The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
> >
> > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
> >
> > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
> >
> > You cannot be a cop,
> > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
> >
> > You cannot be a politician.
> >
> > You cannot be a woman..
> >
> > You cannot...
> >
> > the list is too long!
> >
> > There are three doors..
> > one door has a million dollars
> > behind the door...
> >
> > two doors have no lock on it
> > only one door has a lock.
> >
> > Which door would you open?
>
> Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind
> the door...
>
> Still, which door would you open?

Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question
because he is becoming just
like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the
answers to.

You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because
I just made it up.

So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which
answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent.
They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather
commit suicide.

They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can
twist it around and post the other side of the coin.

Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to
be both...engineers.

And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'.

The devil is in the details.

"...the rest are details."

All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints.

'Detail Oriented'

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:05:11 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
> > >
> > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
> > >
> > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
> > >
> > > You cannot be a cop,
> > > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
> > >
> > > You cannot be a politician.
> > >
> > > You cannot be a woman..
> > >
> > > You cannot...
> > >
> > > the list is too long!
> > >
> > > There are three doors..
> > > one door has a million dollars
> > > behind the door...
> > >
> > > two doors have no lock on it
> > > only one door has a lock.
> > >
> > > Which door would you open?
> >
> > Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind
> > the door...
> >
> > Still, which door would you open?
> Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question
> because he is becoming just
> like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the
> answers to.
>
> You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because
> I just made it up.
>
> So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which
> answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent.
> They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather
> commit suicide.
>
> They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can
> twist it around and post the other side of the coin.
>
>
> Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to
> be both...engineers.
>
> And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'.
>
>
> The devil is in the details.
>
> "...the rest are details."
>
> All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints.
>
>
>
> 'Detail Oriented'
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Let me see:

Imagination powered, intelligence leveled, challenge driven, goals delimited, detail oriented, .....

It sounds like a winning combination for me. Worked every time.

And what is with your internal engines, Starmaker?

On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 06:43:21 UTC+2, Aldo wrote:
> El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 23:16:29 UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com escribió:
> > On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 02:10:15 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it does represent reality. In physics, a reference system is an actual physical system.
> > No it doesn't. In physics a reference system is some gedanking
> > of some insane maniac.
> The person who you are responding has extensively pointed out that reference frames are very concrete things, obvious existence in the real world, search by yourself its definition using your favourite search engine.

And comerade Lenin has extensively pointed out that
communism is the best. Hasn't he?

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El domingo, 29 de mayo de 2022 a las 16:09:50 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:10:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > How can you not understand that?
> > > >
> > > I understand that completely, unlike you. If you look the graph again you will notice that it has a triangular form. The traveling twin follows two linear trajectories through the x axis (reaching x=3 light years and then back to Earth, x=0).
> > >
> > > Therefore, the traveling twin follows through spacetime a path which appear to be larger than the path the twin at Earth follows (which is the t axis where x=0). However tha path through spacetime of the traveling twin takes 8 years, while the Earth twin takes 10 years to the point where they both meet again.
> > >
> > > Notice also how periodically (once per year) the Earth twin sends messages to the traveling twin (for instance at the first aniversary Earth twin sends a message which is received by the traveling twin when he has traveled 2 years, follow the red lines). Notice how the rate of those messages becomes shorter when the traveling twin is coming back to Earth. The blue lines are the yearly messages the traveling twin sends back to Earth.
>
> > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
> > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
> > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
> > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
> > reach you more frequently than once per year.
> >
> It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph.
> > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
> > the signals have to travel to reach you.
> See above

The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do
with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to
understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning
bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different
distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times.

Ed

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 4:44:05 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
> But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well.
> > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
> > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."
> Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity.
> > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked..
> > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
> > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
> > is no way to calculate that percentage.
> You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates.
> > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
> > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
> > as a reference purely for doing mathematics.
> Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference.
> > I don't define "reference systems."
> Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless.
> > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR.
> Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying.
> > The CMBR cannot be stationary.
> Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense.
> > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.
> Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe.
>
> > I need to do some re-thinking.
>
> Great, and I commend you for recognizing this.

The "re-thinking" involved something that I thought might be an error,
but it turned out it wasn't.

Our problem is that I don't like the mathematical term "frame of reference,"
because mathematicians consider it to be interchangeable with another
"frame of reference." I.e., if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed
as moving relative to A.

When I discuss a "frame of reference," it is just " A is moving relative to B."
The opposite "frame of reference" would be "B is stationary while A is moving."

Or, "A is moving faster than B" and the reverse is "B is moving slower than A."

"Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything
else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate.

Ed

El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:00:28 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
> > > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
> > > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
> > > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
> > > reach you more frequently than once per year.
> > >
> > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph.
> > > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
> > > the signals have to travel to reach you.
> > See above
>
> The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do
> with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to
> understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning
> bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different
> distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times.
>

Sure, but you see when the traveling twin has been traveling for one year, the line of simultaneity at the Earth twin is only 0.8 years. Read the page again:

"In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, therefore, two years younger at the reunion".

and

"Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of the TT as shown in gray.. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame to another".

This is my last post in this subject

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 11:25:15 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 12:00:28 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:17:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > > That has to do with the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation.
> > > > If you are moving away from a light source, signals transmitted to you once
> > > > per year from the source reach you at less than once per year. If you are moving
> > > > toward the light source, signals transmitted once per year from the source will
> > > > reach you more frequently than once per year.
> > > >
> > > It sure does. In the graph, the time dilation relationship is provided by the grey lines of the graph.
> > > > That has nothing to do with time dilation. It has to do with the distance
> > > > the signals have to travel to reach you.
> > > See above
> >
> > The gray lines on the graph represent "lines of simultaneity." That has nothing to do
> > with time dilation. It is about location and the speed of light. The easiest example to
> > understand is where a person who is standing equal distances from where two lightning
> > bolts strike will see the events as simultaneous, while someone who is a different
> > distances from the lightning strike points will see them happening at different times.
> >
> Sure, but you see when the traveling twin has been traveling for one year, the line of simultaneity at the Earth twin is only 0.8 years. Read the page again:
>
> "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5 so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is, therefore, two years younger at the reunion"..
>
> and
>
> "Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same time, i.e.., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame to another".
>
> This is my last post in this subject

When I stop responding, others usually start posting "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!"

But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
refuses to look at facts and evidence.

Ed

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> > > example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> > > on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.
> > But in the passage you’re referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well.
> > > Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
> > > is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."
> > Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there's no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity.
> > > I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> > > A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> > > relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> > > one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.
> > No, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked.
> > > Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
> > > so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
> > > is no way to calculate that percentage.
> > You’re still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates.
> > > The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
> > > the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
> > > as a reference purely for doing mathematics.
> > Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to regard “speed” as some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference.
> > > I don't define "reference systems."
> > Right, and that's your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless.
> > > I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR.
> > Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there is nothing rational at all about what you are saying.
> > > The CMBR cannot be stationary.
> > Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it is that, at any location in the universe, there is a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense.
> > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.
> > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe.

As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow.

> > > I need to do some re-thinking.
> >
> > Great, and I commend you for recognizing this.
>
> The "re-thinking" involved something that I thought might be an error,
> but it turned out it wasn't.

Then I withdraw the commendation.

> My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because
> grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed
> as moving relative to A.

But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e., you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent gibberish.

And you've been unable to even attempt to refute the simple self-evident fact that velocities can only be quantified in terms of specified coordinate systems, and you have been unable to refute the fact that ultimately you are just claiming (unwittingly)
the frame in which the frequency of the CMBR is isotropic should be regarded as absolute rest... even though you deny this, and then re-affirm it, and then deny it, and then re-affirm it... and so on.

> "Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything
> else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate.

But that statement has been thoroughly debunked in these messages, and you have not even attempted to refute the debunking, which is frankly irrefutable. Again, the closest thing in reality to what you are describing is the local trajectory at each location for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is the same in all directions. But you deny that this is what you are talking about, so your claims are just self-indulgent nonsense, for all the reasons explained above in detail.

Ed Lake wrote:

> But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> refuses to look at facts and evidence.

But you point to websites that the
the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:05:11 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I consider myself a VERY HONEST PERSON!.
> > > >
> > > > Someone once said...'...honesty is taken as an index of stupidity.'
> > > >
> > > > So, in certain circles...you cannot be trusted.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot be a cop,
> > > > because who can trust a cop who doesn't take money?
> > > >
> > > > You cannot be a politician.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot be a woman..
> > > >
> > > > You cannot...
> > > >
> > > > the list is too long!
> > > >
> > > > There are three doors..
> > > > one door has a million dollars
> > > > behind the door...
> > > >
> > > > two doors have no lock on it
> > > > only one door has a lock.
> > > >
> > > > Which door would you open?
> > >
> > > Of course, the door with the lock on it has the million dollars behind
> > > the door...
> > >
> > > Still, which door would you open?
> > Of course, Richard Heartz is afraid to answer such a simple question
> > because he is becoming just
> > like the Odd Bodkin, don't answer questions that he don't know the
> > answers to.
> >
> > You won't find the simple question on the internet anywhere else because
> > I just made it up.
> >
> > So, you cannot find the probelm on the internet and you don't know which
> > answer to give so what do they do? They stay silent.
> > They don't want to embarass themslves in front of everyone. They rather
> > commit suicide.
> >
> > They like to to find the answer on the internet so they can
> > twist it around and post the other side of the coin.
> >
> >
> > Have you notice something about Richard Hertz and Paparios? They seem to
> > be both...engineers.
> >
> > And engineers have a tendency to be...'Detail Oriented'.
> >
> >
> > The devil is in the details.
> >
> > "...the rest are details."
> >
> > All of Richard's Hertz post look like....blueprints.
> >
> >
> >
> > 'Detail Oriented'
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Let me see:
>
> Imagination powered, intelligence leveled, challenge driven, goals delimited, detail oriented, .....

I forgot to add you put yourself on top of the totem pole..

"detail oriented" means you get distracted by...details. You're tooooo
close to the trees. You have blueprints of trees!

>
> It sounds like a winning combination for me. Worked every time.
>
> And what is with your internal engines, Starmaker?

"internal engines"???? Do you mean I'm just a colletion of atoms posting
here? Or I'm just a liquid scum on the surface of the earth??

What about Your internal engines? Do you have a Big nose?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> > > >
> > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > > > >
> > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
> > >
> > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> > > thing I just said.
> > >
> > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).
> > >
> > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > > between mass and energy.
> >
> > According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.'
> >
> > ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass).
> >
> > The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English)
>
> To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now.
>
> Now then, Now now.
>
> Another thing...
> if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years.
>
> But that number was derived in..1953.
>
> 1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953????
>
> Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years.
>
> You need permission. From who??? CRANKS?
>

Furthermore,

At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old.

Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.

The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.

So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied????

