Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #416064

Re: Twin paradox

Message-ID <58EEA101.3051@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date 2017-04-12 14:49 -0700
From The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Twin paradox
References (19 earlier) <7444fdcf-5611-4f63-8893-67f6ce61eb7e@googlegroups.com> <58EC6720.2758@ix.netcom.com> <804a98d6-c131-4451-a367-d6a368bc02f1@googlegroups.com> <58EDD380.74ED@ix.netcom.com> <8521acd9-dfc6-41c9-b737-ae09a0faa935@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:13:16 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:17:40 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 10:31:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > > > > > On 4/8/17 4/8/17   9:38 AM, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> > > > > > > The traveling twin is is older at the end of his journey than he was at the
> > > > > > > beginning of his journey.  And that will be the same whether you look at his
> > > > > > > personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, when the traveling twin gets home, the stay-at-home twin is older than
> > > > > > > he was when the traveling twin left.  And that will be the same whether you
> > > > > > > look at his personal experience of time, his calendar, or his clock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But the amount by which the traveling twin aged is smaller than the amount by
> > > > > > > which the stay-at-home twin aged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But at no time during the journey is there a situation where the traveling
> > > > > > > twin "got younger" from the perspective of a stationary stay-at-home twin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All that is correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not to say there are no scenarios where a distant twin can get
> > > > > > > younger.  If you accelerate away from a distant object, for instance, you
> > > > > > > can, in essence, cause it to get younger, which is one of the points listed
> > > > > > > in the abstract of Mike Fontenot's 1999 paper.
> > > > > > > https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1251-3-michael-l-fontenot-accelerated-observers-in-special-relativity.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The abstract of that paper is WRONG,
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it is not wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > as is your brief summary of it. This does
> > > > > > NOT "cause it to get younger", it merely makes it APPEAR to get younger to the
> > > > > > accelerating observer; and ONLY when that observer uses the CADO that Fontenot
> > > > > > advocates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       Fontenot's CADO is not wrong,
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, it is not wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > but it also is not useful. IMHO
> > > > > >       it is more important to point out that the age of a distant
> > > > > >       object "now" is AMBIGUOUS,
> > > > >
> > > > > No.  In fact, that the age of a distant object now is quite explicit, and well-defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and also IRRELEVANT to physics
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd agree with that.  That's why I have been suggesting "Past Light Cone Age of Distant Objects" instead of "Current Age of Distant Objects." as being more relevant to an observer.
> > > > >
> > > > > >       (in that it does not appear in any laws of physics).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It _OUGHT_ to be obvious that no acceleration by a distant observer can possibly
> > > > > > affect the age of an object, but that's what the abstract claims halfway through
> > > > > > -- IT IS WRONG.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no "distant observer" in the abstract of Fontenot's paper.  All observations are made by the observer of a "distant object."
> > > > >
> > > > > > What does grow younger is the CADO (current age of the distant
> > > > > > object); in the early part of the abstract it got that right but goofed in the
> > > > > > later part. This is just basic English: to say "the object will be getting
> > > > > > younger" applies to the object ITSELF, but what was really meant was the CADO --
> > > > > > the CURRENT age as observed by this distant, accelerating observer -- these are
> > > > > > QUITE DIFFERENT concepts. The key word is CURRENT, and what is changing is how
