Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: "Jeckyl" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:14:59 +1000
"bill" <cosmosco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185235735.724975.48620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 23, 9:50 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"bill" <cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageAsinine arrogance.
news:1185068056.733116.36880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 21, 10:27 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"bill" <cosmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1184975348.416557.318470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
YeupYes .. if you are moving away from me, then I am moving away from youI wasn't speeding officer! *You* were moving away from *me* at a
velocity exceeding the posted speed limit.
Yes .. you have been showing that .. but we'll forgive you
It is not just that 'other planets are moving closer'! One 'half' ofYeup .. just as it was when he was on the planet. . just a different
the *universe* is 'moving closer' and the rest of the universe is
'moving away' from him.
sections of the universe moving closer and away.
According to the expanding universe theory
Irrelevant
[snip]
There is no absolute rest.And you know that - how? Don't bother responding; it was a rhetorical
question.
Read SR and you'll find out
You are at rest in your iFoR whenever you are not accelerating ..Chambers 'Science and Technology Dictionary' defines
everything
else that is not at rest in that iFoR is moving.
Acceleration is a change in velocity. Whether you regard it as positiveIsn't it *negative* acceleration or deceleration prior to turn aroundHe is not accelerating to turn around.Yes .. he is .. you cannot change velocity without acceleration.
acceleration IS change in velocity.
- not acceleration?
or
negative depends only on your arbitrary choice of measuement axis.
Decelleration is not really a term of physics
'deceleration (Phys.) Negative acceleration.'
Having read that, no doubt you and others of your ilk will write to
the publishers of that dictionary pointing out their mistake.
Yeup. its just colloquialism .. it is frame-of-reference dependant. An
acceleration IS simultaneously a decceleration to another observer
Stop your pedantic and semantic nonsense .. it really make no difference
what you call it.
So its OK for you to introduce psychological nonsense[snip more pyschological nonsense .. that is NOT physis]In accordance with your comment that acceleration is not relativeYeup .. but at any instant, the earth is moving away from him and him
then, as he accelerates away from the planet, he is not allowed to
conclude that it is the earth that is accelerating away from him
away
from the earth
Again .. you're bringing psychology into it. What he thinks doesn't
matter
I did not
[snip]
I ***know*** it doesn't. That's ***precisely*** the point I wasYou are missing the point of the original posting which was that theNo .. it doesn't
traveler *sees* his twin apparently aging at a faster rate than he is
and on the basis that 'observation creates reality' as detailed above
he concludes that his twin is physically aging at a faster rate.
In other words - what he 'thinks' *does* matter *as presented in that
posting*.
***making***!
Then why are you arguing?
Why don't you try *reading* something before you go shooting your
mouth off?
I did .. why don'tyou?
The rest of your posting is repetitive infantile reiteration
indicative of a person who has never had an original idea of their own
thus attempt to belittle those of us who have.
Correspondence terminated.
Coward. Guess you'll just stay ignorant then
.
- References:
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: cosmosco
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: cosmosco
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: cosmosco
- 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
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- From: bill
- Twin paradox revisited ll
- Prev by Date: Re: Michelson Morley experiment with sound waves
- Next by Date: Re: Isn't Einstein's gamma function wrong?
- Previous by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Next by thread: Re: Twin paradox revisited ll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|