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:44:53 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:11:29 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 15:30:42 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:14:28 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > > > El viernes, 27 de mayo de 2022 a las 10:08:49 UTC-4, escribió:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Read my paper "What is Time?" https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0281v2.pdf
> > > > > > > > Time is particle spin. Every atom is a tiny clock made from smaller clocks.
> > > > > > > > The particles spin at a specific rate. Motion and gravity slow that rate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Find a location where particles spin at their fastest rate and you have found
> > > > > > > > a stationary point in empty space.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ed
> > > > > > > Nature is what it is. We humans (being a part of Nature) do not have the ability to exactly know how and why Nature does its stuff. We have created "PHYSICAL MODELS" of how WE think Nature works, but none of those models (while quite successful) are (or represent) Nature.
> > > > > > > We do not really know what time it is. Our best current human time operational model is that time is what a clock reads.
> > > > > > > In Nature there are no "clocks" and there are no "meters" and also there are no "frames of reference". All of those are a product of our human thoughts and observations.
> > > > > > > Newton saw an apple falling to the ground and got F=ma as a model of his observation.
> > > > > > > All physical models are a result of human thoughts and observations and there is no total warranty that any of those models is completely correct. We know Newtonian Mechanics is not correct for large masses and speeds. We know General Relativity is not correct for atomic sizes. We know Quantum Mechanics is not correct for large masses, etc, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > > We don't know WHY all electrons in a location oscillate at the same
> > > > > > frequency, but countless experiments show they do. The same with
> > > > > > virtually all particles. So, "why" is not important.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > We also KNOW from experiments that time slows down when a clock
> > > > > > is moving fast. And we know WHY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Actually that is completely nonsense. Moving clocks do tick at the same frequency of a stationary clock (ie 1 tick per second) but the frequency tick reading of the moving clock, when measured from the stationary clock, is lower.
> > > >
> > > > You definitely have problems with English. You are saying the same
> > > > thing I just said.
> > > >
> > > > > > According to Einstein, electrons gain mass when they are moved.
> > > > > That is also nonsense. Speed does not affect an object mass but it affects its momentum (and energy).
> > > >
> > > > And, according to Einstein E=mc2, which means there is a direct relationship
> > > > between mass and energy.
> > >
> > > According to The Code: 'In the beggining, God created the heavens and the earth.'
> > >
> > > ...which means there is a direct relationship heavens (energy) and the earth (mass).
> > >
> > > The operative words are "and the", meaning jointly, together with, including, part of each other....(if you know English)
> >
> > To put it simply, the universe (and everything in it was created at the same time as our Earth. Both are in the Now.
> >
> > Now then, Now now.
> >
> > Another thing...
> > if you ask Google what is the age of the earth today, you get the number 4.543 billion years.
> >
> > But that number was derived in..1953.
> >
> > 1953???? You mean to tell me no progress has been made in Science since 1953????
> >
> > Maybe it is now allowed for you to think pass 4.543 billion years.
> >
> > You need permission. From who??? CRANKS?
> >
>
> Furthermore,
>
> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> 75,000 years old.
>
> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the age of the earth to be
> 306,662,400 years old.
>
> The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
>
>
> So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how come nobody out there sez he lied????
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Blame Lord Kelvin and his thermodynamics calculations.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 12:01:47 PM UTC-5, Stan Fultoni wrote:

(snip)

> > > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.
> > > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe.
> As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow.

You do not expose or debunk any "fallacies," you just state your OPINIONS.

(snip)

> > My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because
> > grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed
> > as moving relative to A.

Hmm. That shows you do not want to discuss anything seriously. I wrote:
"Our problem is that I don't like the mathematical term "frame of reference,"
because mathematicians consider it to be interchangeable with another
"frame of reference." I.e., if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed
as moving relative to A. "

And you distorted what I wrote. Is it because you cannot deal with reality?

> But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e., you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent gibberish.

And you attack me personally. "Infantile self-indulgent verbiage"?
> > "Absolute rest" pertains to a point in space that is "stationary" relative to everything
> > else in the universe AND where time ticks at its fastest rate.
> But that statement has been thoroughly debunked in these messages, and you have not even attempted to refute the debunking, which is frankly irrefutable. Again, the closest thing in reality to what you are describing is the local trajectory at each location for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is the same in all directions. But you deny that this is what you are talking about, so your claims are just self-indulgent nonsense, for all the reasons explained above in detail.

Well, it seems to be a matter of opinion as to who is spouting "self-indulgent
nonsense." I'm only interested in examining facts and evidence. You seem
only interested in arguing opinions. So, I'll make a note to just ignore all posts
by Stan Fultoni from now on.

Ed

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> But you point to websites that the
> the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???

I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?

Ed

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:17:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.
> > > > Well, that is true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe.
> > As always, once the fallacies, inconsistencies, and misunderstandings in your claims are carefully exposed and debunked, you just run away, without even attempting to respond to the individual explanations. That's why your progress is so glacially slow.
> You do not expose or debunk any "fallacies,"...

That's untrue. The previous messages contain a thorough and detailed debunking of each of your misconceptions and fallacies. You didn't even attempt to respond to any of it, you just run away.

> > > My problem is that I don't like the term "frame of reference," because
> > > grown-ups say that if A is moving relative to B, B can also be viewed
> > > as moving relative to A.
>
> And you distorted what I wrote.

I gave a clear statement of the content of what you said (do you deny it?), charitably shorn of your nonsensical and irrelevant crackpotisms, and then gave the clear and correct response... which as always you ignored. You're welcome.

> > But you've admitted in the last few messages that you do exactly the same thing, i.e.,
you recognize that objects have different velocities in terms of different frames of
reference... remember your refrigerator? And you have recognized that your infantile
self-indulgent verbiage about "the speed of light being a reference frame" is incoherent
gibberish.
>
> And you attack me personally. "Infantile self-indulgent verbiage"?

