Re: The Twin Paradox explained from the moving twin ?

In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:53:31 GMT
<faAPg.12736$cd1.5193@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:93m2u3-gq5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:49:48 GMT
| <MzpPg.7263$2Q4.1573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:44f1u3-o7o.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > | Nice try but you're off by a factor of
| > | about 120.
| >
| > What are you babbling about mass and energy for, fuckhead?
| > Speed has nothing all to do with mass. The most massive
| > object locally is the Earth and that has a speed of 0.0001c.
| > Where the *** did you get so confused?
| >
|
| 7 TeV proton looks like a tachyon to me...or would in a
| Newtonian universe. :-P

Nice try, but 27,000 m * 11245Hz = 1.01c.
Explain what the operating frequency has to do with
the particles, shithead. You are hoist by your own petard.

Ah, yes, you're hung up on that. Somehow, you've convinced
yourself that a 7 TeV proton is only going at 1.01 c, contradicting
Newtonian theory which states it should be going at 120 c or
thereabouts.

In any event, the beam frequency is the frequency of the bunches in the
beam passing by a detector. One could, of course, hypothesize things
such as subfundamentals and antiharmonics and what not but I for one see
little point, and this is a *very* old problem, as the Bevatron had it
in 1953 or thereabouts. (The energies weren't as great, of course, but
the problem was still there.)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.

Quantcast