:28:32 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > A’s clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. > > No such symmetry exists in nature. Well, true, in the sense that clocks do not run slow. Remember, that expression is meaningless and very ambiguous. Consider this instead: Two ships pass by each other, each with an identical clock (transmitting device). OIW, let A measure B's speed as v and vice-versa, and that the (proper) frequency (tick) of their clocks is f. Question: at what rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's ticks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c0c4865-f15b-4a78-aeb8-4913c96c0962@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424836 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:28:32 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > A’s clock runs slower than B, B's clock runs slower than A. > > > > No such symmetry exists in nature. > > Well, true, in the sense that clocks do not run slow. Remember, that expression is meaningless and very ambiguous. > > Consider this instead: Two ships pass by each other, each with an identical clock (transmitting device). OIW, let A measure B's speed as v and vice-versa, and that the (proper) frequency (tick) of their clocks is f. Question: at what rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's ticks? Since A’s clock second have different duration than B’s clock second.....that means that Vab not equal to Vba. Therefore f_ab not equal to f_ba.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c3920ec-65f0-4f75-a22f-a6db95aa5422@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424841 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:52:10 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > Consider this instead: Two ships pass by each other, each with > > an identical clock (transmitting device). OIW, > > let A measure B's speed as v and vice-versa, > Since A’s clock second have different duration than B’s clock > second.....that means that Vab not equal to Vba. Are you saying that two mutually moving observers do not measure their relative speeds to be the same? Are you aware that pars of satellites/probes always have measured their mutual speeds to be the same...? On a similar note, consider again two ships crossing each other and receding (or approaching...) & that both are inertial. Let them NOT attempt to measure each others speed. Question: at what rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's ticks? Will these two values be the same? (carefull!).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec45ad19-dc24-4fe3-ba4b-306c23b1cacb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424842 |
On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:52:10 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:18:14 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > > Consider this instead: Two ships pass by each other, each with > > > an identical clock (transmitting device). OIW, > > > let A measure B's speed as v and vice-versa, > > > Since A’s clock second have different duration than B’s clock > > second.....that means that Vab not equal to Vba. > > Are you saying that two mutually moving observers do not measure their relative speeds to be the same? The will not predict that their mutual speed to be the same for the same reason that their clock second is predicted to be 1/gamma second when compared to each other. >Are you aware that pars of satellites/probes always have measured their mutual speeds to be the same...? There is no such measurement from the satellite point of view. The GPS satellite clock second is redefined to have 4.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second to tho correct the disparity between the standard clock seconds in the satellite and the standard clock second on the ground. > > On a similar note, consider again two ships crossing each other and receding (or approaching...) & that both are inertial. Let them NOT attempt to measure each others speed. Question: at what rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's ticks? Will these two values be the same? (careful! They will each receive different tick rate because each of their clock seconds have different duration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 15:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0938381-c1e4-4bb6-85df-23ba65b54414@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425043 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:26:08 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > On a similar note, consider again two ships crossing each other > > and receding (or approaching...) & that both are inertial. Let > > them NOT attempt to measure each others speed. Question: at what > > rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's > > ticks? Will these two values be the same? (careful! > > > They will each receive different tick rate because each of > their clock seconds have different duration. Are you aware that that exact exp has been done many many times? And in ALL cases, each pair of observers always receive the ticks at the same rate as the other! This is a trivial experimental fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b59b5d15-0bce-41f7-85e4-b40c9795f9b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425085 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:13:58 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:26:08 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > > On a similar note, consider again two ships crossing each other > > > and receding (or approaching...) & that both are inertial. Let > > > them NOT attempt to measure each others speed. Question: at what > > > rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's > > > ticks? Will these two values be the same? (careful! > > > > > > They will each receive different tick rate because each of > > their clock seconds have different duration. > > Are you aware that that exact exp has been done many many times? > And in ALL cases, each pair of observers always receive the ticks at the same rate as the other! This is a trivial experimental fact. I don’t think that no such reciprocal measurements were performed. Observer A measures the receiving tick and he (server A) assumes that Observer B will measure the same receiving tick. Can you give actual example (actual values) of such measurements were performed. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okg6s9$d6v$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425150 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:13:58 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:26:08 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> > On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: >> >> > > On a similar note, consider again two ships crossing each other >> > > and receding (or approaching...) & that both are inertial. Let >> > > them NOT attempt to measure each others speed. Question: at what >> > > rate will A receive B's ticks? At what rate will B receive A's >> > > ticks? Will these two values be the same? (careful! >> > They will each receive different tick rate because each of >> > their clock seconds have different duration. >> Are you aware that that exact exp has been done many many times? >> And in ALL cases, each pair of observers always receive the ticks at the >>same rate as the other! This is a trivial experimental fact. >I don't think that no such reciprocal measurements were performed. Nobody cares what you think. Those reciprocal measurements were performed and they match the predictions of SR. >Observer A measures the receiving tick and he (server A) assumes that >Observer B will measure the same receiving tick. Nobody cares what anyone assumes, either. Only actual measurements count, that is A's tick rate as measured by B, and B's tick rate as measured by A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce8d7873-d6c5-4c1d-9f5f-789b3c32e03a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425175 |