> > > > > > the accelerating observer interprets "now" at the location of the distant object.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The full phrase is "If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will be getting younger at that rate"
> > > > >
> > > > > My own philosophy is that if there is a correct interpretation of what is meant, then one should try to find that correct interpretation.  The fact that you can find a way to imagine a false meaning from the phrase doesn't mean that he meant something incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you read that and think, "When my far-off twin accelerates away from me, I will feel myself getting younger in my own experience and perceptions" then that would be a false impression of the Fontenot's meaning.  And it would also be an incorrect statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if you understand it to mean "When I accelerate away from my faroff twin, then he and the planet he is on all get younger" then that is an accurate impression of Mike's meaning, and it would also be a correct statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I  prefer to use language like "the distant events swing forward and backward in time" rather than "the distant objects get older and younger".  But I will say that Mike is more correct by acknowledging that the objects get older and younger, than to simply say "It's all ambiguous and irrelevant."
> > > > >
> > > > > > >  However, accelerating away from the object in question, does not get you
> > > > > > > into a situation that leads to to reuniting.  It is when the traveling twin
> > > > > > > accelerates TOWARD the stay-at-home twin, he causes the stay-at-home twin to
> > > > > > > get OLDER, which results in the difference in age at the end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You make the same mistake in English usage that you make elsewhere, and that
> > > > > > Fontenot made -- this does not affect the stay-at-home twin at all, it only
> > > > > > affects the CURRENT age of the stay-at-home twin as calculated by the traveling
> > > > > > twin. The key word there is CURRENT -- what is actually happening is that how
> > > > > > the traveling twin interprets "now" at the stay-at-home twin's location is
> > > > > > changing. Note also that this is just a CALCULATION -- there is no corresponding
> > > > > > observation that can be made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I keep saying: precision in thought and word is absolutely essential to
> > > > > > understand subtle concepts like SR. Fontenot made a mistake and you uncritically
> > > > > > copied it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the precision is there, in Mike's language, if you recognize that when he says "observer" he means an observer, who is local to his own observations.
> > > > >
> > > > > And when he talks about the age of the "object" he means the state of the object where it crosses the observer's "time = now" isocline.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i don't know who "Mike" is....but he sounds Insane.
> > >
> > > Well, Mike Fontenot does post regularly to usenet, which will eventually drive anyone insane, at least temporarily.
> > >
> > > But what we should be asking, is whether Mike Fontenot is correct, or not.  When, it says, in the abstract:
> > >
> > > "According to an accelerating observer, for a 1g acceleration occurring when the separation is sufficiently great, the object's maximum (in magnitude) rate of aging is greater than the accelerating observer's rate of aging by a factor approximately equal to their separation, as measured in the object's frame, in light‐years. If the observer is accelerating toward the object, the object will be getting older at that rate. If the observer is accelerating away from the object, the object will
> > >
> > > You can, of course, put yourself into the role of the "object", in this scenario, and render the statement false, if you desire to misrepresent Mike Fontenot's argument, and claim he is insane.
> > >
> > > Or, you can put yourself into the role of the "observer", in this scenario, in which case, it renders the statement true, and it makes Mike Fontenot's statement correct.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it far more likely, though, that there is no way to actually transfer information via faster-than-light travel.
> >
> >
> > Information does not...tranfer, via or ask the bus driver for a transfer
> > to another bus. Information is..carried.
> >
> 
> Digital information can be carried through a conducting wire, or via wi-fi connection, or through fiber-optics.

I wasn't refering to "digital" information...I'm talking about All information.

If you write a letter to your mother and she gets it in the mail, that's information carried by post office.

> 
> >
> > When the information enters the bus, then it is carried to it's
> > ...destination.
> >
> >
> > And also...information uses different carriers.
> >
> >
> > If you're looking for a carrier faster than light...Thought travels
> > faster than light. So, information sometimes uses thought instead of
> > light to...get around.
> >
> 
> Actually, no.  Thought travels through neurons.  The nerve signal has been measured to travel along the axon at speeds from 50 m/s to about 150 m/s... well that's measured with giant squid neurons...  Human neurons were too small to get the probes into.


"Thought" travels in different modes besides...neurons. For example, this thought of mine reached You...did it use "neurons" to reach you????


Remember, Thought is Information. Maybe you need to learn How Many different types of Information exist...and how it is carried.


I don't want to go past your level of...maybe this is too much for you. Where did you get this idea nothing travels faster than the speed of light? Maybe,
just maybe...NOTHING travels faster than the speed of light if you understand that NOTHING is...something.


In other words, when some one tells you the Universe comes from NOTHING, maybe they don't want to you think beyond...nothing, so they can get
there first before you do. NOTHING is just a brick wall they threw at you. 

For example, when information enters a black hole...where does it go? 


> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=xETAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA647&lpg=PA647#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> > Information use different methods for transportation...but it doesn't
> > "tranfer".
> >
> >
> > It takes a certain mode of transportation from beginning to end and
> > then...gets off the train.
> >
> 
> How is that not transfering?
> 
> > But information does not transfer from one carrier to another
> > carrier...it goes all the way untill it reaches it's destination
> > and delivers the message.
> >
> 
> Let's pose this as a question, rather than a statement of fact.  Between source and destination, one might have something happen.  Photons bounce several times off the sides of a fiber-optic cable.  Photons refract through glass, or refract through your pupil to get to your retina, or through a prism to separate into various colors of light.  Does that refraction of the light constitute a transfer of information?

refraction of light diminishes ....information.







> 
> > And it doesn't return at less than the speed of light...
> >
> 
> If it returns at all, it returns at the speed of light, or less.
> 
> >
> > I think all your ideas are...confused.
> 
> I think your confusion about my ideas may be caused mostly by your incorrect belief that "thought travels faster than light"  But it might also be caused by your ambiguous understanding of what, exactly constitutes information transfer.


Oh, you're hanging on to "tranfer"...your loss, not mine. That's one of your ...Oops.


> 
> What I meant by information was "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."
> 
> By information transfer, I meant any energy transfer, whether it happens via a collision (for instance, interaction of air molecules in the cochlea, or microphone, or any surface or gas) or electromagnetic interaction (for instance, interaction of visible light with the retina, or CCD, or any surface or gas).


It's obvious you have a limit view on how many ways 'information' can travel and it's many forms.



> 
> On the other hand, if you would want to discuss the question of whether information is transferred when a photon gets refracted, or reflected, and changes direction?  I can only say, my personal belief is there is a momentum exchange between the optical device and the photon, and that momentum exchange, regardless of how small, would constitute an exchange of information as well.


any information that is refracted, reflected or changes direction...gets diminished.


What you don't know...you don't know.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-03 07:04 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 09:09 -0600
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-03 08:12 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 10:32 -0600
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:08 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:47 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 09:15 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 10:23 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-05 11:42 +1100
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:55 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-14 22:31 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 18:39 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 13:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 22:54 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 17:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-18 18:16 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 08:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-19 23:09 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-19 13:05 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:44 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-19 22:38 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-19 19:30 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:41 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-20 00:29 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:59 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-21 10:53 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-21 18:59 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-22 17:45 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-22 11:25 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:42 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 00:26 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-22 19:30 +1100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 07:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 05:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:17 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 08:20 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:08 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 11:41 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:51 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 12:02 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 07:06 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 11:24 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-27 13:50 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 06:18 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-28 12:13 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox dickorrich@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 10:45 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 11:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-30 00:17 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 06:02 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-03 12:31 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-04 02:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:21 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-04 10:37 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 08:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 18:51 +0200
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:39 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 08:36 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-20 17:27 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 10:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-20 21:10 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:59 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-21 12:37 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 06:13 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-21 08:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:03 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-03-04 06:20 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-03-04 09:41 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 14:59 -0600
      Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-05 13:23 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-03-07 09:46 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 10:10 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2017-03-07 12:13 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 13:32 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 07:58 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 09:09 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 23:04 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 16:19 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 11:23 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-04 14:02 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:05 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 16:34 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-07 12:57 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 20:29 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-04 22:13 -0600
    Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 12:58 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:25 -0600
      Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-10 13:21 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 08:44 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:03 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 18:02 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:15 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-05 21:31 +0100
    Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:09 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 15:18 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-06 23:10 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:39 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 09:53 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 08:33 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 10:50 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 00:43 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 04:08 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-16 16:48 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-17 01:01 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 07:40 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-18 14:16 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Idimi Higame <iumia@igmwwad.hh> - 2017-03-18 20:05 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-20 13:55 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 16:34 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-21 10:56 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-19 21:38 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-21 00:14 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-21 13:43 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 01:39 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-22 01:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:12 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 11:56 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-22 12:06 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 04:16 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-06 09:34 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-06 15:09 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 09:49 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:04 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-08 10:40 +0100
            Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 07:11 -0800
              Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-08 15:04 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 14:30 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-09 10:39 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:20 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 07:27 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-10 06:05 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 08:45 -0600
                Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-14 13:19 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-03-10 11:49 +0100
          Re: Twin paradox wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2017-03-17 17:37 +0100
            Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-19 21:33 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:05 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:12 -0800
          Re: Twin paradox Otplate Yuugaku <yu@yotwaglwt.pa> - 2017-03-09 22:50 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-03-10 11:01 +0100
              Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:14 -0800
              Re: Twin paradox Priscilla Groll <lloi@wgnprlw.sl> - 2017-03-11 17:27 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 06:13 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 15:10 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 08:36 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 17:51 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-05 17:17 +0000
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 13:31 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-08 14:17 -0800
    Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-08 14:34 -0800
      Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-08 15:32 -0800
        Re: Twin paradox someone <glenn.spigel@googlemail.com> - 2017-03-09 13:20 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 13:35 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 00:07 -0800
  Re: Twin paradox ronjresnick@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 13:58 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 10:28 -0500
      Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 12:31 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 22:11 +0000
        Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-14 22:34 -0500
          Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 00:46 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 00:53 -0700
              Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:19 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-16 23:50 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-16 23:54 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-17 08:15 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-17 09:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-18 18:37 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-19 00:20 -0800
            Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 09:15 -0500
            Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:54 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-03-15 02:53 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-15 15:18 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 22:43 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 03:22 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-15 21:31 +0000
          Re: Twin paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2017-03-16 16:56 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-03-15 00:41 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Ron Resnick <ronjresnick@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 03:09 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 08:02 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-14 22:10 +0000
    Re: Twin paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 07:41 -0700
      Re: Twin paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 10:02 -0500
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-14 11:19 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 11:51 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-18 14:13 -0700
  Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:26 -0700
    Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-19 09:53 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 12:59 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 10:29 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:40 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 09:44 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:32 -0700
  Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 09:27 -0700
    Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-30 23:34 -0500
      Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 00:33 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 02:43 -0700
        Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-03-31 21:43 -0500
          Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-01 00:52 -0700
          Re: Twin paradox Deon Joubert <dhjoubert@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 01:41 -0700
            Re: Twin paradox Domonique Corle <oreuni@wwerwo.co> - 2017-04-01 13:01 +0000
            Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-01 10:27 -0500
              Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-01 20:44 -0800
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 00:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 00:28 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-03 04:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 17:15 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-04 11:47 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 05:57 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-04 07:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 07:43 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-04 09:20 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-04 09:58 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:25 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-05 04:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-05 06:23 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 09:58 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-04-05 10:21 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 11:36 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Hermelinda Riess <hsr@ermeemw.ei> - 2017-04-04 15:01 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-05 00:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 02:55 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-07 21:32 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 07:38 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-04-08 10:31 -0500
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-08 08:42 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 14:29 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-10 22:18 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:11 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-12 00:13 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:00 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-12 14:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-13 09:44 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 06:03 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-04-13 20:40 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-14 10:42 +0100
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 08:27 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-16 05:49 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:05 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 08:22 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Nocasto Aboyar <oocaao@syeoby.ao> - 2017-04-17 15:36 +0000
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 09:08 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-17 10:45 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-17 10:56 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 10:14 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 08:48 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-17 08:52 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-04-08 09:51 -0700
                Re: Twin paradox "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-08 12:28 -0700

csiph-web