The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Math]
|
Prev: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
Next: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 17:38 are not dilation of time and length (in the direction of time-travellin' (sik), directly porportional? thus&so: how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the primes?... well, if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones, either. anyway, p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-) thus&so: well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure! > outnumber the intelligent so, odds are that the first replier to a post is not even dot.dot --the duke of oil! Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases (GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini- tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is positive, it gives off more. Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following assump- tions: 1. Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy sources (i.e., coal) http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: Cassidy Furlong on 26 Jun 2010 17:45 so, ;et us put this in terms of you and your fraternal twin or other space-cadet buddy, and your respectively & symmetrically accelerating frame- works of reference (or, more generally, two differently accelerating & decelerating & revolving & rotating frames of reference, viz Spaceship Earth and another one. Okey-doke? thus&so: are not dilation of time and length (in the direction of time-travellin' (sik), directly porportional? thus&so: how many of us'd ever understood a proof of the unfinity of the primes?... well, if not, we'll never get p-adic numbers, or AP-didactical ones, either. anyway, p-adics are cool, when subsumed in Galois theory (or vise-versa .-) thus&so: well, there's phi of me to one o'you; go figure! > outnumber the intelligent so, odds are that the first replier to a post is not even dot.dot --the duke of oil! Rationale. In addition to political, economic, and mechanical feasibility, one must consider the environmental consequences of choosing ethanol over gasoline. In par- ticular, the amount of air pollution released in the form of CO2 and other green house gases (GHGs) is a crucial point of interest. In order to model the difference in ethanol and gasoline emissions, it is necessary to calculate the final mass of GHGs (in the case where 10% of the gasoline energy supply has been replaced by ethanol) minus the ini- tial mass (before the 10% replacement was implemented). If the result is negative, the 10% ethanol scenario gives off fewer GHGs; if it is positive, it gives off more. Assumptions and calculations. Our model is based on the following assump- tions: 1. Itisassumedthatnearlyallofthegasolinerequiredfortheproductionofethanol is used in the farming and harvesting stage, while other energy sources (i.e., coal) http://www.maa.org/pubs/cmj47.pdf http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: train on 3 Jul 2010 20:09
On Jun 25, 10:25 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 5:54 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > snip > > > Meanwhile we will take up Androcles excellent suggestion to consider > > the GPS satellites, and thence calculate for ourselves the time > > dilation of the gps clock wrt the earth clock and thence arrive at a > > xxxxx. That is what we are after is it not? > > snip > > > 1944.4444444035500000000 metres > > > am I right? > > I did not check your math or numbers. > I did not have to, to see that you are wrong. > Your goal was to calculate the time dilation > of the 'gps clock wrt the earth clock'. So > should not the solution be in units of measure > of time, rather than length or distance? > > D.Y.K. So what is the right answer? |