Page 13 of 70 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 2086

Thread: Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof That It's SR?

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    The guy actually talked about his ?wristwatch? in SR theory, as if it were an ?ideal clock?!
    It's called a thought experiment, Sam5; you're allowed to make simplyfing assumptions for the sake of illustration.

    Try googling for tau lepton time dilation decay; you'll see a host of experiments showing relativistic time dilation. Here's one:

    http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/neutrino/tau.html

    This one is talking about the path of a tau lepton after collision. There are others.

    We've established, haven't we, that you don't believe in SR? That there's no point in trying to explain how SR explains, for instance, the twin "paradox", since you don't believe in the fundamental assumptions?

    Isn't that enough to move this discussion to Against the Mainstream?

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF
    Doesn't matter. You claimed there was a paradox in the 1905 paper, and "it's just a myth" doesn't prove there's a paradox.
    Oh, nonsense. You see the paradox now, and I know you see it because you described its cause in your own words. So get over it and move on.

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Exactly!

    That?s a thermodynamical/electrodynamical time dilation effect due to the cold environment,
    No it isn't. It's a slowdown in the chemical reaction, you're the only one I know who calls it a time dilation effect.
    and you don?t have to move your watch through space in order to get it to tick more slowly!
    If i hit my old Timex with a hammer it stops running. That is not time dilation either.
    That?s why the internal closed-system ?time flow? rate of a frozen embryo stops when the embryos are frozen and the embryo can be thawed and allowed to return to its normal time-flow rate many decades after it was conceived.
    Back to this again? This is not time dilation.

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    We've established, haven't we, that you don't believe in SR?
    No we haven’t. My complaints are with the “time dilation” causes being attributed only to “relative motion” in the Kinematical part of the paper, whereas in reality, they are caused by physics effects that aren’t directly related to “relative motion”. That’s why atomic clocks change their rates when placed under different gravitational potential, and this doesn’t have anything to do with “relative motion”.

    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    Isn't that enough to move this discussion to Against the Mainstream?
    This is mainstream stuff that you just don't know about yet.

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    It's a slowdown in the chemical reaction,
    Right. A slowdown in the chemical reaction rate. This is a “time dilation” effect that takes place on the molecular and atomic level inside the watch. If you warm up the watch you’ll cause a “time contraction” effect inside the watch.

    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    you're the only one I know who calls it a time dilation effect.
    Right.

    If you had known the Wright brothers in 1902, you would have probably told them that that heavy contraption never would get off the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    If i hit my old Timex with a hammer it stops running. That is not time dilation either.
    If you shake it gently over a long period of time, it will experience the same types of rate-change effects experienced by the old clocks on board rocking ships before the counter-balance chronometer was invented.

    But if you hit it with a hammer, that will actually cause an effect that is directly related to the extreme amount of sudden acceleration experienced by the watch. See Newton’s second law of motion. You actually deform the metal parts inside the watch with such extreme amounts of sudden acceleration. It’s the same thing that would happen to you if you were in a car wreck. It’s the sudden “deceleration” (or “acceleration”) that causes the damage.

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    So his Timex stops working because the extreme acceleration dilates the time so much it appears to stop? Wow, I thought he just broke it. What if I put my watch in a vat of acid? When the material is destroyed by the acid, will the watch experience time dilation?

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    No we haven?t. My complaints are with the ?time dilation? causes being attributed only to ?relative motion? in the Kinematical part of the paper, whereas in reality, they are caused by physics effects that aren?t directly related to ?relative motion?. That?s why atomic clocks change their rates when placed under different gravitational potential, and this doesn?t have anything to do with ?relative motion?.
    Time dilation is an inevitable byproduct of the speed of light being a constant in all inertial reference frames. Your position, as I understand it, is that observers moving through space far from any massive object would measure different speeds of light, and that an observer moving through space would measure a different speed of light in the direction of travel than at a direction orthogonal to his direction of travel, and that experiments on earth don't measure this difference because somehow the earth drags the ether with it so that the speed of light is the same in all directions.

    If this is the case, this is not SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    Isn't that enough to move this discussion to Against the Mainstream?
    This is mainstream stuff that you just don't know about yet.
    Umm. "It's not so much what you don't know, as what you do know that just isn't so". I wonder which of us that applies to?

