Re: Twin paradox revisited ll

Dear Sue:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185000718.734767.290350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 20, 10:53 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
....
....
So he *really* believs that the earth is *physicaly*
orbiting the sun at 1m-s?

If that is what he measures *in his own frame*. If he forgets
to
use relativity to calculate how fast the Earthlings would
calculate it was moving.

The nearfield retarded time is insignificant except for
microatomic distances. See equation 511:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

....
Having 'believed' that all life on the planet has
been obliterated it would not only be 'from the
earthbound twin's point of view, nothing
unusual has happened' but also from the
*traveler's* point of view.

Except that the traveller is younger than the stay-at-home.

Wrinkles? Hair growth ?

Death. Gradnchildren.

This would require some knowledge of biosciences to
use a a basis. Einsten's 1918 work does not proviide
such a basis because the word *apparent* puts the
imaginary operators where they belong. And the
chapter on Minkowski space gives the operator
"prominance".

Muons. They live thousands of times longer than their otherwise
identical cousins that move more slowly. Things have moved on
since 1918. Don;t tell me you too are "stuck in the past"?

Unless you know something about particle-light yet
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.

"Sensible" to you. You are the only one that places limits on
what you can believe. I think Nature is getting quite tired of
us arguing what the elephant is really like, and wants us to just
realize it is an elephant and move on. Arguments of "wave" and
"particle" are merely arguments over a particular choice of 400+
year old models.

....
Or rather, in the *interpretations* of those
experiments. As far as I am aware there has
been no experiment which proved that from the
traveler's point of view it is his twin that ages at
the faster rate than himself.

Yes, exactly that has been experimentally determined.
Slow particles with short lifespans age more rapidly
than faster ones. And it has nothing to do with
"accleration" or "accelerators" or "magnetic fields" or
"new and unexplained physics".

A twin or his wrist-watch carries no electrical charge
nor are accelerating EM fields that could rip his ship
apart, a part of his accelerating mechanism. There is
no comparision with muon lifetime.

Bare neutron lifetime. Or were you blind to them having a
half-life too?

<rest snipped unread>

David A. Smith


.