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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 01:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad5a2a77-2d99-465c-a26a-9c55663470b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426479 |
W dniu piątek, 28 lipca 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > 1) One clock (the traveling clock) travels far away at a high speed and after > a while it returns to Earth to reunite with its staying at Earth twin clock. > 2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each clock. Of course. We can check it practically at GPS. One of the clocks ticks faster, but they keep the same time - againt the moronic prophecies of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 02:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec765b0a-30c8-402c-aa4d-da79153d95c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426479 |
On Friday, 28 July 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years.
> > The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years.
> >
>
> You are so much confused about what a comparison means:
Sorry, I try to understand.
> 2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each
> clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking
> faster or slower than the other.
Correct. That describes what I understand.
> Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly
> the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken.
That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed
of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest),
but not while travelling.
> 3) The clock comparison is related etc
See at the end.
> > > > > 7)When the twins reunite, the Earth twin will say the trip took
> > > > > 10 years to complete, while the traveling twin will say the trip
> > > > > took 8 years to complete.
> > > >
> > > > And what is the correct answer?
> > >
> > > The correct answer is that the traveling twin path through spacetime
> > > is shorter than the Earth twin path through spacetime.
> >
> > You invented a new answer.
> > The correct answer should reflect the idea which of the two clocks shows
> > the correct time. It is either 10 years, 8 years or maybe neither one.
> >
>
> Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the
> gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime.
Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in
seconds, in ticks or counts.
> So your conclusion above is total nonsense.
?
> When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue
> together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock
> showing the time of two years ago.
That means the moving clocks runs behind?
The true question is how do you explain that.
IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build
and how the clock functions.
The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a
paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks.
(That certain processes are time dependent)
The problem start when you introduce a human aspect in this
physical/mechanical problem.
The question becomes than more: how is it possible that humans
on earth have aged 100 years while the pilot in the spacecraft
has aged only 20 years?
(In some sciencefiction storys the pilot becomes even younger
as when he started)
The problem is that what maybe physical is possible for a certain
clock is not necessary physical possible for a human being.
That is why people are physical tested in space flights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body
The problem is definite not mathematics.
Nicolaas Vroom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a4f130a-8700-4b49-9b02-6a7512d50243@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426519 |
El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Friday, 28 July 2017 23:22:47 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El viernes, 28 de julio de 2017, 15:40:45 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > The stay at home clock measures 10 ticks or 10 years. > > > The moving clock measures 8 ticks or 8 years. > > > > > > > You are so much confused about what a comparison means: > > Sorry, I try to understand. > > > 2) The clock comparison is not at all related to the ticking of each > > clock. If that were the case, the result would be this clock is ticking > > faster or slower than the other. > Correct. That describes what I understand. > > > Actually, such comparison will show both clocks are ticking at exactly > > the same rate they were before the starting of the gedanken. > > That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed > of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), > but not while travelling. > Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you will not understand what relativity is. Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long. > > > > Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of the > > gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime. > > Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in > seconds, in ticks or counts. > Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec). > > When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue > > together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock > > showing the time of two years ago. > > That means the moving clocks runs behind? It is not running behind in the sense of being slow. > The true question is how do you explain that. > IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build > and how the clock functions. > No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks). The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined. > The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a > paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. > (That certain processes are time dependent) > Of course, this "paradox" is not a paradox at all. It is easily explained by SR. > The problem start when you introduce a human aspect in this > physical/mechanical problem. > The question becomes than more: how is it possible that humans > on earth have aged 100 years while the pilot in the spacecraft > has aged only 20 years? The same as how two odometers show different readings in the traveling between two cities following different paths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d653158a-9aa9-4c0e-8d25-71255d0a4ea9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426543 |
On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed > > of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), > > but not while travelling. > > > > Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated > ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you > will not understand what relativity is. The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical. > Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km > apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means > the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long. What an odometer measure is only physical. > > > > > > Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of > > > the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime. > > > > Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in > > seconds, in ticks or counts. > > > > Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec). > > > > When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue > > > together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock > > > showing the time of two years ago. > > > > That means the moving clocks runs behind? > > It is not running behind in the sense of being slow. > Then what is it? Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age of the universe > > The true question is how do you explain that. > > IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build > > and how the clock functions. > > No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything > to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to > perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks). > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to > a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined. IMO when you study the link: http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 the explanation is much simpler. (At least if a clock is considered) > > The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a > > paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. > > (That certain processes are time dependent) > > > > Of course, this "paradox" is not a paradox at all. It is easily explained > by SR. Again see above link. Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd6df335-98a4-400d-8012-1790df115b99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426898 |
