Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426883 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-24 18:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 05:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-03 22:35 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:44 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:47 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-04 07:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-05 01:22 +0200
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-05 10:02 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-07 09:22 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:28 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune hard at work, posting imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-09 11:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 10:14 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:31 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 14:04 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-10 12:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-16 07:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:59 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune "explains" the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-18 08:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-16 16:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-19 09:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-19 12:32 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 13:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-21 07:43 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 17:08 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-24 10:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 03:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:37 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 03:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:40 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 21:20 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 00:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 07:48 -0700
Ken Shito as cretin as Stephane Baune "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:30 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:55 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 10:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:09 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-11 00:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 05:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 00:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 03:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:13 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-11 10:23 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 12:18 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-13 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 10:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-13 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-17 04:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 23:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 08:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 09:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:33 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 07:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 08:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 16:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 05:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:44 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:56 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:38 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:41 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 09:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-24 16:29 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 15:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 02:24 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:25 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:11 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 22:09 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-23 07:19 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:25 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 21:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 08:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 09:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 16:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 16:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:54 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 04:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 04:42 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 21:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 05:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:33 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 19:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:42 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox |
| Message-ID | <b201e7c4-e103-4b46-94c2-10c12b3cc717@googlegroups.com> |
The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event never took place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. It seems strange that an effect predicted by a theory should need several different explanations, involving SRT, GRT, or a combination of both. These explanations all cannot be true as they involve different effects: Wikipedia: Twin paradox From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[5] Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7] General relativity is not necessary to explain the twin paradox; special relativity alone can explain the phenomenon.[8][9][10][11][12]
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1554cad2-5dde-4fe7-a33f-ae6d175ca901@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426883 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 3:11:46 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > The event never took place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. > False. You are the same imbecile you have always been. > It seems strange that an effect predicted by a theory should need several different explanations, involving SRT, GRT, or a combination of both. > That seems starnge because you are still the same crackpot you've always been. > These explanations all cannot be true as they involve different effects: > Actually, they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 06:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <551d2303-18ac-4025-bd7a-27d1c400f166@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426883 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 6:11:46 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event > never took place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. It has took place in real life. That is similar/equivalent setups have been done (we did not actually use human twin if thats what you meant!). > It seems strange that an effect predicted by a theory should need > several different explanations, involving SRT, GRT, or a > combination of both. It does not need several walkthroughs, just one. But like finding the answer to 1+2+3+...+100, there are many different approaches. Also note that there are many different setups of the TP: Some involve accelerations, some do not. Some use triplets, some do not. Also note that some solutions are sloppy (and even wrong!) & use ambiguous words. <snipped bcause its too long to read>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 00:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66e699c7-e0b4-43c8-9ff2-01d147a74f5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426896 |
