Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: "Spoonfed" <jonathan.doolin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Sep 2005 13:46:42 -0700
Kim B wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:12:52 +0200, Kim B <spamfree@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >On 6 Sep 2005 10:04:06 -0700, "Spoonfed"
> ><jonathan.doolin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>If you want to check your answers against mine...
> >>
> >>Yes, 1.5, 4, 2
> >
> >Ok, my assumption was wrong ... you _meant_ "see" ... in that case, I
> >agree.
> >
> >Kim
>
> Someone now may wonder, why B can see O approach him for 4 years with
> a speed of 1.5 ... thats 6 light years, and B know O is only 2.4 light
> years away. Huh ?
>
> The answer: In B's frame (green grid), the first light B sees from O
> (immediately after turnaround) comes from "a point in time" (in B's
> FOR) which was 6 years ago.
>
> Thanks for your comments :-)
>
> Kim
You're quite welcome. You can join me and Mike Fontenot as crackpots
who thinke that what you just said has any meaning. :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Spoonfed
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- References:
- Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Kim B
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Spoonfed
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Spoonfed
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Kim B
- Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- From: Kim B
- Yet another twin paradox explanation
- Prev by Date: Re: Rigid rod problem
- Next by Date: Re: Rigid rod problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another twin paradox explanation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|