Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp <colp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:13:28 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 22, 11:39 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, colp wrote:
On Nov 22, 11:07 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, colp wrote:
On Nov 22, 9:08 am, "Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What does time dilation mean?
The apparent increase in the duration of clock ticks of a clock moving
at
relativistic speed relative to an observer, according to special
relativity.
No (although I'm sure that that is often stated to be what it means). It
can't be so because the measuring the interval between the two events
defining the time interval requires _three_ clocks and only tells you
duration of clock ticks of _one_ of those clocks.
Wrong. You don't need three clocks. A moving clock is not two
different clocks.
You want to do it with two clocks, go ahead. Since the two clocks must be
located in the same place for their times to be compared, the two clocks
must be stationary wrt each other.
Wrong again. The time of a moving clock can be commuincated by radio
or other electromagnetic radiation.
.
- References:
- The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Timo A. Nieminen
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Timo Nieminen
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Timo Nieminen
- The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Explaining Physics-Stephen Hawking
- Next by Date: Perpetual motion assumption (stay away unserious monopolian conservative, welcome clear mind)
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