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 7:15:27 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: ... > > Also note that some solutions are sloppy (and even wrong!) & use ambiguous words. > > I am beginning to realize that there are better descriptions of the twin paradox and worser ones. I have been needlessly misled, hope to clear that up here. So there are explanations involving SRT, GRT, and 'geometry'. Which theory resulted in the prediction of the twin paradox in the first place, is it not SRT only?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3d1b620-ecf8-4a00-8e56-b519b6ce24b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427004 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 3:01:25 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > I am beginning to realize that there are better descriptions of the > twin paradox and worser ones. I have been needlessly misled, hope to > clear that up here. > > So there are explanations involving SRT, GRT, and 'geometry'. Which > theory resulted in the prediction of the twin paradox in the first > place, is it not SRT only? SR takes good care of the TP if one neglects gravity & accelerations. For instance, the triplet version. Now, if one want to analyse the classical version whereby the traveler needs to accelerate, then SR can still be used if we analyze the situation solely from the POV of the home twin (since he is the only one that remains inertial). The conclusion will remain: traveler will return younger than the home twin. Many books that analyze this brush off too quickly the analysis and are very sloppy (like, many claim that we can just make the accelerations brief so they dont affect the total time; well, that reasoning is totally wrong, until they actually show that that is the case; they need to prove their assertion, but they dont).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 19:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f92cc29-8503-450b-805c-2b2757fab0b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427028 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 5:58:46 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 3:01:25 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > I am beginning to realize that there are better descriptions of the > > twin paradox and worser ones. I have been needlessly misled, hope to > > clear that up here. > > > > So there are explanations involving SRT, GRT, and 'geometry'. Which > > theory resulted in the prediction of the twin paradox in the first > > place, is it not SRT only? > > SR takes good care of the TP if one neglects gravity & accelerations. False. SR handles acceleration just fine. You need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't. > For instance, the triplet version. Now, if one want to analyse the classical version whereby the traveler needs to accelerate, then SR can still be used if we analyze the situation solely from the POV of the home twin (since he is the only one that remains inertial). False again, there is a very good paper that analyzes the problem from the POV of the accelerating twin using SR. You need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oltkov$vte$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #426883 |
Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 gehan.ameresekere napsal(a): > The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event never took > place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. Apparently not. > In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special > relativity involving identical twins, "identical twins"?? This discussion is over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 00:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <725f816a-c3b8-4b1d-9bc8-1dde2d00143b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426982 |
On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 4:17:01 AM UTC+5:30, Jeèným Ludnými wrote: > Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 gehan.ameresekere napsal(a): > > > The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event never took > > place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. > > Apparently not. > > > In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special > > relativity involving identical twins, > > "identical twins"?? This discussion is over. That's Wikipedia's' definition ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 22:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yaudnWDf2PPiQB7EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #426883 |
On 8/2/17 8/2/17 6:11 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event never took > place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. This is not true -- the twin paradox has been implemented several times, with results consistent with the predictions of SR. The best one is by Bailey et al in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > It seems strange that an effect predicted by a theory should need several > different explanations, involving SRT, GRT, or a combination of both. It doesn't "need" several explanations, any one will do. It's just that there are multiple ways of looking at it. Note that this is true of almost every experiment one can imagine, and also every gedanken. > These explanations all cannot be true as they involve different effects: Sure they can. They involve different effects for different sets of assumptions or different theoretical contexts. Why is "up" up? 1) because that's what the word means 2) because gravity points down (away from "up") 3) because free objects fall down 4) because objects at rest on the surface of the earth feel an upward force from that surface 5) because all timelike geodesics near the surface of the earth are accelerated down These are five different explanations for a single question -- they involve different contexts. All five are obviously true. > [... too complicated to bother with] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cb6775d-d2c1-498b-9576-088e3e7ed2be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427157 |