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    So his Timex stops working because the extreme acceleration dilates the time so much it appears to stop?
    Lol, no, no, no. A slight continued vibration motion of the watch would alternate between “dilating” and “contracting” its tick rate, the “time-flow” rate that the watch is supposed to indicate accurately.

    But hitting it with a hammer will break it.

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF
    Doesn't matter. You claimed there was a paradox in the 1905 paper, and "it's just a myth" doesn't prove there's a paradox.
    Oh, nonsense. You see the paradox now, and I know you see it because you described its cause in your own words. So get over it and move on.
    No. You think there's a paradox because

    A) SR says that motion is relative - Clock 1 moving relative to Clock 2 is the same as Clock 2 moving relative to Clock 1.
    B) In Einstein's thought experiment, the "peculiar consequence" is a result of the relative motion between Clock 1 and Clock 2.
    C) The "peculiar consequence" can not be different for the two clocks, because they are both in relative motion to each other (see A)

    Your flaw is in B) above. The peculiar consequence is not a result of Clock 1's motion relative to Clock 2, it is a result of Clock 1's motion relative to the A-B reference frame, in which the clocks are synchronized.

    While it is true that either Clock 1 or Clock 2 could be considered "stationary" while they are moving together, it is not true that either Clock 1 or Clock 2 could be considered as being in the clock-synchronized K frame while they are moving together.

    Einstein's 1905 paper says, "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

    This means that if you and I are in relative motion to each other, and two events are simultaneous in my reference frame, they will not be in yours. It does not mean that I see the two events as simultaneous and "think" you don't while you see the two events as simultaneous and "think" I don't. It means that in my reference frame they are simultaneous and in your reference frame they're not.

    In this respect, the synchronicity effect is different than the "time dilation" effect - when switching "stationary" reference frames, the time dilation switches but the synchronicity does not. The two observers will not agree on who is moving and who is stationary; they will not agree on who is dilated and who is normal; but they will agree on who sees the events as simultaneous and who does not.

    Therefore, your conclusion that there is a paradox is incorrect.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    you're the only one I know who calls it a time dilation effect.
    Right.
    Are you agreeing that you are the only one who calls a temperature dependence on chemical reaction rates time dilation? If not, do you have a reference to someone else who calls it time dilation?

    Do you have a reference to someone (other than you) who calls speeding up or slowing down a clock by mechanical or thermal means time dilation?
    If you had known the Wright brothers in 1902, you would have probably told them that that heavy contraption never would get off the ground.
    I don't see how that follows. Presumably if I had known the Wright brothers at that time I would have known of their work on gliders. I might not have felt that their engine had a sufficient power:weight ratio to get that thing off the ground by itself.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    you're the only one I know who calls it a time dilation effect.
    Right.
    Are you agreeing that you are the only one who calls a temperature dependence on chemical reaction rates time dilation? If not, do you have a reference to someone else who calls it time dilation?

    Do you have a reference to someone (other than you) who calls speeding up or slowing down a clock by mechanical or thermal means time dilation?
    If you had known the Wright brothers in 1902, you would have probably told them that that heavy contraption never would get off the ground.
    I don't see how that follows. Presumably if I had known the Wright brothers at that time I would have known of their work on gliders. I might not have felt that their engine had a sufficient power:weight ratio to get that thing off the ground by itself.

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    Time dilation is an inevitable byproduct of the speed of light being a constant in all inertial reference frames.
    It's not that simple. Large "inertial frames" have sub-frames within them that aren't "inertial".

    The speed of light is not constant with reference to all "inertial reference frames". In one way of thinking we can think of the sun as an “inertial reference frame”, but as judged from earth, the speed of light slows down when photons pass near the sun. From a sun atomic clock point of view, the photons travel at c only while they are very near the sun, but they travel at faster than c when they are moving at some distances well away from the sun. Einstein predicted this phenomenon in 1911.

    If you read only popular books about Special Relativity, and if you don’t study his 1911 paper, you might not know that he actually said the speed of light can slow down relative to a reference frame.

    The earth doesn’t “drag the ether with it”. That’s an old late-19th Century theory. The earth “generates” its own local “ether”. They are the earth’s “fields”.

    Perhaps you’ve missed reading Einstein’s 1920 ether theory:

    EINSTEIN’S 1920 ETHER THEORY

    One problem I have with discussing this stuff on the internet is that most people I discuss it with just haven’t read enough of Einstein’s own real papers. Most non-professionals who discuss “relativity” on internet message boards are more familiar with the popular mass-media books and TV shows, and all their myths, about this subject, than they are with Einstein’s actual papers. I don’t live in a big city now, so I can’t go into a university physics department or a student union building and discuss this stuff. It helps me to work out some of these ideas by having someone like SeanF disagree with me. That makes me think and it makes me challenge my own ideas. I also compare my ideas with classical papers and with new ones that are related to this subject. I’m old and retired so I have lots of time to study this stuff.

    I finally got around to studying Faraday’s experiments, which were very important to Einstein and are mentioned in passing in the first paragrph of the 1905 paper. Most people just ignore that paragraph because they don’t understand it.

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Put your electronic wristwatch inside the freezer of your refrigerator for several days and it will slow down its tick rate. This because its electronics feel a different strength of energy forces while cold. Take it out of the freezer and it will speed up again because it feels a stronger energy force.
    Wow.......That's all I needed to know. After a statement such as that, what's the point of continued debate?

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    Are you agreeing that you are the only one who calls a temperature dependence on chemical reaction rates time dilation?
    I don’t know of anyone who calls it that, but the “time dilation” term comes from the 1905 paper. The “time contraction” term is not in the paper since the paper doesn’t allow any clocks to speed up. They only “slow down” or return to their normal rate.

    Biologists, chemists, and other kinds of scientists and engineers just don’t pay any attention to the SR theory at all because it is meaningless to them. It is only a hypothetical theoretical “thought experiment” theory. Biologists generally talk in terms of slow or fast “thermodynamic” action or evolution rates, but they don’t use the terms “time dilation” or “time contraction”. However, they are talking basically about the same thing that I’m talking about. But they don’t use antiquated 1905 Einstein terms when they talk about it.

    If you want to learn more about thermodynamic time, just type the words: biology thermodynamic time :into Google. For biologists and chemists, the atomic and molecular vibration rates ARE “time-flow rates”, and the atoms and molecules ARE the “clocks”, with things like individual humans being generally being “closed thermodynamic systems”. Inside these systems there are different local temperatures, and there is a lot of thermodynamic and electrodynamic interaction going on between the molecules, atoms, ions, and electrons.

    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    I don't see how that follows. Presumably if I had known the Wright brothers at that time I would have known of their work on gliders. I might not have felt that their engine had a sufficient power:weight ratio to get that thing off the ground by itself.
    You know that now, but you might not have known that in 1902. In 1902, only a very few people in all the world thought in terms of "power:weight ratio" regarding human and machine flight.

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    Are you agreeing that you are the only one who calls a temperature dependence on chemical reaction rates time dilation?
    I don’t know of anyone who calls it that, but the “time dilation” term comes from the 1905 paper.
    Where exactly?
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  16. #376
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Put your electronic wristwatch inside the freezer of your refrigerator for several days and it will slow down its tick rate. This because its electronics feel a different strength of energy forces while cold. Take it out of the freezer and it will speed up again because it feels a stronger energy force.
    Wow.......That's all I needed to know. After a statement such as that, what's the point of continued debate?
    I said that several pages ago. Whether he doesn't understand or just doesn't except the truth really doesn't matter here - either way it is pointless to argue with him.

    One real quickie though:
    Biologists, chemists, and other kinds of scientists and engineers just don’t pay any attention to the SR theory at all because it is meaningless to them.
    Some do, some don't. Whether a scientist needs to take into account relativistic effects or not depends quite simply on two things:
    1. Does the application involve communication between two different reference frames?
    2. Does the application require precise time measurement (of the precision of the effects predicted by relativity mattering)?

    If the answer to either of those questions is no (virtually any biology experiment/application) then they don't need to consider Relativity. If the answer to both is yes (GPS) then they do - and they do.

    ...Ok, one more:
    You know that now, but you might not have known that in 1902. In 1902, only a very few people in all the world thought in terms of "power:weight ratio" regarding human and machine flight.
    Nope. for those working on or familiar with the problem of flight, there were two main issues: control and power to weight ratio. Everyone with a little knowledge of the subject at the time knew of both problems.

  17. #377
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wow.......That's all I needed to know. After a statement such as that, what's the point of continued debate?
    Hi Spiff. I might not always put these ideas in the exact proper scientific terms, and I apologize for that. But, if you would like to see a real “time dilated” twin, just have a biologist freeze one of two identical twin embryos. Thaw the frozen one out in 10 years. When born, they will still be identical twins, but the one that had been frozen as an embryo would be newborn, while the other will be 10 years old and already going to school. No “relative motion” between the twins will be involved. Biologists do this kind of thing all the time, but I haven’t yet heard of them separating the birth times of identical twins by several years, yet. The longest I’ve heard of them separating the conception date from the birth date has been 7 years.

