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 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 20:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5db6733b-8230-4a41-81f1-ac9c0fbd74ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426739 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:31:11 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > OK. I apologize for incorrect wording. Let's start again. > > <sigh> > > > > I specify nothing. > > Ok. So, no discussions. > > > You stated that the travelling twin uses less energy. OK. > > Nope, I never said that. Start again. > > > > I am not specifying anything, just asking, did the travelling twin > > consume less food? > > There is no mention of consumption of food in the TP. > Are you referring to a new TP, one you made up, a different gedanken? If so, specify it; describe it. Do 'start it again' as you said. In fact, start all anew; start a new thread about it & forget this one. Well OK. Here is the original July 25th post with ** modifications **. "OK. So next thought experiment. Each twin has a rocket pre-programmed to fire at specific intervals to fly the second twin out to space, turn around, return to Earth and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land on its launch platform. The Earth twin's rocket is fixed to a test platform. It ** is programmed to fire the same firing sequences based on its internal atomic clock ** but does not go anywhere ** as it is fixed firmly to a testing stand **. The Travelling twin's rocket is what takes him out to space and back. " OK so far?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <930783d2-be7e-4454-8775-bfce48882ae4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426770 |
On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:36:09 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:31:11 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > OK. I apologize for incorrect wording. Let's start again. > > > > <sigh> > > > > > > > I specify nothing. > > > > Ok. So, no discussions. > > > > > You stated that the travelling twin uses less energy. OK. > > > > Nope, I never said that. Start again. > > > > > > > I am not specifying anything, just asking, did the travelling twin > > > consume less food? > > > > There is no mention of consumption of food in the TP. > > Are you referring to a new TP, one you made up, a different gedanken? If so, specify it; describe it. Do 'start it again' as you said. In fact, start all anew; start a new thread about it & forget this one. > > Well OK. > > > Here is the original July 25th post with ** modifications **. > > "OK. So next thought experiment. > > Each twin has a rocket pre-programmed to fire at specific intervals to fly the second twin out to space, turn around, return to Earth and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land on its launch platform. > > The Earth twin's rocket is fixed to a test platform. It ** is programmed to fire the same firing sequences based on its internal atomic clock ** but does not go anywhere ** as it is fixed firmly to a testing stand **. > > The Travelling twin's rocket is what takes him out to space and back. " > > OK so far? Ok.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d84f0b6f-be3b-43b6-b40c-a6a7a798ca41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426801 |
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:39:31 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:36:09 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:31:11 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:31:10 PM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > OK. I apologize for incorrect wording. Let's start again. > > > > > > <sigh> > > > > > > > > > > I specify nothing. > > > > > > Ok. So, no discussions. > > > > > > > You stated that the travelling twin uses less energy. OK. > > > > > > Nope, I never said that. Start again. > > > > > > > > > > I am not specifying anything, just asking, did the travelling twin > > > > consume less food? > > > > > > There is no mention of consumption of food in the TP. > > > Are you referring to a new TP, one you made up, a different gedanken? If so, specify it; describe it. Do 'start it again' as you said. In fact, start all anew; start a new thread about it & forget this one. > > > > Well OK. > > > > > > Here is the original July 25th post with ** modifications **. > > > > "OK. So next thought experiment. > > > > Each twin has a rocket pre-programmed to fire at specific intervals to fly the second twin out to space, turn around, return to Earth and re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and land on its launch platform. > > > > The Earth twin's rocket is fixed to a test platform. It ** is programmed to fire the same firing sequences based on its internal atomic clock ** but does not go anywhere ** as it is fixed firmly to a testing stand **. > > > > The Travelling twin's rocket is what takes him out to space and back. " > > > > OK so far? > > Ok. When each rocket's pre-programmed firing sequence takes place, in the stationary twin's frame of reference, the rocket fires for a total of x seconds and uses y amount of fuel. The same thing happens in the travelling twin's frame of reference, that is, the rocket fires for y number of seconds as the travelling twin measures in his frame of reference. Actually this is the principle of relativity (Galillean). The situation is somewhat complicated by the GR effects caused by the acceleration due to the firing of the rockets. Ok ? Is this OK?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 22:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd831d0c-7290-40ee-8451-b362e0a12698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426863 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > When each rocket's pre-programmed firing sequence takes place, > in the stationary twin's frame of reference, the rocket fires for a > total of x seconds and uses y amount of fuel. Ok, so it is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds and to use only y amount of fuel. And note that this rocket (home twin) remains inertial at all times since he is not accelerating; he is "bolted" to the ground and just wasting fuel. > The same thing happens in the travelling twin's frame of reference, > that is, the rocket fires for y number of seconds Huh? Dont you mean x seconds? And, are you saying that he too is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds (in his non inertial frame) and to use y amount of fuel ? If so, then as per your setup, they both use y amount of fuel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 02:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f0c1393-4219-406f-af25-bd2dbf9c48f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426864 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:37:54 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > When each rocket's pre-programmed firing sequence takes place, > > in the stationary twin's frame of reference, the rocket fires for a > > total of x seconds and uses y amount of fuel. > > Ok, so it is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds and to use only y amount of fuel. And note that this rocket (home twin) remains inertial at all times since he is not accelerating; he is "bolted" to the ground and just wasting fuel. > > > > The same thing happens in the travelling twin's frame of reference, > > that is, the rocket fires for y number of seconds > > Huh? Dont you mean x seconds? > > And, are you saying that he too is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds (in his non inertial frame) and to use y amount of fuel ? If so, then as per your setup, they both use y amount of fuel. OK, at the start of the journey, or before, the programming of the rockets has taken place. When the Earth twin's rocket sequence completes, it has fired for x seconds on planet Earth. Onboard the rocket, the travelling twin sees everything ticking along just fine at normal clock rates. He notes from his instruments that the rocket has fired in sequence for y seconds. Now is x = y ? The reasons I ask, is that I have read that 'clocks tick slower for the travelling twin compared to the stay at home twin' - all I ask is, is this true. My point is when they re-unite, it will be found that the travelling twin is younger and so is his onboard clock. Less seconds have ticked for the travelling twin, since he is younger, he has taken in less food, and used less energy. (assuming they eat the same boring spacefood in tubes). Less seconds have ticked for the clock controlling the rocket firing, have they not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40a5b3a4-4914-4223-92da-e09667e34f91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426878 |
El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 5:37:53 (UTC-4), gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:37:54 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > > > And, are you saying that he too is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds (in his non inertial frame) and to use y amount of fuel ? If so, then as per your setup, they both use y amount of fuel. > > OK, at the start of the journey, or before, the programming of the rockets has taken place. > > When the Earth twin's rocket sequence completes, it has fired for x seconds on planet Earth. > > Onboard the rocket, the travelling twin sees everything ticking along just fine at normal clock rates. He notes from his instruments that the rocket has fired in sequence for y seconds. > > Now is x = y ? > > The reasons I ask, is that I have read that 'clocks tick slower for the travelling twin compared to the stay at home twin' - all I ask is, is this true. > > My point is when they re-unite, it will be found that the travelling twin is younger and so is his onboard clock. Less seconds have ticked for the travelling twin, since he is younger, he has taken in less food, and used less energy. (assuming they eat the same boring spacefood in tubes). > > Less seconds have ticked for the clock controlling the rocket firing, have they not? Forget about all this nonsense about rockets. Think about the twin situation and calculate: 1) The traveling twin is going at v=0.6c towards a star located at 5 light years. 2) The traveling twin carries a very powerful telescope and periodically sees the position of Earth on her orbit. 3) Question: according to the traveler twin clock, how many days takes the Earth to complete an orbit? You should be able to answer this with simple algebra.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f4f6e0c-1346-4b29-a3ae-d0f26a6619d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426889 |
W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 14:40:50 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > Forget about all this nonsense about rockets. Poor idiot Paparios is right here. Forget about this nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33fa8a8c-59d3-4e2d-b5d1-cf37aa3293e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426889 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 6:10:50 PM UTC+5:30, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 5:37:53 (UTC-4), gehan.am...@gmail.com escribió: > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:37:54 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:08:52 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > And, are you saying that he too is preprogrammed to fire for x seconds (in his non inertial frame) and to use y amount of fuel ? If so, then as per your setup, they both use y amount of fuel. > > > > OK, at the start of the journey, or before, the programming of the rockets has taken place. > > > > When the Earth twin's rocket sequence completes, it has fired for x seconds on planet Earth. > > > > Onboard the rocket, the travelling twin sees everything ticking along just fine at normal clock rates. He notes from his instruments that the rocket has fired in sequence for y seconds. > > > > Now is x = y ? > > > > The reasons I ask, is that I have read that 'clocks tick slower for the travelling twin compared to the stay at home twin' - all I ask is, is this true. > > > > My point is when they re-unite, it will be found that the travelling twin is younger and so is his onboard clock. Less seconds have ticked for the travelling twin, since he is younger, he has taken in less food, and used less energy. (assuming they eat the same boring spacefood in tubes). > > > > Less seconds have ticked for the clock controlling the rocket firing, have they not? > > Forget about all this nonsense about rockets. > > Think about the twin situation and calculate: > > 1) The traveling twin is going at v=0.6c towards a star located at 5 light > years. > 2) The traveling twin carries a very powerful telescope and periodically > sees the position of Earth on her orbit. > 3) Question: according to the traveler twin clock, how many days takes the > Earth to complete an orbit? > > You should be able to answer this with simple algebra. Even simpler with words. A stationary observer will see events taking place slower in the moving frame when he views the events in the moving frame. That is what the train thought experiment seeks to demonstrate, or the light clock thought experiment seeks to prove. The earth is like a ray of light in the light clock and will be seen to take more than 1 year to complete an orbit. At least that's what the convulated reasoning of SRT seems to indicate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86894139-84d2-45df-ab09-ed46fa3e1eb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426878 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 5:37:53 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > OK, at the start of the journey, or before, the programming of > the rockets has taken place. Are they identically preprogrammed? Assuming they are not... > When the Earth twin's rocket sequence completes, it has fired for > x seconds on planet Earth. > > Onboard the rocket, the travelling twin sees everything ticking along > just fine at normal clock rates. He notes from his instruments that > the rocket has fired in sequence for y seconds. > > Now is x = y ? This depends on how you programmed them; what did you instruct them to do? You might of programmed the first to fire for 1 second and programmed the travelling one to continuously fire hence fired for the whole journey, say 10 secs on his clock. > The reasons I ask, is that I have read that 'clocks tick slower > for the travelling twin compared to the stay at home twin' - all > I ask is, is this true. No, it is NOT true. The expression "clocks tick slower for the travelling twin" is very misleading and will lead astray the ones who which to dwell deeper into relativity. What should be said is that t' < t as they reunite; the values of their clocks will differ (the traveling one being less). > My point is when they re-unite, it will be found that the travelling > twin is younger and so is his onboard clock. Correct. t' < t. > Less seconds have ticked for the travelling twin, His clock increased by a value of ticked t' units (seconds). > since he is younger, he has taken in less food, and used less energy. He has taken less food & less 'food energy'. But he took way more energy elsewhere (how did he attain the same speeds & accelerations as his ship?) > Less seconds have ticked for the clock controlling the rocket firing, > have they not? ? Too ambiguous of a sentence. Perhaps my above comments have cleared up that question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0a8f8a5-cf53-4ff3-bed6-b629becbac8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426894 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 7:09:49 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 5:37:53 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > OK, at the start of the journey, or before, the programming of > > the rockets has taken place. > > Are they identically preprogrammed? > Assuming they are not... Identically programmed. > > > When the Earth twin's rocket sequence completes, it has fired for > > x seconds on planet Earth. > > > > Onboard the rocket, the travelling twin sees everything ticking along > > just fine at normal clock rates. He notes from his instruments that > > the rocket has fired in sequence for y seconds. > > > > Now is x = y ? > > This depends on how you programmed them; what did you instruct them to do? > You might of programmed the first to fire for 1 second and programmed the travelling one to continuously fire hence fired for the whole journey, say 10 secs on his clock. No, identically programmed, their input is the local clock, with its own rate of ticking in each case. > > > The reasons I ask, is that I have read that 'clocks tick slower > > for the travelling twin compared to the stay at home twin' - all > > I ask is, is this true. > > No, it is NOT true. The expression "clocks tick slower for the travelling twin" is very misleading and will lead astray the ones who which to dwell deeper into relativity. What should be said is that t' < t as they reunite; the values of their clocks will differ (the traveling one being less). > OK, well thanks for clearing that up, because it has caused much unnecessary confusion, however, in the time dilation calculation given here on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation "From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the rest frame of the clock (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light in free space is constant for all inertial observers, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the local clock, this clock appears to be running more slowly. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity:.." " That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the local clock, this clock appears to be running more slowly" Are you saying the above statement is incorrect? > > My point is when they re-unite, it will be found that the travelling > > twin is younger and so is his onboard clock. > > Correct. t' < t. > OK, so this is the result. > > Less seconds have ticked for the travelling twin, > > His clock increased by a value of ticked t' units (seconds). > > > since he is younger, he has taken in less food, and used less energy. > > He has taken less food & less 'food energy'. But he took way more energy elsewhere (how did he attain the same speeds & accelerations as his ship?) > OK, agreed, less food, less energy. > > Less seconds have ticked for the clock controlling the rocket firing, > > have they not? > > ? Too ambiguous of a sentence. Perhaps my above comments have cleared up that question. Has the rocket on board the travelling twin's spaceship used less fuel and less energy? When they finally unite, Correct. t' < t. That interval, for the travelling twin, contains the durations of