Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox
Date	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:19:08 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	20
Message-ID	<nmakbs$rof$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<9e22233b-04d1-466a-b501-4f7e77303bae@googlegroups.com> <ab9f943b-4972-4c9d-a65c-67e03108e8d1@googlegroups.com> <nm9ncf$ept$1@dont-email.me> <88f6813c-11d3-4d46-9c7e-cb8f8f0be458@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	d+7uvTRlM1BMXgtohiH8CQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com sci.physics:589396

Show key headers only | View raw

On 7/14/2016 11:25 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> Relative motion means knowing the velocity of one object relative to another. It cannot
> be done without having access to both objects at the same time regardless of distance.

Don't be silly.

If you make the measurement of relative velocity at time T1 and the 
signal transmission took a time t, then you have measured the relative 
velocity of the two objects at time T1-t. This does not invalidate the 
measurement, nor is a claim of knowledge of relative velocity at time T1.

If however, you LATER receive signals from the two objects that confirms 
that neither one experienced acceleration for a time greater than t, 
then you ALSO know the relative speed at time T1.

You have abandoned completely the idea of INFERENCE, without cause.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-14 16:42 -0700
  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 17:18 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 20:54 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:04 +0200
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:25 -0700
        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:36 +0200
          Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:42 -0700
            Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:48 +0200
            Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:52 +0200
              Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 21:58 -0700
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:01 +0200
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:07 +0200
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 22:56 -0700
            Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:22 -0500
        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:19 -0500
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:40 +0200
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:00 +0200
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:14 -0500
  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 05:05 -0700
  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:13 -0500

csiph-web