  18. #378
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wow.......
    If Abigail had been frozen as an embryo for a longer time than Gabrielle, Gabrielle would be older, more mature, and taller than Abigail. IE, Gabrielle would be an “older” twin. Sooner or later, such a thing is going to happen, and you’d better get use to it, because the biologists are using different and more modern concepts of “time”, and I’ve never heard any of them babbling about “time dilation due to relative motion”.

    FROZEN TWIN LINK

  19. #379
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5

    If Abigail had been frozen as an embryo for a longer time than Gabrielle, Gabrielle would be older, more mature, and taller than Abigail. IE, Gabrielle would be an “older” twin.
    And what exactly does relativity have to do with frozen embryo's (as if I don't already know where you're going with this)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Sooner or later, such a thing is going to happen, and you’d better get use to it, because the biologists are using different and more modern concepts of “time”, and I’ve never heard any of them babbling about “time dilation due to relative motion”.
    Well, that's probably because a most woman would object to accelerating an embryo to near light speed in their womb.

  20. #380
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    Well, that's probably because a most woman would object to accelerating an embryo to near light speed in their womb.
    =D> Thank you Tensor, that gave me a good laugh.

  21. #381
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wow.......
    If Abigail had been frozen as an embryo for a longer time than Gabrielle, Gabrielle would be older, more mature, and taller than Abigail. IE, Gabrielle would be an “older” twin. Sooner or later, such a thing is going to happen, and you’d better get use to it, because the biologists are using different and more modern concepts of “time”, and I’ve never heard any of them babbling about “time dilation due to relative motion”.

    FROZEN TWIN LINK

    Oh, my. It gets better and better.

    Fact (1): atoms and molecules in excited states decay spontaneously (or via photon stimulation) at the same rate regardless of temperature. They absorb photons the same way too. From stars, to cosmic gas clouds, to the physicist's and chemist's laboratory, this is an observational, experimental and so verifiable (and so falsifiable) fact, precisely in line with predictions of quantum electrodynamics.

    Fact(2): biological "aging" or the "biological clock" of a living organism that you are discussing here has nothing to do with time dilation of SR or GR.
    Your "pronouncement" doesn't surprise me (was I supposed to flinch?), nor does it address anything regarding predictions of SR or GR, nor do chemists and biologists use a physically, fundamentally different form of time. Next you'll be telling us that chemists and biologists don't have to conserve energy and can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- because that's the same sort of effect that you are suggesting.

    Now that everyone can now see plainly where you're coming from, any scientific debate will likely abate.

  22. #382
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Wow.......
    If Abigail had been frozen as an embryo for a longer time than Gabrielle, Gabrielle would be older, more mature, and taller than Abigail. IE, Gabrielle would be an ?older? twin. Sooner or later, such a thing is going to happen, and you?d better get use to it, because the biologists are using different and more modern concepts of ?time?, and I?ve never heard any of them babbling about ?time dilation due to relative motion?.

    FROZEN TWIN LINK
    That link is irrelevant--nobody here is arguing that cooling doesn't change the rates of chemical reactions, or that mechanical watches can't be affected by shaking or magnetic fields.

    What we are arguing is that time slowdown is real in SR. Say Tom is floating in free space, Dick is floating three light hours away, motionless with respect to Tom, and Harry flashes by Tom at .6 c heading towards Dick. Tom looks in Harry's window and notes what time is showing on his clock as he flashes by. Dick does the same, and sends a message back to Tom telling what time he saw on Harry's clock. It takes five hours for Harry to travel from Tom to Dick, it takes three hours for the signal from Tom to travel back to Dick, so eight hours after Harry passed Tom, Tom receives Dick's signal telling what time Harry's clock read. Tom notices that only four hours had passed for Harry.

    Tom, DIck, and Harry each have devices to measure c, and are measuring c in every plausible direction throughout the run. They all get the same value for c.

    Do you disagree with any of the preceeding?

  23. #383
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    Now that everyone can now see plainly where you're coming from, any scientific debate will likely abate.
    That's probably optimistic. I can go for a few days without responding, but, kind of like a mosquito bite, every now and then I have to scratch.