rocket firings. So the durations of rocket firings, say for example if onboard rocket control unit logs are examined, they will show that the final firing time logged as an earlier time than the stay at home twins logs. Assuming they both start off at t0, and end up with t' <t, what can we say about all events taking place in the interval t0 to t' and t0 to t? Has time been compressed for the travelling twin in that all events onboard the spaceship are recorded as having started and stopped earlier than for that of the stay at home twin? Take the simple example of a ball tossed up to the ceiling of a spaceship and letting it land again on the floor. (another experiment, this is). Assumed it is thrown up at t0 for both twins and lands on the floor of the spaceship at the moment the twins re-unite. A camera with a timer on screen will show the ball took time t0-t to complete its journey. However the same experiment done on Earth will show it takes t0-t' to complete the journey. since t < t' you have the same experiment recorded as taking different times in each separate frame of reference. Ok never mind a ball, assume for example another phenomena such as crystal growth. Has anyone raised this issue?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 23:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed4daa51-afe6-4e20-84a7-486011bd1f9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426029 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 lipca 2017 06:05:17 UTC+2 użytkownik gehan.am...@gmail.com napisał: > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 7:51:16 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 6:14:34 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > What I asked is about the fuel gauge. What will that read? At least > > > there will be a fuel flow gauge of some sort, as it is a > > > time-based measurement > > > > No it is not a time based measurement at all. You seem to be confused even about basic highschool physics concepts. Two inertial bodies in relative constant motion both use NO fuel. So as a twin is "riding" away, it uses NO fuel. As it is returning, NO fuel. Can you figure out why? Or, can you now figure out why you falsely thought that they used fuel? > > > > > > > > > > > > So whenn they re-unite, the travelling spaceship has used less fuel for the journey than the fuel that the stay at home twin sees that the travelling twin using for the journey. > > I changed the question, I said: "the travelling spaceship has used less fuel for the journey than the fuel that the stay at home twin sees that the travelling twin using for the journey." WHAT??? > > Let's dispense with the fuel concept for the moment. Imagine each twin has a long burning candle on board. > > Now when they re-unite after their travels, whose candle is shorter? Listen, in the real world we use clocks to indicate time. We don't use engines and candles for the purpose, for some obvious reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ol7i5p$8n3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #426029 |
gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com writes: >Let's dispense with the fuel concept for the moment. Imagine each twin has >a long burning candle on board. >Now when they re-unite after their travels, whose candle is shorter? Which >candle has used more fuel (wax)? Unlike ages of twins, there are real energy >consequences to the answer. A candle that burns at a constant rate is just a form of clock. So, the stay-at-home twin's candle will be shorter since more time passed for him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lrydnRrnD8lfku_EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #425706 |
On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > [...]What is your point? The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. The usual twin paradox with instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one. Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <okti86$uha$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #425751 |
It appears a big problem many have with the traveling twin problem is that people don't understand the idea of time flowing at different rates. It is natural to think of time as absolute and universal everywhere, even though SR says it's not. Many kook theories "disproving" SR arise from implicitly using this concept. However, I think most people understand the science fiction idea of a time machine that can transport one into the future. So imagine a time machine that can transport one twin into the future instantaneously as far as the transportee is concerned. So consider this problem: Two twins on earth are 30 years old, it is the year 2030. One twin travels for a year to reach the time machine out in space. (he also travels slow enough so that Newtonian mechanics apply, we can disregard any SR stuff). When the traveling twin reaches the time machine, we can agree both are 31 years old and it is the year 2031. The time machine instantly* transports the twin two years into the future. He sees the universe as it is in the year 2033. He then travels back to earth, which takes a year. It is now 2034. The stay-at-home twin is now 34 years old. How old is the traveling twin? 32? 34? Something else? Why? Explain your answer. (*) The twin experiences no time while being transported forward in time. He enters the time machine in the year 2031, presses the button and poof, it's now 2033. This concept would also work for a time machine that "took time" to go into the future, as if the future was being fast forwarded like in the 1960 "The Time Machine" movie or the Star Trek:TOS "City on the Edge of Forever" episode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Esteban Viars <esane@snbvten.vt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oktiic$1a9j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425773 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > It appears a big problem many have with the traveling twin problem is > that people don't understand the idea of time flowing at different > rates. It is natural to think of time as absolute and universal > everywhere, even though SR says it's not. Many kook theories > "disproving" SR arise from implicitly using this concept. Actually you just proved you are that kook "disproving". There are no "flowing at different rates". How stupid can you be. My ohh my. Morony is putting his other foot in his mouth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 17:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <y8-dnWbuP6W5H-_EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #425773 |
On 7/21/17 7/21/17 1:47 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > It appears a big problem many have with the traveling twin problem > is that people don't understand the idea of time flowing at different > rates. [...] That's not the real problem. The real problem is that time does NOT "flow at different rates" [#], and yet when the twins rejoin they are different ages. [#] That is, for a traveling twin who experiences gentle accelerations that she survives, within her spaceship time always flows as she is accustomed to -- she can measure any time-dependent physical process inside her spaceship and MEASURE that time flows as usual (e.g. measuring the frequencies of atomic lines; the lifetimes of metastable states, etc.). Indeed, after accounting for the acceleration from her spaceship's thrust, she can use ALL of the physics textbooks and reference materials we use today, WITHOUT CHANGE (except for the difference in gravity). The difference between the twins' ages is PURE GEOMETRY, but of a sort that most people have never experienced. It is measurable because clocks measure the elapsed proper time along their trajectory though spacetime -- different trajectories between a given pair of events (departure, reunion) can have different elapsed proper times (aka ages). With the analogy: clock -> odometer time -> distance it is quite clear that odometers traversing different paths between a given pair of points can display different distances. The difference between the analogy and the twin paradox is that automobile odometers clearly have a direct coupling to the road on which they travel, while clocks have no such coupling. But consider a new type of odometer that measures distance without any such coupling, and can measure distance in the vacuum of deep space -- it's clear that it is still true that odometers traversing different paths can display different distances. Well, a clock is like that new odometer, except it displays time instead of distance, without any "coupling" to anything. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13af5343-27eb-4565-877d-94ea6ba19f6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425751 |
On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > [...]What is your point? > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. Consider the following 2 options: One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will show 600 miles. Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. This implies that the second car drives the fastest. Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the same reading? > The usual twin paradox with > instantaneous accelerations is a triangle, and the clocks measure > the elapsed (proper) time along each path. As the geometry is > hyperbolic, the one that traversed two sides of the triangle > experienced less elapsed (proper) time than the one who traversed one. This implies (if my understanding is correct) that the second clock should show less elapsed proper time. In simple terminology; the second clocks runs behind > Each odometer measured 1 meter for every meter traversed. Okay > Each clock measured 1 second for every second traversed. Here we have a problem. What do you mean? To solve the issue "how clocks perform" we have to made two (4) assumptions: 1) We agree that every where, the universe, at this moment has the same time after the Big Bang. This implies that the Universe has everywhere the same age. 2) We agree that every where in the universe at this moment, all events that can be be indentified, are simultaneous events. 3) As such we also agree that a self centered view of the Universe (of what I see and observe) is irrelevent. 4) As such it is our responsible to define a clock which shows the age of the Universe. The problem is that an odometer is not very helpfull in this exercise, which as far as I understand can only be used to measure distances here on earth (?) and not in space. When you want to study the twin "paradox" different identical clocks with different speeds are used. Different speeds require accelerations and these accelerations change the performs of the clocks. At the pages 26 and 27 in the book GRAVITATION the concept "good" and "bad" clocks is introduced. "Bad" clocks undergo accelarations. Accelerations imply different speeds. IMO when you change the speed it is the inner workings of the clock that changes. This is important for a clock which uses lightsignals to function, because the speed of light does not change. The result is that the usual clock rate changes. The most important lesson is "not" to use clocks with different speeds when you want to unravel the laws of nature. A very interesting article to study is this: http://www.nature.com/news/witness-gravity-s-quantum-side-in-the-lab-1.22273 Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59fe9960-453b-401e-8b14-29da508b0363@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425892 |
El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Friday, 21 July 2017 16:29:29 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/20/17 7/20/17 2:50 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > My understanding is that an odometer is used to measure distance. > > > [...]What is your point? > > > > The point is that odometers measure distance, while clocks measure > > elapsed (proper) time. This is an ANALOGY. > okay. IMO you have to be carefull to use such an ANALOGY. > > On Thursday, 20 July 2017 17:08:45 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Let again try the car odometer analogy. Two identical cars make a trip > > from Chicago to New York, but they use different routes. > Consider the following 2 options: > One car travels straight from Chicago to New York. The odometer will > show 600 miles. > Car two travels from Chicago to Houston and then straight to New York. > The odo meter will show 600 + 600 = 1200 miles. > Both car will start at the same moment and arrive at the same moment. > This implies that the second car drives the fastest. > Both cars have a clock. Both clocks are reset at the start of the experiment. > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > same reading? > That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances. The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks themselves but to the different paths through spacetime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 01:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96348be1-6f77-44e9-9085-977a51431efc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425906 |
On Sunday, 23 July 2017 17:14:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > > same reading? > > > > That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you > probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, > after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to > the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances. The change in the odometers come because of the different physical distances travelled. > The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of > the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks > themselves but to the different paths through spacetime. I do not think you need the concept of spacetime to explain this behavior. If you have a clock at "rest" (#) this clock will tick at a constant rate, that means the time between each tick is constant. If after a tick you move the clock the next tick will be later. If you move the clock back the next tick again will be later. From there on the clock will again tick at his original constant rate. (all compared with an identical clock) The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change. When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) runs behind or ticks slower. A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks. (#) To call a clock at rest is a physical simplification. The whole issue is that if a clock is at rest or not, has no influence physical on the speed of light. The assumption is in order to calculate the speed of light (from A to B) you should use clocks which don't move. All of this becomes simpler if only one reference frame is involved. See also recent discussion in thread at 26 July: Why there must be an absolute frame - New Book Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <772511c7-a8b3-4185-a0f8-3fff50fcab8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426160 |
El miércoles, 26 de julio de 2017, 3:27:55 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Sunday, 23 July 2017 17:14:09 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El domingo, 23 de julio de 2017, 7:10:01 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > > > Question: when both cars are in New York will both clocks show the > > > same reading? > > > > > > > That is not the point of the analogy at all. The point is that you > > probably would agree in that the different lectures on the odometers, > > after the two different trips, are not due to any physical change to > > the odometers themselves but to the different travelled distances. > > The change in the odometers come because of the different physical > distances travelled. > > > The analogy is that, in the twin scenario, the different lectures of > > the twin clocks, are not due to any physical change to the clocks > > themselves but to the different paths through spacetime. > > I do not think you need the concept of spacetime to explain this > behavior. > If you have a clock at "rest" (#) this clock will tick at a constant > rate, that means the time between each tick is constant. > If after a tick you move the clock the next tick will be later. > If you move the clock back the next tick again will be later. > From there on the clock will again tick at his original constant rate. > (all compared with an identical clock) > First, every clock is at rest with respect to itself and with respect to co-moving clocks (relativity is always local, meaning in the vicinity of a spacetime location). That implies that comparison with clocks that are not near is impossible. Say you want to compare your at rest in the Moon clock with your at rest at Earth clock. For that you need to exchange signals, which will take 1.3 seconds (and changing) to reach the other clock. So you will be comparing one current clock reading with the reading of the other clock but from 1.3 seconds before. What it is usually presented in twin paradox scenarios is the following: 1) You start with two synchronized identical clocks before the twin departs. 2) The Traveling twin, according to his co-moving clock, periodicaly sends a signal to the Earth twin (for instance, "hey today is my birthday"). The Earth twin does the same, that is sends a signal to the traveling twin "hey today is your birthday". The reception of those yearly signals can be compared. (See the second figure in http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/twin-paradox-2.html) 3) When the twins reunite, they can make the final comparison between their clocks. > The reason is because the speed of light can be considered locally a > physical constant. The innerworkings of certain clocks are based on > lightsignals. When you move such a clock its behaviour will change. > Atomic clocks do not rely in lightsignal at all. > When you move the clock in fact there are different speeds > and accelerations involved. In fact these accelerations are > the cause that the moving clock (compared with the clock at rest) > runs behind or ticks slower. > First, accelerations do not affect atomic clocks working at all (of course within a certain limit (probably over 200g), where the clock box components begin to dissasemble). Secondly, you can use a constant acceleration of one g to reach very high speeds in less than a year (and breaking in less than a year). With that acceleration the traveler twin would be very happy. > A whole different issue is to predict in advance how much the clock > runs behind or ticks slower. In order to do that you need more > measurements and this requires mathematics, but the mathematics > sec does not explain the behaviour of the clocks. > SR and GR do predict the correct values for the reading of those clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web