El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Saturday, 29 July 2017 16:53:01 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El sábado, 29 de julio de 2017, 4:24:59 (UTC-5), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > That is only correct when the spacecraft is back at base and has a speed > > > of zero. From here on the ticking rate is as usual (as being at rest), > > > but not while travelling. > > > > > > > Again the ticking rate of a clock is completely different to the accumulated > > ticks of a clock through a spacetime path. If you do not understand this you > > will not understand what relativity is. > > The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical. > Wrong again. Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are. > > Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two cities 50km > > apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking" at 2km/km! It only means > > the path followed to reach the other city was actually 100km long. > > What an odometer measure is only physical. > As physical as what a clock measures. > > > > > > > > Again, each clock (in a similar way to an odometer) shows at the end of > > > > the gedanken the accumulated time of each clock path through spacetime. > > > > > > Each clock at the end of the experiment shows the (accumulated) time in > > > seconds, in ticks or counts. > > > > > > > Correct, but that reading has nothing to do with the ticking rate (sec/sec). > > > > > > When the clock reunite, they world line through spacetime continue > > > > together, following the Earth world line but with the traveled clock > > > > showing the time of two years ago. > > > > > > That means the moving clocks runs behind? > > > > It is not running behind in the sense of being slow. > > > > Then what is it? > Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age of the > universe > What are you trying to say with that? > > > The true question is how do you explain that. > > > IMO the explanation is physical and depends how the clock is build > > > and how the clock functions. > > > > No, neither the building of the clock or how the clock functions has anything > > to do with the difference. Of course, certain clocks are not appropiate to > > perform the gedanken (sand clocks or pendulum clocks). > > > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function according to > > a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are intertwined. > > IMO when you study the link: > http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 > the explanation is much simpler. > (At least if a clock is considered) > All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental measured values and b) be simple but as complete as possible. Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as possible within their domain of applicability. > > > The problem with what people call the twin paradox IMO is not a > > > paradox if you consider that it is related to the behaviour of clocks. > > > (That certain processes are time dependent) > > > > > > > Of course, this "paradox" is not a paradox at all. It is easily explained > > by SR. > > Again see above link. > > Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 03:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a206e89-66b6-4693-b55f-1dc938ed58d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426909 |
On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> >
> > The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical.
> >
>
> Wrong again.
?
> Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think
> x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and
> spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are.
Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense.
The problem is what is the exact definition of physical.
You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck
with the definition: what is a dimension.
> > > Similarly, if a car odometer reads 100km for a path joining two
> > > cities 50km apart, it does not mean the odometer is "ticking"
> > > at 2km/km! It only means the path followed to reach the other
> > > city was actually 100km long.
> >
> > What an odometer measure is only physical.
>
> As physical as what a clock measures.
A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is movement-in-general
(time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" we call a tick a second or
a minute. As such a clock displays time. But that does not immediate mean
that time is a physical object the same as a clock.
We can also display time as a line in the direction t. The length of the line
increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed.
When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict)
As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2.
Is this s (spacetime) something physical?
> > > >
> > > > That means the moving clocks runs behind?
> > >
> > > It is not running behind in the sense of being slow.
> > >
> >
> > Then what is it?
> > Any way you have to adjust that clock if you want to measure the age
> > of the universe
> >
>
> What are you trying to say with that?
What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of something
and you use two clocks and both show a different time than only one
can be used to indicate the duration.
Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what
caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it
is better to call one inacurate and use the other one.
> > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function
> > > according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are
> > > intertwined.
> >
> > IMO when you study the link:
> > http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1
> > the explanation is much simpler.
> > (At least if a clock is considered)
>
> All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental
> measured values
This sentence is in conflict with the uncertainty principle which claims that
you cannot measure both position and speed (momentum) of an elementary
particle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
> and b) be simple but as complete as possible.
> Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as
> possible within their domain of applicability.
The problem I have with this that you can IMO also describe the behaviour
of clocks without SR.
At the same time I have a problem with the definition of what is specific
for SR and what is not.
For example when you declaire (postulate) the speed of light a constant this
makes the mathematics simple (See above s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2), but maybe it is
not physical correct. (Because under certain conditions the speed maybe vary.)
This again can influence the behaviour of clocks which functioning
depends about the speed of light.
Nicolaas Vroom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Npierre Imaux <tr@ieewerr.cp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oluvec$vrt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427016 |
Nicolaas Vroom wrote: > You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are > stuck with the definition: what is a dimension. degree of freedom, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd071e60-9154-4490-8d8b-50cf02fa95d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427016 |
El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2017, 6:50:54 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical. > > > > > > > Wrong again. > ? > > > Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think > > x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and > > spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are. > Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense. > The problem is what is the exact definition of physical. > You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck > with the definition: what is a dimension. > It appears that you do not know what physics is all about and what physical means. You should read about the history of physics, going back as to why we care about these things. A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and measured. A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure x,y and z) and clocks (to measure t). > > > > > > What an odometer measure is only physical. > > > > As physical as what a clock measures. > > A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is movement-in-general > (time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" we call a tick a second or > a minute. As such a clock displays time. But that does not immediate mean > that time is a physical object the same as a clock. t it is as physical as x. t has a value as x has. You can draw a x-t diagram which represents a physical event (the movement of a particle). > We can also display time as a line in the direction t. The length of the line > increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed. > When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict) > As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2. > Is this s (spacetime) something physical? > First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical. You appear to not know from where s comes. Here it goes in baby-steps: 1) There are two reference frames K and K', where K' is moving with speed v with respect to the origin of K, say to the right of line x. 2) A signal is send from a point x1 at time t1 in frame K. That signal propagates at speed c and arrives to a point x2 at time t2 in frame K. 3) The distance between the two events (sending and arrival) is obviously c(t2-t1). 4) That same distance is also given by sqrt[(x2-x1)^2]. 5) We can then write the following relationship: (x2-x1)^2=c^2(t2-t1)^2 ==> (x2-x1)^2 - c^2(t2-t1)^2 = 0 6) The same two events are observed from the K' reference frame, where the coordinates are (x'1,t'1) and (x'2,t'2). 7) The relationship is then (and considering the speed of light is the same in both frames): (x'2-x'1)^2 - c^2(t'2-t'1)^2 = 0 8) Generalizing, the INTERVAL between the occurrence of any two events (x1,t1) and (x2,t2) is: (s_12)^2 = (x2-x1)^2 - c^2(t2-t1)^2 9) From the principle of invariance of the speed of light, if the interval between any two events is zero in one inertial frame of reference, then it is also zero in any other inertial frame of reference. 10) If the two events are infinitely close to each other then the interval reduces to: ds^2 = dx^2 - c^2dt^2 Nowhere complex numbers were used or needed. > > What are you trying to say with that? > > What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of something > and you use two clocks and both show a different time than only one > can be used to indicate the duration. > Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what > caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it > is better to call one inacurate and use the other one. > Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it does not exist. > > > > The explanation is indeed physical: Nature appears to function > > > > according to a 4D manifold geometry, where space and time are > > > > intertwined. > > > > > > IMO when you study the link: > > > http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/wik_Time_dilation.htm#ref1 > > > the explanation is much simpler. > > > (At least if a clock is considered) > > > > All human created theories have to be a) accurate in predicting experimental > > measured values > > This sentence is in conflict with the uncertainty principle which claims that > you cannot measure both position and speed (momentum) of an elementary > particle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle > That has nothing to do with what I wrote. We can accurately predict and measure the speed. For instance we can predict and measure the perihelion precession of Mercury. > > and b) be simple but as complete as possible. > > Regarding relativity, both SR and GR are accurate and as complete as > > possible within their domain of applicability. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-03 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dfc7894-3bf2-4a17-a87d-f44b0bb01a0e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427027 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > El jueves, 3 de agosto de 2017, 6:50:54 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:25:50 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 2 de agosto de 2017, 10:39:22 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > > > > > The first is physical and the second (spacetime) is mathematical. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong again. > > ? > > > > > Our human senses detect x,y,z and t. Before we used to think > > > x,y,z were separated from t. Now we know x,y,z,t are all intertwined and > > > spacetime is every bit as physical as space and time are. > > > Physics has nothing to do with what we think or sense. > > The problem is what is the exact definition of physical. > > You can also call spacetime, space and time dimensions but than you are stuck > > with the definition: what is a dimension. > > > > It appears that you do not know what physics is all about and what physical > means. You should read about the history of physics, going back as to why we care about these things. > > A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and > measured. A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) > is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure > x,y and z) and clocks (to measure t). Tell me, poor idiot, how long are the longest rulers you have to measure x,y and z? > First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical. In the meaning: physics imagined it. > That has nothing to do with what I wrote. We can accurately predict and > measure the speed. For instance we can predict and measure the perihelion > precession of Mercury. :) you would never do it if you treated your Shit seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 09:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42be2adb-c39d-47f1-81b8-815f7c49c614@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427027 |
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > A physical dimension is a characteristic of Nature that can be observed and > measured. A much better name is parameter. A dimension is related to the physical length of a rod. > A line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate (say x) > is needed to specify a point on it In physics we use rulers (to measure > x,y and z) Yes correct with a standard ruler you can measure the length of a rod. As such I have no problem with an odometer. > and clocks (to measure t). A clock can be used to measure time but it is important to study the inner workings of such a clock i.e. its accuracy > > > > > > > > What an odometer measure is only physical. > > > > > > As physical as what a clock measures. > > > > A clock is a physical object and what a clock displays is > > movement-in-general (time) in a circular fashion. Each "rotation" > > we call a tick a second or a minute. As such a clock displays time. > > But that does not immediate mean that time is a physical object the > > same as a clock. > > t it is as physical as x. t has a value as x has. As I said above the accuracy of the clock is important > You can draw a x-t diagram which represents a > physical event (the movement of a particle). That is correct. > > We can also display time as a line in the direction t. > > The length of the line > > increases as a function v*t with v an arbitrary constant speed. > > When v = c we can define a line s with s^2 = (x + ict) * (x + ict) > > As such we get s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2. > > Is this s (spacetime) something physical? > > First, your above derivation is nonsense. Secondly spacetime is physical. > You appear to not know from where s comes. SNIP > ds^2 = dx^2 - c^2dt^2 > > Nowhere complex numbers were used or needed. I agree with this final sentence. Still Spacetime is not a measured value but a calculated value. IMO it is possible to predict the performance of a clock without the concept of spacetime. The outcome also depents how the clock is build. > > What I'm trying to say that if you want to measure the duration of > > something and you use two clocks and both show a different time than > > only one can be used to indicate the duration. > > Of course you could also use the average reading, but if you know what > > caused this difference (for example relatif movement) than I think it > > is better to call one inacurate and use the other one. > > Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is > anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it > does not exist. I'm not speaking about absolute time but about the age of the universe. If all people involved use different clocks with different speeds you will never find a usefull answer. See: http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/Science_Timekeeping/TheScienceOfTimek eeping.pdf specific the pages 36 etc. In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as ticks) as your reference clock. In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving twin aged 8 years) It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving clock? I doubt it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94b55a07-5f2d-492f-8f13-24a5ba4a5a29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427209 |
El viernes, 4 de agosto de 2017, 12:06:14 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > On Thursday, 3 August 2017 14:55:44 UTC+2, Paparios wrote: > > Again, this is a COMPARISON of the readings of two clocks. Nowhere is > > anybody trying to determine a sort of absolute time, which by the way it > > does not exist. > > I'm not speaking about absolute time but about the age of the universe. > If all people involved use different clocks with different speeds > you will never find a usefull answer. > No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. > > In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". > What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after > they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as > ticks) as your reference clock. > When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity. > In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c > (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving > twin aged 8 years) > It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest > here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving > clock? I doubt it. What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two year difference is not due to any clock error and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <679ebecc-0ce4-495e-9266-32078e1db84e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427219 |
W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 19:55:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has passed > since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — is 13.799 > ± 0.021 billion years. Have you heard your idiot guru has "discovered" time is relative?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om2fho$cia$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427223 |
mlwozniak wrote: > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 19:55:03 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios > napisał: > >> No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has >> passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" >> — >> is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. > > Have you heard your idiot guru has "discovered" time is relative? Does not matter. In average the Universe, with all in it, is not moving very fast. Actually you are right by mistake. Relativity effects are not present at very large scale. This since there are LARGE distances among mass bodies, hence the curvature may safely be considered close to ZERO. One more proof, for Upside-Down Evolution. In the past planets etc were closer to each other. Lots of fun. Yes, they DID land on Moon, but that must have been FAR in the PAST.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om2f3o$cia$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427219 |
Paparios wrote: > No clocks have been used to determine the Big Bang. The time that has > passed since that event — otherwise known as the "age of the universe" — > is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. You neglect the periods when a day was like a week, like a month, like a year and like a century.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1df2691-56ba-4191-a126-cb89aeb02cb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427219 |
> > In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". > > What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after > > they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as > > ticks) as your reference clock. > > > > When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock > to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity. And when you travel from London to the planet Pluto you adjust your clock to Pluto time. That solves the twin paradox. > > In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c > > (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving > > twin aged 8 years) > > It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest > > here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving > > clock? I doubt it. > > What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two > year difference is not due to any clock error but caused by? > and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger. and the moving clock runs behind. (and I do not understand why) Thanks Nicolaas Vroom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <750caac0-93ab-4e92-a9f3-2d4b40bb3e25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427433 |
El domingo, 6 de agosto de 2017, 10:44:01 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". > > > What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after > > > they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as > > > ticks) as your reference clock. > > > > > > > When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock > > to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity. > > And when you travel from London to the planet Pluto you adjust your clock > to Pluto time. That solves the twin paradox. No, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox. First, mechanicaly adjusting a clock time does not change your age. Secondly, traveling through different spacetime paths do change the accumulated time (that is the age). It is not a clock malfunction at all. It is you (and all your body components) which are experiencing a lifeline which, when compared with the Earth twin demonstrate your lifeline was two years shorter. > > > > In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c > > > (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving > > > twin aged 8 years) > > > It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest > > > here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving > > > clock? I doubt it. > > > > What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two > > year difference is not due to any clock error > > but caused by? > See above. > > and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger. > > and the moving clock runs behind. > (and I do not understand why) > > Thanks > > Nicolaas Vroom Sure you do not understand the "why" and no scientist know "why". Physics do not have an answer to the why. Nature appears to work that way, at least from our human point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 15:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om7e6e$9g0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #427440 |
Paparios wrote: > Earth twin demonstrate your lifeline was two years shorter. What on earth is a lifeline, and how can that be shortened?? You too are indulgent at a level of naive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49529c3c-bd89-46e4-a63f-6584e2e56b4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427440 |
W dniu niedziela, 6 sierpnia 2017 17:43:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał: > No, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox. > First, mechanicaly adjusting a clock time does not change your age. > Secondly, traveling through different spacetime paths do change the > accumulated time (that is the age). No, poor idiot, that is not. The age has nothing in common with your moronic mumble. The age is a simple result of substracting two dates. Your idiocies are a simple consequence of your ignorance about meanings of words. > It is not a clock malfunction at all. > It is you (and all your body components) which are experiencing a lifeline > which, when compared with the Earth twin demonstrate your lifeline was > two years shorter. While mumbling about "seconds" you have at least this moronic definition you've concoted. While mumbling about years you have nothing to suport your mumble. > Sure you do not understand the "why" and no scientist know "why". Physics > do not have an answer to the why. > Nature appears to work that way, at least from our human point of view. Or rather, from your brainwashed halfbrain point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96f750ec-1a18-4269-8186-46415391dc97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427440 |
Paparios wrote:
> Nicolaas Vroom escribió:
> > And when you travel from London to the planet
> > Pluto you adjust your clock to Pluto time.
> > That solves the twin paradox.
In Vroomland, "Pluto time" solves the twin paradox!
> No, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox.
Indeed. Nicolaas is perpetually clueless. He seems to have some sort of learning disability.
> > and the moving clock runs behind.
> > (and I do not understand why)
> Physics do not have an answer to the why.
At the deepest levels that is always true. But relativity does have an answer, based on (a very basic application of) geometry.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82ac7e79-5433-436c-bf8d-d5c760b66c28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #427440 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:43:34 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > El domingo, 6 de agosto de 2017, 10:44:01 (UTC-4), Nicolaas Vroom escribió: > > > > In fact when I wrote above about average reading that is not very "clever". > > > > What I should have written when two clocks show different readings (after > > > > they reunite) you should take the fastest moving clock (higest number as > > > > ticks) as your reference clock. > > > > > > > > > > When you move from New York to London, it is obvious you adjust your clock > > > to the London time. This has nothing to do with time or relativity. > > > > And when you travel from London to the planet Pluto you adjust your clock > > to Pluto time. That solves the twin paradox. > > No, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox. > First, mechanicaly adjusting a clock time does not change your age. > Secondly, traveling through different spacetime paths do change the > accumulated time (that is the age). It is not a clock malfunction at all. > It is you (and all your body components) which are experiencing a lifeline > which, when compared with the Earth twin demonstrate your lifeline was > two years shorter. The absolute speed of the clock changes the rate of accumulation of clock seconds. Why? A transition of the cs 133 atom requires the arrival of a specific energy and this is dependent on the absolute speed of the Cs 133 clock. What this mean is that a clock second is not a universal interval of time. The GPS confirmed what I said. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second.....thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time. > > > > > > > In the original article they used an plane with a speed of v=0.6c > > > > (That means the staying at home twin aged 10 years and the moving > > > > twin aged 8 years) > > > > It is not that clock that you should use, but the observer at rest > > > > here on earth. The question is: is that trully the fastest moving > > > > clock? I doubt it. > > > > > > What they are doing is compare the time period elapsed in each clock. The two > > > year difference is not due to any clock error > > > > but caused by? > > > > See above. > > > > and the traveling twin is indeed two years younger. > > > > and the moving clock runs behind. > > (and I do not understand why) > > > > Thanks > > > > Nicolaas Vroom > > Sure you do not understand the "why" and no scientist know "why". Physics > do not have an answer to the why. > Nature appears to work that way, at least from our human point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web