  24. #384
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,819
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    What we are arguing is that time slowdown is real in SR. Say Tom is floating in free space, Dick is floating three light hours away, motionless with respect to Tom, and Harry flashes by Tom at .6 c heading towards Dick. Tom looks in Harry's window and notes what time is showing on his clock as he flashes by. Dick does the same, and sends a message back to Tom telling what time he saw on Harry's clock. It takes five hours for Harry to travel from Tom to Dick, it takes three hours for the signal from Tom to travel back to Dick, so eight hours after Harry passed Tom, Tom receives Dick's signal telling what time Harry's clock read. Tom notices that only four hours had passed for Harry.
    You know, I can predict exactly what Sam5 will find objectionable about this, because I know exactly what his misunderstanding of SR is.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  25. #385
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,860
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF
    You know, I can predict exactly what Sam5 will find objectionable about this, because I know exactly what his misunderstanding of SR is.
    You've gone through more of his posts than I have. I have a guess, but I'd like to see it confirmed.

  26. #386
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by daver
    You've (SeanF )gone through more of his posts than I have.
    Yeah he has. Can't we get him some kind of award for all that he's gone through?

  27. #387
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    .Fact(2): biological "aging" or the "biological clock" of a living organism that you are discussing here has nothing to do with time dilation of SR or GR.
    No, you’re not quite right about that, Spiff. Study “thermodynamic time” on the biology websites and you’ll see that the biologists understand thermodynamic time regarding human aging and “biological clock” processes far more than you do. I got my information out of biology books, and I discovered that they don’t bother with SR or GR. SR doesn’t work, and GR will crush a person long before its effects begin to alter his biological clock rates.

    By the way, Einstein tried his hand at discussing relativistic thermodynamics, and this is basically what he came up with in 1907:

    “Thus, the temperature of a moving system is always lower with respect to a reference system that is in motion relative to it than with respect to a reference system that is at rest relative to it.”

    Study that sentence, Spiff. Why don’t you guys discuss it and explain it to the rest of us.

  28. #388
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam5
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
    .Fact(2): biological "aging" or the "biological clock" of a living organism that you are discussing here has nothing to do with time dilation of SR or GR.
    No, you’re not quite right about that, Spiff. Study “thermodynamic time” on the biology websites and you’ll see that the biologists understand thermodynamic time regarding human aging and “biological clock” processes far more than you do. I got my information out of biology books, and I discovered that they don’t bother with SR or GR. SR doesn’t work, and GR will crush a person long before its effects begin to alter his biological clock rates.
    Ugh, this frozen twin rubbish is the biggest red herring in the thread. Sam5, while the frozen embryo is not aging from a biological point of view, it is not physically going anywhere. It does not involve relativistic effects.

  29. #389
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    8,819
    Hey, Sam5, you've still got questions to answer yourself. Cripes, that was two days ago, and you haven't even made an effort yet!

    Also, you claimed that the term "time dilation" came from Einstein's 1905 paper, and I'm still waiting on a cite for that, as well . . .
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  30. #390
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by freddo
    Sam5, while the frozen embryo is not aging from a biological point of view, it is not physically going anywhere. It does not involve relativistic effects.
    Huh? You mean you can actually cause the embryos’ time to dilate with “relativistic effects”?? They don’t have to be frozen in liquid nitrogen? You just “send them somewhere” at high speed, and that does it??

    Have you told any biologists about this? If so, what was their reaction? Have you ever tried going on a biology message board to tell the biologists how you can make an embryo age more slowly without freezing them? Maybe they can just put the embryos in a rocket and blast them off from the earth at nearly the speed of light. They might appreciate your suggestion.

    I’ll tell you what you should do. Go on a biology message board and tell them your ideas about “relativistic time dilation” and see what they tell you. Tell them you know of a “relativistic” way to “time dilate” the embryos, and see what they say.

Similar Threads

  1. New Version of the Twin Paradox: Accelerated Twin Older
    By PraedSt in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2009-Jun-15, 08:04 PM
  2. Definitive Proof the US of A Never Lended On The Moon...
    By Mortal Wombat in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-27, 07:06 AM
  3. the twin paradox
    By surdrawrod in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-21, 03:51 AM
  4. Twin Paradox HELP
    By normdowling in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-07, 05:58 PM
  5. Twin Paradox
    By Christine112 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-04, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •