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

Groups > sci.physics > #640458

Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:20:21 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 2:27:42 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:18:20 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During B’s entire journey B’s clock accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate of 1/gamma than A. At no time B observe A’s clock accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate than B’s clock. Why? Because B’s clock second contains a larger amount of time (absolute time) than A’s clock second. IOW, a clock second is NOT A UNIVERSAL INTERVAL OF ABSOLUTE TIME in different frames. It contains a different amount of absolute time in different frames.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This explanation is confirmed by the GPS. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of 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 stand ground clock second and thus making the GPS permanently in synch with the ground clock in terms of absolute time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time would to stop for 5 minutes universally, would anyone be aware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no way to stop the passage of absolute time. You can stop the passage of clock time by damaging the clock but the passage of absolute time continues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if time can start, it can stop..
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes.....clock time can start and stop. But not absolute time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it can even slow down, or speed up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly clock time can slow down or speed up but not absolute time.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ...and time can turnaround and go back.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No.....absolute time moves in one direction....it can only move forward into the future.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > (and i ain't talkin bout clocks)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > there is no future for time to 'move into'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is tomorrow not the future????
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > does the future exist without time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The future and absolute time always exist. Tomorrow (he future) and 24 hours (absolute time) from now exists simultaneously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The future and time exist simultaneously, but there is no...tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tomorrow and time exist simultaneously at tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > but not after tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > if two weeks from now is the future, and you got a glimpse of it, what
> > > > will you see?
> > >
> > > I'll explain what you will see because it's not information that exist anywhere else...
> > >
> > > If you got a glimpse of the future...stuck your head in and took a look..what you will see is...NOTHING.
> > >
> > > It's Blank! Pure white. No earth, no stars, no universe...nothing. Nothing happen yet.
> > >
> > > It has to develope with time...like developing a photograph in the darkroom...eventually everything begins to come about.
> >
> > I mean, you people don't acutally believe that there are people walking around in the future, do you????
> 
> Even Albert Einstein didn't understand...
> 
>  "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." --Albert Einstein
> 
> I thought everyone understood this by now...
> 
> That the future is what....you make it.
> 
> I mean, litteraly MAKE IT. You even make the moon...
> 
> It's like I gotta start all over again...and teach you people what you don't seem to understand.
> 
> That if you pop you head into two weeks from now into the future...there's NOTHING there, not even the moon!
> 
> Life is what you make it means....all of it!!!
> 
> even the moon.


I really don't know how to explain it in terms that you can understand it. You're gonna have take one of my classes...

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

Thread

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 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 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:53 -0700
    Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 15:11 -0700
      Re: The correct explanation for the twin paradox "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-20 16:34 -0700

csiph-web