Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185000718.734767.290350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Except that the traveller is younger than the stay-at-home.
Wrinkles? Hair growth ?

Yes .. most likely .. as lass time has elapsed

This would require some knowledge of biosciences to
use a a basis.

Why?

Einsten's 1918 work does not proviide
such a basis because the word *apparent* puts the
imaginary operators where they belong.

It is a real difference

And the
chapter on Minkowski space gives the operator
"prominance".
Unless you know something about particle-light yet

You don't need to . .that is not relevant to the difference in elapsed time

to be recognised by the Nobel committee,
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
... then the wave model is the only sensible application
except to deceive for the purpose of a parlor trick.

It has nothing to do with light being a wave or a particle .. you do post
such off topic ***.

A twin or his wrist-watch carries no electrical charge

[snip more crap from Sue]



.

Quantcast