Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

On 2/17/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Someday I may get around to putting together an "integrated" page on all this, showing how the pieces fit together; it's not as straightforward as it appears at first glance. Brian Greene does the porthole view quite well in "The Elege

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Harry Veeder wrote: Harry: The raison d'être of GR is to explain gravity. Stephen: That's right. But you don't need it to resolve the twins problem, which takes place in flat space. I am confused. In your first response to me you started off by saying the opposite: Harry: That wo

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- Original Message - From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox >> ...Talking about "centrifugal force", you do know that >> by running around a bucket

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

On 2/17/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: An accelerometer is a purely "local" instrument (which, of course, can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration). Actually there is a way, or technically 2 ways at least. (besides the fact that experiments have shown that

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

> Harry: >> The raison d'être of GR is to explain gravity. > Stephen: > That's right. But you don't need it to resolve the twins problem, which > takes place in flat space. I am confused. In your first response to me you started off by saying the opposite: > Harry: >> That works in SR, bu

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

out "centrifugal force", you do know that by running around a bucket of water you incurve the water as if it was centrifuged don't you? :) Michel - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox ... This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of t

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox ... >>> This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem >>&g

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem was in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; t

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Twin paradox solved by a universal static aether adjustment to SR ;) SR is totally broken. And no inertial acceleration doesn't solve it, the twin at home is undergoing plenty of acceleration around the earth, around the sun, thermal and sound vibrations. Also the acceleration to light speed can

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > I'm going to go shovel the snow off my ~100 ft long driveway. I wonder if it > will have important future implications for quantum computers? > > --Kyle > No way. You need to be shovelling sh*t to have that affect. ;-) Harry

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Harry Veeder wrote: >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >>> This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem was >>> in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling >>> twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thu

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox ... This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of t

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox Distant stars are not out of sight fortunately :) Depends on how close to the rather light pollutive ci

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox > - Original Message - > From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursda

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- Original Message - From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] "I solv

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

- Original Message - From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox ... > This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem was > in fa

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Harry Veeder wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem was in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus, the symmetry is broken. That works in SR, bu

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > This is not a paradox, and the "paradoxical" nature of the problem was > in fact resolved something on the order of a century ago. The traveling > twin accelerates; the stay-at-home twin does not; thus, the symmetry is > broken. That works in SR, but the solution

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Harry Veeder wrote: Gotta love those probabilities. With them you can save relativity from obscurity. Harry Professor Resolves Einstein's Twin Paradox Science Daily — Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Re: [Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:03 -0500: Hi, [snip] >"I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within >the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual >objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation >

[Vo]: FW: Einstein's Twin Paradox

Gotta love those probabilities. With them you can save relativity from obscurity. Harry Professor Resolves Einstein's Twin Paradox Science Daily — Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolv