Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:05:45 -0700
Dear Sue:
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185168541.051562.24580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 23, 1:29 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Sue:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185154911.540622.282240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 22, 10:03 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
<d...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
[...]
And aren't those observations (determinations)
nothing more than visual illusions generated by
the red shift and blue shift of the light from the
planet?
Problem is, if you total up the number of such full
orbits, it will agree with the stay-at-home's age,
and not the traveller's age.
The traveler's *age* is not an issue.
Absolutely true.
If Stella's hair differs significantlly from Terra's
then the priniciple of relativity has been violated.
Sorry, no. And you proceed to posture yet again.
It is a widely accepted *posture*.
Sez you.
<< The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
'All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the
performance of all physical experiments.'
.... within the frame, yes.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a
physical experiment which differentiates in
any fundamental sense between different
inertial frames.
Sorry, no. The "doors and windows of the ship's cabin must be
closed" for that to be true. But you knew that.
By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same
form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this
result in his special theory of relativity by asserting
that all laws of physics take the same form in all
inertial frames. >>
.... *in all inertial frames* ... not between frames ... not
making observations ourside your frame.
IOW The length of growing hair and burning birthday
candles will have to be the same or PoR is violated.
Sorry, no. "Not even wrong".
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Sue...
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- 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: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Sue...
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Sue...
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- Prev by Date: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by Date: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Previous by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|