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 8:05:50 AM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/2/17 8/2/17 6:11 AM, ---@gmail.com wrote: > > The Twin Paradox is predicted by Relativity theory. The event never took > > place in real life, it is purely hypothetical. > > This is not true -- the twin paradox has been implemented several times, with > results consistent with the predictions of SR. The best one is by Bailey et al > in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > It seems strange that an effect predicted by a theory should need several > > different explanations, involving SRT, GRT, or a combination of both. > > It doesn't "need" several explanations, any one will do. It's just that there > are multiple ways of looking at it. Note that this is true of almost every > experiment one can imagine, and also every gedanken. > > > These explanations all cannot be true as they involve different effects: > > Sure they can. They involve different effects for different sets of assumptions > or different theoretical contexts. > > Why is "up" up? > 1) because that's what the word means > 2) because gravity points down (away from "up") > 3) because free objects fall down > 4) because objects at rest on the surface of the earth feel an > upward force from that surface > 5) because all timelike geodesics near the surface of the earth > are accelerated down > These are five different explanations for a single question -- > they involve different contexts. All five are obviously true. > > [... too complicated to bother with] > > Tom Roberts OK but not sure about the origins of the twin paradox - was it predicted by SRT in which case SRT must have an explanation within itself for the effect. That was what I meant. Of course one could have several explanations for an effect, for example muon decay delays.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 09:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jr-dnWNeO8tB5xnEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #427175 |
On 8/4/17 8/4/17 1:44 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > [I'm] not sure about the origins of the twin paradox - was it predicted by > SRT in which case SRT must have an explanation within itself for the effect. Yes, it was first described shortly after SR was published in 1905. In SR, the elapsed proper time of a clock moving relative to an inertial frame is give by \integral dt/gamma(v) where t is the time coordinate of the inertial frame, v is the clock's speed relative to that frame (as a function of t), gamma(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and the integral is taken over the clock's trajectory. Since the home twin is at rest in an inertial frame, and the traveling twin is moving relative to it, this unequivocally predicts the traveling twin returns younger (less elapsed proper time) than the home twin. Actual experiments have confirmed this quantitative prediction with an accuracy of a few parts per million. Attempts to describe the situation from the perspective of the traveling twin are complicated. Here there be dragons. Doesn't matter, as the comparisons of their clocks at separation and reunion are unequivocal; the dragons are related to intermediate points and what "now" means to the traveling twin. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b62e6b86-9f19-4289-a3dc-dceb431d595f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427194 |
On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > Attempts to describe the situation from the perspective of the > traveling twin are complicated. Here there be dragons. Doesn't > matter, as the comparisons of their clocks at separation and > reunion are unequivocal; the dragons are related to intermediate > points and what "now" means to the traveling twin. > > Tom Roberts There is a very good paper on the subject. There are no "dragons"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 01:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4790542.Sb9uPGUboI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #427194 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > In SR, the elapsed proper time of a clock moving relative to an inertial > frame is give by > \integral dt/gamma(v) > where t is the time coordinate of the inertial frame, v is the clock's > speed relative to that frame (as a function of t), > gamma(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and the integral is taken over the clock's > trajectory. JFTR & JFYI: As v > 0 → gamma(v) > 1, that is nothing but a description of *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in double-quotes, as if it were not). > Since the home twin is at rest in an inertial frame, and the traveling > twin is moving relative to it, this unequivocally predicts the traveling > twin returns younger (less elapsed proper time) than the home twin. Actual > experiments have confirmed this quantitative prediction with an accuracy > of a few parts per million. > > Attempts to describe the situation from the perspective of the > traveling twin are complicated. Here there be dragons. […] I do not think it is that complicated. For the traveling twin, dx' = 0 → dx'∕dt' = v' = 0 → gamma(v') = 1, so they do not observe time dilation in their frame, but only proper time; but dx' = dx/gamma(v) – length contraction –, so they are not amazed at all that they travel less spatial distance than the rest distance in less proper time. The traveling twin can further explain that (despite what they may expect from the symmetry of time dilation) the home twin is older when they meet again, with the *relativity of simultaneity*: *by contrast* to the home twin, the traveling twin changes from at least one inertial frame to at least one other when turning around. Assuming for simplicity that they are only changing from a first inertial frame to a second one when turning around, a different set of events in the home twin’s frame are simultaneous in the traveling twin’s second frame than in their first frame, and some home twin’s events during that journey are not simultaneous with *any* events in the traveling twin’s two frames (with multiple frames there is full correspondance, but only during the turning). If the traveling twin could observe the home twin’s clock, when turning around they would observe that clock jumping *ahead* of their clock (with multiple frames, gradually) when before it was *behind* their clock. It basically also says so in the Wikipedia article that (IIRC) I already referred to, among several textbooks, I am confident, and the lines of simultaneity in the/a Minkowski diagram clearly show it. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om453q$r0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427265 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> In SR, the elapsed proper time of a clock moving relative to an >> inertial frame is give by \integral dt/gamma(v) >> where t is the time coordinate of the inertial frame, v is the clock's >> speed relative to that frame (as a function of t), >> gamma(v)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and the integral is taken over the clock's >> trajectory. > > JFTR & JFYI: As v > 0 → gamma(v) > 1, that is nothing but a description > of *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to > other scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to > put in double-quotes, as if it were not). That's must be for the imbeciles without a brain. Stfu stupid, you are not allowed to have an opinion, much less to comment Science. Go away. You are also a known liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 09:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <e7WdnXbopds-6hXEnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #427265 |
On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> [...] > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > double-quotes, as if it were not). I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are VERY POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" time does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT actually contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, which in all cases is UNAFFECTED. Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, but it isn't. MANY people who are not experts in physics get confused by these phrases, including many around here. I have said all this many times before. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <587d73ca-c675-4557-99a1-0d85d758a1ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427616 |
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:52:34 PM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote: > On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> [...] > > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > > double-quotes, as if it were not). > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are VERY > POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" time > does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT actually > contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, which in all > cases is UNAFFECTED. Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really > geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all -- at > face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, but it isn't. > > MANY people who are not experts in physics get confused by these phrases, > including many around here. > > I have said all this many times before. > > Tom Roberts "Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all -- at face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, but it isn't." Thanks Tom, that makes it all the more clearer. This is all about a 'transformation' when describing events in a moving frame to time and space measures in our stationary frame, adjusting for the fact that speeds approaching that of light are not additive. But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time one at that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 05:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a540f5f-3cbc-4851-b3e6-f5e0554d4466@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427854 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:00:31 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:52:34 PM UTC+5:30, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 8/4/17 8/4/17 - 6:22 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > >> [...] > > > *time dilation* (a *proper* scientific term that, in contrast to other > > > scientific terms, for unknown reasons you ridiculously liked to put in > > > double-quotes, as if it were not). > > > > I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in quotes because they are VERY > > POOR names for the phenomena they refer to. That is, for "time dilation" time > > does NOT actually dilate, and for "length contraction" lengths do NOT actually > > contract -- those phrases refer to the clock or object in question, which in all > > cases is UNAFFECTED. Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really > > geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all -- at > > face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, but it isn't. > > > > MANY people who are not experts in physics get confused by these phrases, > > including many around here. > > > > I have said all this many times before. > > > > Tom Roberts > > "Both "time dilation" and "length contraction" are really > geometrical projections that affect how observers moving relative to an object > will MEASURE the object, and the phrases do not capture this fact at all -- at > face value they imply that the object itself is somehow changed, but it isn't." > > Thanks Tom, that makes it all the more clearer. This is all about a 'transformation' when describing events in a moving frame to time and space measures in our stationary frame, adjusting for the fact that speeds approaching that of light are not additive. > > But that begs the question does it not, if it is not a illusion, a real time one at that? And again, why is GRT attempted to be used to solve a scenario that owes its existence to SRT? (Wikipedie Twin Paradox) "Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[7] General relativity is not necessary to explain the twin paradox; special relativity alone can explain the phenomenon.[8][9][10][11][12]"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18cac326-01f4-4a66-a0c4-1eb394d7d7ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427856 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:32:47 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > And again, why is GRT attempted to be used to solve a scenario that owes its existence to SRT? (Wikipedie Twin Paradox) Depends on what TP scenario you are referring to. In the usual TP, GR is not required (when you analyze from the home twin). But you can use GR if you want. However, if you want to analyze the situation from the POV of the traveling twin (versions where he is non inertial), then GR is required. This is well explained in the wiki page.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 11:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Poser Stephane Baune hard at work, posting imbecilities |
| Message-ID | <0345d58f-9850-4f15-9f15-2519492fff0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427858 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:28:48 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > However, if you want to analyze the situation from the POV of the traveling twin (versions where he is non inertial), then GR is required. No.GR is not required, you are repeating the same idiocy you posted before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-10 02:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffa4a4ab-7285-405f-b479-1a6fdc012f6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427858 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 6:58:48 PM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:32:47 AM UTC-4, gehan.am...@gmail.com > > And again, why is GRT attempted to be used to solve a scenario that owes its existence to SRT? (Wikipedie Twin Paradox) > > Depends on what TP scenario you are referring to. > In the usual TP, GR is not required (when you analyze from the home twin). > But you can use GR if you want. However, if you want to analyze the situation from the POV of the traveling twin (versions where he is non inertial), then GR is required. This is well explained in the wiki page. Thank you and excellent, clear answer to a question (from my point of view).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web