As always, you make the same old excuses for running away when confronted with the facts. Look, when you post to a public discussion forum some infantile self-indulgent verbiage such as "the speed of light is a reference system", you can't be surprised when people point it out, and debunk your misconceptions.

Remember, this is not an "out of the blue" characterization, this comes after I have patiently and politely answered all your questions and explained all your misconceptions and fallacies in full detail... and you've flatly and rudely ignored everything, without even addressing a single point that has been raised. If you would respond like an adult with reasoned considerations, instead of the way you do, you would be treated as a rational adult. But if you insist on passive-aggressively responding with infantile self-indulgent verbiage, your verbiage will continue to be perceived and described as such.

Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > But you point to websites that the
> > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
>
> I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
>
> Ed

What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!

You wrote:

> So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> therefore, two years younger at the reunion."

That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html

and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."

and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > But you point to websites that the
> > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own...."
> > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> >
> > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> >
> > Ed
> What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
>
>
> and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
>
>
> and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> --

Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):

"The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".

This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff

Paparios wrote:
>
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > >
> > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> >
> >
> > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> >
> >
> > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > --
>
> Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):
>
> "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
>
> This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff

another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ...

I forgot the copyright notice!
©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
ajm at cpp.edu

Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality
beavers the whole website!!!!

A. John Mallinckrodt Professor Emeritus of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
The so-called "Twin Paradox"
An explanation using spacetime diagrams of how the so-called "twin
paradox" of special relativity is resolved.
Home

Schedule

Classes

Materials

Interactive Physics

Professional

Personal/Music

Links

Previous Page

Time dilation: The basis for the so-called "twin paradox"

Early in the study of special relativity students learn about the
phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that "moving clocks run slow." Those
who have properly appreciated the fact that all motion is relative and
who have properly appreciated that clocks measure the passage of
physical (including biological) time, ought necessarily to experience
some mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass
each other, the prediction is that both will find the other's clocks to
run slower than their own. This might well seem to be impossible on its
face and, therefore, to invalidate the entire theory. Nevertheless, a
detailed analysis that properly takes into account two other equally
peculiar relativistic effects—the Lorentz contraction and the relativity
of simultaneity—shows that one can build a perfectly sensible
relativistic world in which all observers agree on the only things that
they must agree on including the details of local events (e.g., what
everybody's watches read in a group picture) and the temporal order of
causal sequences (e.g., which came first, the lightning or the thunder?)

The statement of the so-called "twin paradox"

The confusion caused by the phenomenon of time dilation has long been
encapsulated in the so-called "twin paradox" stated as follows*:

One of a pair of twins (the "traveling twin") travels to and returns
from a very distant destination at a speed approaching that of light the
other (the "Earth-bound twin") stays home. Since both twins observe the
other twin to be moving, both find that the other is aging less quickly.
Thus, upon their reunion, both twins will expect—and find!—the other
twin to be younger. This result violates the requirements of a rational
world and, therefore, special relativity is wrong.

* Because much confusion persists to this day about the implications of
the so-called "twin paradox," I hasten to emphasize unequivocally that
the so-called "twin paradox" is not a paradox, that there is no
controversy about its resolution (as we will see), and that it does not
in any way cast suspicion on—let alone invalidate—the theory of special
relativity.

Why there is no paradox

The so-called "twin paradox" is easily resolved by noting that there is
a physically meaningful disinction between the experiences of the two
twins during the trip. The Earth-bound twin remains in a single constant
velocity reference frame the entire time while the traveling twin must
accelerate to turn around and come home. The acceleration causes the
traveling twin to change from one constant velocity reference frame to
another and produces effects that can be measured locally by the
traveling twin in the form of inertial forces that can knock things
over, compress springs, and generally endow objects with weight. As a
result of the fact that their experiences are different, there is no a
priori reason for them to come to the same conclusion.

NB: The "same conclusion" I refer to here—the one they do not come
to!—is the one referred to in the penultimate sentence of the statement
of the so-called "twin paradox" above, that the other twin will be found
to be younger. Indeed, it would be intolerable for special relativity or
any other physical theory to predict that utterly incomprehensible
finding. On the other hand, because both twins, in fact, must agree on
what they find, we demand that any successful theory should be able to
account for that finding from either point of view.

As it turns out, the result is that the traveling twin is younger upon
return than the Earth-bound twin. This is readily understood from the
point of view of the Earth-bound twin who remains at all time in a
single, constant velocity reference frame with respect to which the
traveling twin's clocks are always (except for one instant during the
turnaround) running slow. But how do we understand that conclusion from
the point of view of the traveling twin?

Spacetime diagrams

One of the most illuminating ways of understanding the resolution of the
so-called "twin paradox" is by analyzing carefully drawn, detailed
spacetime diagrams for specific choices of trip distance and velocity. I
have done so below for a trip of three lightyears undertaken at a speed
of 3/5 c (giving a relativistic factor ? = 5/4) in both directions and
with a "turnaround time" of negligible duration. (The approximation of
negligible turnaround time may very well lead to anatomically
unrealistic "g forces" (!) and can be relaxed at the expense of
additional computational complexity, but it makes no qualititative
difference in the result.)

In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes the
traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years
to return for a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run
slow by a factor of 1/? = 4/5 so that the TT ages by eight years, four
years on each leg of the journey, and is, therefore, two years younger
at the reunion.