W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 19:13:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Nobody cares what anyone assumes, either. Only actual measurements > count, that is A's tick rate as measured by B, and B's tick rate as > measured by A. So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okgc9n$292$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425176 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 19:13:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moro>ney napisał: >> Nobody cares what anyone assumes, either. Only actual measurements >> count, that is A's tick rate as measured by B, and B's tick rate as >> measured by A. >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", >poor idiot? If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. Learn SR before you criticize it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5d4883d-1fbf-4c56-9082-98d382c6b467@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425199 |
W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 20:46:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 19:13:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moro>ney napisał: > > >> Nobody cares what anyone assumes, either. Only actual measurements > >> count, that is A's tick rate as measured by B, and B's tick rate as > >> measured by A. > > >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and > >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", > >poor idiot? > > If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. I don't have, unfortunately; but I do. And the answer is...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okgnt8$lk3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425218 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 20:46:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >> >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and >> >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", >> >poor idiot? >> >> If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. >I don't have, unfortunately; but I do. And the answer is...? The answer remains: you simply don't understand SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0405df50-292f-4f34-b651-d42c7cf6d9bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425229 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 lipca 2017 00:04:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >W dniu niedziela, 16 lipca 2017 20:46:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > >> mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > >> > > >> >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and > >> >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", > >> >poor idiot? > >> > >> If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. > > >I don't have, unfortunately; but I do. And the answer is...? > > The answer remains: you simply don't understand SR. So the reason why you mumble and denny yourself is that I don't understand your Shit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okinad$qc0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425255 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> >> >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and >> >> >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", >> >> >poor idiot? >> >> >> >> If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. >> >I don't have, unfortunately; but I do. And the answer is...? >> The answer remains: you simply don't understand SR. >So the reason why you mumble and denny yourself is >that I don't understand your Shit? No, the reason why YOU mumble foolishness like that is because you simply don't understand SR. Since you have a significant misunderstanding of time, this is not likely to change soon (if ever).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f039119-3920-4556-bb55-497bb8096cf7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425342 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 lipca 2017 18:06:39 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > > >> >> >So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and > >> >> >A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]", > >> >> >poor idiot? > >> >> > >> >> If you have to ask that, then you simply do not understand SR. > > >> >I don't have, unfortunately; but I do. And the answer is...? > > >> The answer remains: you simply don't understand SR. > > >So the reason why you mumble and denny yourself is > >that I don't understand your Shit? > > No, the reason why YOU mumble foolishness like that is because > you simply don't understand SR. And what is the reason why you mumble and deny yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b02c5803-08f6-41b0-9beb-af04f337f677@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425176 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> So why do you say " B will measure A's clock as running slow, and
> A will measure B's clock as running slow [but clocks don't run slow]",
Cant you read or remember? This was explained to you many times.
Quoting Tom:
" But it is true that many popular writers, and most ancient
writers, use verbal shortcuts to get the main point across
while being technically wrong. Such as "moving clocks run
slow" -- this is WRONG, but if you have seen how many words
I have to use to set the record straight, you can appreciate
why popular authors take the shortcut (even though it is
wrong). Tom Roberts "
Understand now why many authors use the expression "moving clocks run slow" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35584853-8c05-4240-a4be-1980fa4093fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425150 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 9:43:46 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:13:58 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > Are you aware that that exact exp has been done many many times? > > And in ALL cases, each pair of observers always receive the ticks > > at the same rate as the other! This is a trivial experimental fact. > > I don’t think that no such reciprocal measurements were performed. They are routinely performed. > Can you give actual example (actual values) of such measurements > were performed. Thanks. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d79053f-d7ce-4ad5-a8a0-33e37fbf6106@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425225 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 5:56:44 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 9:43:46 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 6:13:58 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > > > > Are you aware that that exact exp has been done many many times? > > > And in ALL cases, each pair of observers always receive the ticks > > > at the same rate as the other! This is a trivial experimental fact. > > > > I don’t think that no such reciprocal measurements were performed. > > They are routinely performed. Then give us an actual example for such reciprocal measurements. > > > > Can you give actual example (actual values) of such measurements > > were performed. Thanks. > > 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web