From: PD on
On Aug 9, 5:21 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9bd0cd7c-deeb-4d09-bfa9-90edec5d97eb(a)f6g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 10:26 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> It's not so mysterious. Think about traveling along the x-axis.
> >> If you travel at a constant speed for 1 hour elapsed time, you'll
> >> end up a certain distance from your starting point. If you travel
> >> twice as fast, you'll end up twice as far from your starting
> >> point. There's nothing mysterious about that.
>
> >> Now, people are always traveling at a nonzero velocity in the
> >> t-direction.
> >> If you travel for one hour, you'll end up at a different time then when
> >> you started. If you travel for one hour at twice at twice the velocity
> >> in the t-direction, you'll end up twice as far along the t-axis.
>
> >> The 4-D view of SR is that every object has a velocity in the
> >> x-direction,
> >> the y-direction, the z-direction and the t-direction. Different travelers
> >> have different velocities in the t-direction, so they travel different
> >> distances along the t-axis.
>
> >> Rather than thinking one twin ages 1 hour while the other ages 1/2 hour,
> >> instead you think that one twin takes a full hour to go from 12:00 to
> >> 1:00,
> >> while the other twin only takes 1/2 hour to go the same distance along
> >> the t-axis.
>
> > Einstein Dingleberries are getting sillier and sillier defending their
> > piles of nonsense.  Ahahahaha...
>
> Is there a single experimental prediction of Special Relativity that you
> disagree with, or do you believe that its predictions exactly match reality?

KW doesn't care whether the theory matches experiment. KW has a
different view of science:
- If a mediocre engineer doesn't understand it, it must be wrong.
- If you can discredit one of the original proponents with name-
calling, it must be wrong.
- If you claim that its results are "nothing more than" results found
by others, then it must be wrong.
- If you claim that the mathematics "obviously" has properties that
are in conflict with its predictions, then it must be wrong.
From: Androcles on

"RichD" <r_delaney2001(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:60ffc926-c559-4f44-a7a8-bb45d78a17a3(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 8, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if you are
> > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you
> > but ticking slower than you at the same time?
>
> All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin
> in the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point
> if it comes back to earth). The "aging difference effect" happens
> just when the acceleration does.

What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a
straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the
same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the
universe is closed), without turning around, hence no
acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then?

--
Rich
=====================================
Err... the twins are a trillion years old, perhaps?



From: RichD on
On Aug 9, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> > What if the high speed traveling twin continues in a
> > straight line for a trillion years, and returns to the
> > same spot via the curvature of space (assuming the
> > universe is closed), without turning around, hence no
> > acceleration - what does the twin paradox predict then?
>
>    The universe is flat. No twins are going to leave each other
>    and return without accelerations involved. Don't fool yourself.

?

I thought the universe is closed, spacetime curves
on itself, etc. How can it also be flat? Does not compute -

--
Rich
From: Sam Wormley on
On 8/9/10 9:10 PM, RichD wrote:

>
> I thought the universe is closed, spacetime curves
> on itself, etc. How can it also be flat? Does not compute -
>

The observable universe is finite an unbounded.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
From: BURT on
On Aug 9, 7:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 10:48 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 7:27 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 elo, 17:18, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 8, 6:53 am, Gc <gcut...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On 8 elo, 08:06, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If you watched a clock that you are passing at high speed; if  you are
> > > > > > the one aging slower how can you see that it is aging more than you
> > > > > > but ticking slower than you at the same time?
>
> > > > > All the important stuff in the twin paradox happens when the twin in
> > > > > the spacecraft feels acceleration (it has to turn at some point if it
> > > > > comes back to earth). The "aging difference  effect" happens just when
> > > > > the acceleration does.
>
> > > >    No. The aging difference effect is due to a difference in relative
> > > > velocity. If you get up and go for a walk you will be younger than the
> > > > 'you' who decided instead to just sit in one place. Not much younger,
> > > > but younger.
>
> > > No, your proper time is of course different then and that is solely
> > > because you _felt more acceralation_.
>
> > No. When the ship decelerates and returns, while the ship is
> > motionless WRT the other twin, the twins experience the same rate of
> > time and again when the ship with the travelling twin returns and
> > stops in the frame of the stationary twin they share the same rate of
> > time. At all other moments when the relative velocity of the frames
> > differs, the difference in the time-span that occurs in the two frames
> > increases. It is necessarily the travelling twin's clock (his frame)
> > that is moving slower (time-wise) that the stationary twin.
>
> >    It is the velocity, not the acceleration. I'll give you this, you
> > can't get from an initial shared state of rest to two frames moving
> > WRT each other without acceleration, but there deosn't need to be any
> > more than the initial aceleration i.e. the velocity can be constant
> > for the majority of the trip.
>
> The acceleration of the traveling clock increases its state of
> absolute motion and thus makes it runs slower than the stay at home
> clock.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> >    Mathal
> >    By the way, when did the Linus blaket term 'proper time' come back
> > into vogue?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Accelerated energy flow decelerates aether flow in an inverse Gamma
relationship. Accelerating energy decelerates its clock by Gamma for
its speed.

Mitch Raemsch