The view from the reference frame of the Earth

The left panel of the figure below (which you can click on to open a
larger version in a new window), shows the worldlines of the EBT and the
TT in the reference frame of Earth. Note that the TT reaches the
destination at a distance of three lightyears after an elapsed time of
five years in this frame and that the TT has aged only four years at
that point. Note also that the scale of the x and t axes are such that
light travels along lines at a 45 degree angle, i.e., 1 year per light
year, and that the TT's worldlines have a larger slope (representing a
lower speed) of 5/3 years per light year.

Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of Earth,
horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at the same
time, i.e., "lines of simultaneity" for the EBT. The figure also,
however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the reference frame of
the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of simultaneity,
these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper right during the
outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during the inbound leg.
In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the TT's worldline,
3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of these lines
indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly signal, the
TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should be expected
since the TT says the EBT's clock is "moving" and, therefore, running
slow. Note finally that there are two lines of simultaneity linking the
turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and one for the inbound leg.
They indicate that the EBT's instant of simultaneity in the TT's frame
jumps quickly from 3.2 years to 6.8 years during the turnaround as the
TT moves from one reference frame to another.

El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 18:40:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> Paparios wrote:

> > Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):
> >
> > "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
> >
> > This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff
> another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ...
>
> I forgot the copyright notice!
> ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
> ajm at cpp.edu
>
>
> Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality
> beavers the whole website!!!!
>

And your point being what?

Paparios wrote:
>
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 18:40:00 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Paparios wrote:
>
> > > Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):
> > >
> > > "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
> > >
> > > This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff
> > another 'detaied oriented' engineer! ...
> >
> > I forgot the copyright notice!
> > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
> > ajm at cpp.edu
> >
> >
> > Hell, why don't I just post for these 'detaied oriented' mentality
> > beavers the whole website!!!!
> >
>
> And your point being what?

Not 'detailed' enough?

Here is the source code to the page also:

