Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:10:56 -0700
On Jul 22, 9:29 pm, bill <cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
My only consolation is that those people are *also* aging at faster
rates than they should every time they conduct those experiments. They
should either wake up to themselves or the claim that an inertial
clock *physically* ticks over at a faster rate because another clock
has been made to move relatively to it should be abandoned. I know
what I would prefer.
Your wish is Einstein's command in the 1920 paper.
References to inertial couplings are moved to the
chapter about mass/energy equivalence because
conflicts with non-existant inertial light don't need to
be resolved.
Time, as any drag racer can attest, is the symmetery
partner with energy, so funny clocks (imaginary time)
is still retained, but only for use in developing GR.
It is also formally stated as *imaginary* ( sqrt (-1) )
in the chapter about Minkowski space.
General Results of the Theory
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Sue...
[...]
.
- References:
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: cosmosco
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- Prev by Date: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by Date: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Previous by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|