<html><!-- #BeginTemplate "/Templates/basic.dwt" --><!-- DW6 -->
<head>
<!-- #BeginEditable "doctitle" -->
<title>The Twin Paradox - Spacetime diagrams</title>
<!-- #EndEditable -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#990000" vlink="#990000"
alink="#003366">
<table width="95%" border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="100%" nowrap align="left"> <!--
#BeginLibraryItem "/Library/Heading.lbi" --><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="5" color="#000033">A.
John Mallinckrodt&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</font><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" color="#000033" size="3"><i>Professor
Emeritus of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona</i></font><!-- #EndLibraryItem
--></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#003366" width="100" valign="middle"><!--
#BeginEditable "Title" -->
<div align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" color="#FFFFFF" size="4"><b>The <em>so-called
&quot;</em>Twin Paradox&quot; </b></font>
</div>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
<td bgcolor="#FFCC99" width="1000" valign="middle"> <!--
#BeginEditable "Remarks" -->
<div align="left"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" size="2">An explanation using spacetime diagrams of how the
<em>so-called</em> &quot;twin paradox&quot; of special relativity is
resolved.</font></div>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#33CCCC" valign="top"><!-- #BeginLibraryItem
"/Library/Navigation.lbi" --><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif" size="1">
<a href="../index.html">Home</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../schedule.html">Schedule</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../classes.html">Classes</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../materials.html">Materials</a> <br>
<br>
<a href="../ip.html">Interactive Physics</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../professional.html">Professional</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../personal.html">Personal/Music</a><br>
<br>
<a href="../links.html">Links</a><br>
<br>
</font><a href="javascript:history.go(-1)"><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">
<i>Previous Page</i></font></a><!-- #EndLibraryItem --></td>
<td valign="top"><!-- #BeginEditable "Content" -->
<p><strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="3">Time dilation: The basis for the
<em><strong>so-called</strong></em> <strong>&quot;twin
paradox&quot;</strong></font> </strong><p><font face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Early in the study of special relativity
students learn about the phenomenon of time dilation, i.e., that
&quot;moving clocks run slow.&quot; Those who have properly appreciated
the fact that all motion is relative <em>and</em> who have properly
appreciated that clocks measure the passage of physical (including
<em>biological</em>) time, ought <em>necessarily </em>to experience some
mental discomfort at this result. After all when two observers pass each
other, the prediction is that <em>both</em> will find the
<em>other</em>'s clocks to run slower than their own. This might well
<em>seem</em> to be impossible on its face and, therefore, to invalidate
the entire theory. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis that properly takes
into account two other equally peculiar relativistic effects&mdash;the
Lorentz contraction and the relativity of simultaneity&mdash;shows that
one can build a perfectly sensible relativistic world in which all
observers agree on the only things that they <em>must</em> agree on
including the details of local events (e.g., what everybody's watches
read in a group picture) and the temporal order of causal sequences
(e.g., which came first, the lightning or the thunder?)</font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>The statement of the
</strong><em><strong>so-called</strong></em> <strong>&quot;twin
paradox&quot;</strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
confusion caused by the phenomenon of time dilation has long been
encapsulated in the <em>so-called</em> &quot;twin paradox&quot; stated
as follows*:</font> <blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">One of a pair of twins (the &quot;traveling twin&quot;)
travels to and returns from a very distant destination at a speed
approaching that of light the other (the &quot;Earth-bound twin&quot;)
stays home. Since both twins observe the other twin to be moving, both
find that the other is aging less quickly. Thus, upon their reunion,
<em>both</em> twins will expect&mdash;<em>and find!&mdash;</em>the
<em>other</em> twin to be younger. This result violates the requirements
of a rational world and, therefore, special relativity is
wrong.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">*
Because much confusion persists to this day about the implications of
the <em>so-called</em> &quot;twin paradox,&quot; I hasten to emphasize
<em>unequivocally</em> that the <em>so-called</em> &quot;twin
paradox&quot; is <strong><em>not </em></strong>a paradox, that there is
<em><strong>no</strong></em> controversy about its resolution (as we
will see), and that it does <em><strong>not </strong></em>in any way
cast suspicion on&mdash;let alone invalidate&mdash;the theory of special
relativity. </font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>Why there is no paradox </strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
<em>so-called</em> &quot;twin paradox&quot; is easily resolved by noting
that there <em>is</em> a physically meaningful disinction between the
experiences of the two twins during the trip. The Earth-bound twin
remains in a single constant velocity reference frame the entire time
while the traveling twin must accelerate to turn around and come home.
The acceleration causes the traveling twin to change from one constant
velocity reference frame to another and produces effects that can be
measured <em>locally</em> by the traveling twin in the form of inertial
forces that can knock things over, compress springs, and generally endow
objects with weight. As a result of the fact that their experiences
<em>are</em> different, there is no <em>a priori</em> reason for them to
come to the same conclusion. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NB:
The &quot;same conclusion&quot; I refer to here&mdash;the one they do
<em>not</em> come to!&mdash;is the one referred to in the penultimate
sentence of the statement of the <em>so-called </em>&quot;twin
paradox&quot; above, that the <em>other</em> twin will be found to be
<em>younger</em>. Indeed, it would be intolerable for special relativity
or any other physical theory to predict that utterly incomprehensible
finding. On the other hand, because both twins, in fact, <em>must</em>
agree on what they find, we demand that any successful theory should be
able to <em>account</em> for that finding from either point of
view.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
it turns out, the result is that the <em>traveling twin</em> is younger
upon return than the Earth-bound twin. This is readily understood from
the point of view of the Earth-bound twin who remains at all time in a
single, constant velocity reference frame with respect to which the
traveling twin's clocks are always (except for one instant during the
turnaround) running slow. But how do we understand that conclusion from
the point of view of the traveling twin?</font>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><strong>Spacetime diagrams</strong> </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One
of the most illuminating ways of understanding the resolution of the
<em>so-called</em> &quot;twin paradox&quot; is by analyzing carefully
drawn, detailed spacetime diagrams for specific choices of trip
distance and velocity. I have done so below for a trip of three
lightyears undertaken at a speed of 3/5 <em>c</em> (giving a
relativistic factor &gamma; = 5/4) in both directions and with a
&quot;turnaround time&quot; of negligible duration. (The approximation
of negligible turnaround time may very well lead to anatomically
unrealistic &quot;g forces&quot; (!) and can be relaxed at the expense
of additional computational complexity, but it makes no qualititative
difference in the result.)</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In
this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes the traveling
twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return
for a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a
factor of 1/&gamma; = 4/5 so that the TT ages by eight years, four years
on each leg of the journey, and is, therefore, two years younger at the
reunion.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><em>The view from the reference frame of the
Earth</em></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
left panel of the figure below (which you can click on to open a larger
version in a new window), shows the worldlines of the EBT and the TT in
the reference frame of Earth. Note that the TT reaches the destination
at a distance of three lightyears after an elapsed time of five years in
this frame and that the TT has aged only four years at that point. Note
also that the scale of the <em>x</em> and <em>t</em> axes are such that
light travels along lines at a 45 degree angle, i.e., 1 year per light
year, and that the TT's worldlines have a <em>larger</em> slope
(representing a lower speed) of 5/3 years per light year. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Because the figure is drawn from the frame of reference of
Earth, horizontal lines represent collections of events that occur at
the same time, i.e., &quot;lines of simultaneity&quot; for the EBT. The
figure also, however, includes a few lines of simultaneity in the
reference frame of the TT as shown in gray. Because of the relativity of
simultaneity, these lines are tilted and run from lower left to upper
right during the outbound leg and from lower right to upper left during
the inbound leg. In both cases the slope is the inverse of that of the
TT's worldline, 3/5 years per light year. For instance, note that one of
these lines indicates that at the moment the TT sends the third yearly
signal, the TT would say that the EBT's clock reads 2.4 years as should
be expected since the TT says the EBT's clock is &quot;moving&quot; and,
therefore, running slow. Note finally that there are two lines of
simultaneity linking the turnaround point, one for the outbound leg and
one for the inbound leg. They indicate that the EBT's instant of
simultaneity <em>in the TT's frame</em> jumps quickly from 3.2 years to
6.8 years during the turnaround as the TT moves from one reference frame
to another. </font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Both the EBT and the TT send light signals to each other at yearly
intervals as shown by the red and blue lines respectively and each
transmission is marked with the number of the year at which it was sent.
Note that the TT receives only the first two signals from the EBT on the
outbound leg and recieves all eight remaining signals on the inbound leg
with the final, tenth, signal received at the moment of the reunion.
Note also that the EBT receives the last of the four outbound signals
(including the fourth at the turnaround point) at year eight and
receives the four inbound signals during only the last two
years.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Thus, we see that the EBT receives signals at the rate of
one every two years for the first eight years and then at a rate of two
per year for the final two years. This amounts to a total of (1/2)*8 +
(2)*2 = 8 signals received from the TT. On the other hand the TT
receives signals <em>also</em> at the rate of one every two years for
only the first four years and then at a rate of two per year for the
final four years. This amounts to a total of (1/2)*4 + (2)*4 = 10
signals received from the EBT.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It
is well worth noting the fact that <em>both</em> twins agree that they
receive signals at a rate of 1/2 per year (low frequency) when those
signals reflect relative motion away from each other and both twins
<em>also</em> agree that they receive signals at a rate of 2 per year
(high frequency) when </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">those signals reflect relative motion toward each
from each other. The difference is that, for the TT, the low and high
frequency signals occupy equal portions of the trip while, for the EBT,
the low frequency signals are observed during 80% of the trip.</font><a
href="twinparadox/twins.jpg" target="_blank"><img
src="twinparadox/twins_small.jpg" width="800" height="640"
border="0"></a>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><em>The view from the reference frame of the outbound
traveler </em></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
right panel of the figure, shows the worldlines of the EBT and the TT in
the outbound reference frame. Note that, in this reference frame, the
reunion takes place 12.5 years after the departure in keeping with the
fact that the EBT's clocks run slow the entire time. The TT, however,
leaves this reference frame at the turnaraound point four years into the
trip when the EBT's clock reads 3.2 years as previously noted. Note
also that the EBT is 2.4 lightyears away at this time, the largest
separation of the trip in this frame, properly reflecting the Lorentz
contraction of the 3 lightyear distance observed in the reference frame
of Earth.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On
the inbound leg, the TT moves at a speed of -15/17<em> c</em> as
obtained from the relativistic addition of the speeds -3/5 <em>c</em>
and -3/5 <em>c</em>. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a
factor of 1/&gamma; = 17/8, which is reflected in the fact that it takes
just over two years for the TT's clock to advance each additional year.
The worldlines for the light signals are again shown along with the
lines of simultaneity for the TT and they confirm every feature
previously noted in the spacetime diagram for the reference frame of
Earth</font>.
<p><font size="3"><strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Relationship to the relativistic Doppler effect and another
way to predict the amount of differential aging</font></strong></font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It
is most interesting to note that, <em>no matter what</em> speed is used
for the outbound and inbound legs, the TT will receive signals at a rate
of <em>f</em>_out &lt; <em>f</em>_o (the
transmission frequency) for half the trip and at a rate of
<em>f</em>_in = 1/<em>f</em>_out &gt;
<em>f</em>_o for the other half. Thus, the average frequency
is (<em>f</em>_out+<em>f</em>_in)/2 which is readily
shown to be greater than <em>f</em>_o. This insures that the
TT will <em>receive</em> more signals during the trip then he
<em>sends</em> and will, therefore, expect to find the EBT to be
<em>older</em> at the reunion, in perfect harmony with what the EBT
expects to find.</font>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Indeed, one can use the relativistic Doppler formula
<em>f</em>_out = <em>f</em>_o
[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 <em>directly</em> to predict the
relative age differential. For instance, at a speed of 12/13 <em>c</em>,
<em>f</em>_out = <em>f</em>_o
[(1-v/c)/(1+v/c)]^1/2 = (1/5)<em>f</em>_o.
Accordingly, the average frequency received by the TT is
(1/5+5)<em>f</em>_o/2 = (13/5)<em>f</em>_o implying
(correctly) that the EBT will have aged 13/5 as much as the
TT.</font>
<p>
<!-- #EndEditable --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor="#FFCC99" valign="top"><!--
#BeginLibraryItem "/Library/Footer.lbi" -->
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
height="39">
<tr>
<td width="234" valign="top">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">&copy;2001
by A. John Mallinckrodt<br>
</font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size="1">ajm
at cpp.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.cpp.edu/%7Eajm">http://www.cpp.edu/~ajm
</a> </font></p>
</td>
<td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
<td width="100%" valign="top">
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">The
space
for this page is provided by <a href="http://www.cpp.edu">Cal
Poly
Pomona</a>&nbsp;and is subject to its policies.
Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not
necessarily
represent official policy of the University. I take full
responsibility
for the information presented and will appreciate being informed
of errors
or inaccuracies.</font></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"><img height="1" width="234" src="file:///Macintosh
HD/Desktop Folder/John's Stuff/My New Site/images/spacer.gif"></td>
<td><img height="1" width="20" src="file:///Macintosh HD/Desktop
Folder/John's Stuff/My New Site/images/spacer.gif"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- #EndLibraryItem --></td>
</tr>

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:17:37 PM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I was talking about the speed of PASSING light. It relates to Einstein's
> example, from one of his books, which described how light is measured
> on a body moving away from the sun at a constant speed of 1,000 kps.

But in the passage you are referring to, Einstein explicitly refers to c-v as what one might expect the speed of light to be relative to someone receding from the sun at speed v (and of course, by the same token, one might expect c+v if approaching), and then he explains that, actually, the same ray of light moves at speed c, both relative to the sun and relative to the frame of the receding object. In your attempts to explain this, you habitually attribute it to the different length of a second, which refers to time dilation. But then I explain that time dilation (by itself) cannot account for this. It requires the relativity of simultaneity (not to mention length contraction) as well.

> Okay. I guess you cannot say that light is a "reference system" if there
> is no known way to compare your speed to that "reference system."

Right, and the reason there is “no known way” is called the principle of relativity, according to which the speed of light (in vacuum) has the value c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. In fact, all the laws of physics take the same form in terms of every such system, so there is no physical way, locally, of singling out one of them as “absolute rest”. Of course, if we like, we can choose the isotropic CMBR frame, on cosmological grounds, but that doesn’t negate the local principle of relativity and the equivalence of every local system of inertial coordinates for the formulation of physical laws, and it doesn’t negate the fact that local inertial coordinate systems are reciprocally related by Lorentz transformations, which entail length contraction, time dilation, and the relativity of simultaneity.

> I was just trying to debunk the idea that all motion is relative, and if
> A is moving at 100 kps relative to B, then B is also moving at 100 kps
> relative to A. That is nonsense. We know who is moving faster because
> one of them had to ACCELERATE to get to the higher speed.

Nope, what you're describing is just “dead reckoning”, using the history of acceleration to determine the current position and velocity of an object, but that is only relative to the position and velocity at the start of your dead reckoning. To claim that this gives absolute position and velocity, you need to track the history of each object all the way back to some initial state that you define as the state of zero position and zero velocity. But this just brings you back again to the isotropic CMBR frame, if you apply dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang. But, again, this does not negate any of the facts that I’ve explained to you, and it still leaves you with all your beliefs being conclusively debunked..

> Okay, there is no way to measure your speed relative to the speed of light,
> so while you speed may be some percentage of the speed of light, there
> is no way to calculate that percentage.

You are still confusing the choice of units with the choice of reference frame. Velocities can only be quantified in terms of a specified system of coordinates… by definition. Now, once you have specified a system of coordinates, you can easily determine the velocity of any entity (including a pulse of light) in terms of those coordinates.

> The speed of things does not depend upon the frame of reference because
> the frame of reference does not represent REALITY. It is something picked
> as a reference purely for doing mathematics.

Your reasoning is faulty, because some quantities are inherently coordinate-dependent, and velocity is one of those quantities, just as are momentum and energy. It makes no sense to claim “speed” is some kind of absolute primitive quantity, independent of a system of reference.

> I don't define "reference systems."

Right, and that is your fundamental problem, because the quantities you are interested in discussing, such as positions and speeds and accelerations, etc., are all defined in terms of reference systems. Without defining what reference system you are referring to, your words are meaningless.

> I wasn't relating anything to the CMBR.

Well, the isotropic CMBR frame is the only context in which you could salvage any semblance of rationality in the things you are saying. If indeed you are not talking about the cosmological CMBR frame, then there's nothing rational at all about what you are saying.

> The CMBR cannot be stationary.

Again, it isn’t that the CMBR is stationary (that doesn’t even make sense), it's that, at any location in the universe, there's a unique trajectory through time for which the frequency of the impinging CMBR is maximally isotropic (the same in all directions). This yields what can be regarded as the cosmological “absolute rest” foliation. You see, if you applied your dead reckoning all the way back to the big bang, this is the absolute speeds you would get. But you reject this, so you are back to talking pure nonsense.

> I'm going to have to find a better way to describe things.

Well, that's true, but more importantly, you need to first understand the things you are trying to describe, and the first step is for you to understand what's been explained above. If there's anything you still don't understand, just ask.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> I forgot the copyright notice!
> ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
> ajm at cpp.edu

You violated copyright law by positing the entire article here.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 4:05:35 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > But you point to websites that the
> > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own...."
> > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> >
> > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> >
> > Ed
> What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
>
>
> and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
>
>
> and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Okay, but it was Paparios who first posted that link on May 28, 2022, 8:03:52 PM.
I just commented on his arguments about it.

Ed

Stan Fultoni wrote:
>
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 3:40:00 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > I forgot the copyright notice!
> > ©2001 by A. John Mallinckrodt
> > ajm at cpp.edu
>
> You violated copyright law by positing the entire article here.

Right now I'm parked at the red zone.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Paparios wrote:
>
> El lunes, 30 de mayo de 2022 a las 17:05:35 UTC-4, The Starmaker escribió:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But, I'm also tired of arguing with someone who misinterprets everything and
> > > > > refuses to look at facts and evidence.
> > > > But you point to websites that the
> > > > the web page owner said: "...the opinions expressed here are my own..."
> > > > opinion: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > > > Don't you bother to check your facts and evidence???
> > >
> > > I'd like to check YOUR "facts." Which websites are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > What do you mean which websites? There is only ONE website!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > So what? That web page says, "In this case the Earth-bound twin (EBT) finds that it takes
> > > the traveling twin (TT) five years to reach the destination and five years to return for
> > > a total of ten years. During this time the TT's clocks run slow by a factor of 1/γ = 4/5
> > > so that the TT ages by eight years, four years on each leg of the journey, and is,
> > > therefore, two years younger at the reunion."
> > That quote only points to ONE website: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
> >
> >
> > and at the very bottom the disclaimer reads: "Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own.."
> >
> >
> > and the definition of the word opinion is: not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> > --
>
> Of course you lie and present not the complete disclaimer (related to the university which hosts the document):

Oh, I get it..(besides your 'detail orriented' handicapp, you seem to be from a different country and don't know the English language very well.
I understand, English is a very complicated language to learn. Too many details.

I'll explain then the English language...

Instead of posting a whole webpage for others to read, or a whole paragrah, or even a very long sentence..in the English language you suppose to take

a sentence from a paragrah...the you put a quote, Like this", then you add three dots like this...

"...the opinions expressed here are my own..."

So that means the quotes and three dots on either side means there are words before/after the sentence.

To save readers time, instead of posting the whole paragrah (like stupid engineers do), you just add "and three dots on eithe end or both ends.

***
Quotations--Ellipses Use an ellipsis of three dots ( ... ) to eliminate parts of a source you do not wish to quote. For material omitted at the end of the sentence, add a period to the three ellipsis dots. That means you'll have four dots at the end of a sentence.
***

comprendre?

ooohhh la la?

>
> "The space for this page is provided by Cal Poly Pomona and is subject to its policies. Nevertheless, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent official policy of the University. I take full responsibility for the information presented and will appreciate being informed of errors or inaccuracies".
>
> This is quite different from your nonsensical stuff

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.