Twins in space

[space...@gmail.com]

A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock. Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....

Mitchell Raemsch

[xxein]

On Aug 18, 8:03 pm, spacespe...@gmail.com wrote:
> A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock. Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

xxein: School is coming back in session again. Ask your third grade
teacher. You know her quite well after having been there for the last
umpteen years.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 02:03, spacespe...@gmail.com wrote:
> A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock. Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

No they will not Mitch, using NASA Grail project it is proven that
discrete signals can be used to measure signal propagation speed, the
spatial separation of signals is not variant between different frames.
However two receivers travelling towards an emitter transmitting
discrete signals will not receive signals with the same intervall.(See
grail)

Discrepancies between the measured discrete signals implies a
different signal propagation speed relative the two receivers.
According to Einstein and special relativity each signal propagate
towards the receivers at same speed regardless their velocities. And
that is not true as the signal intervalls clearly, shows unless you
wanna give the surrounding space around each ship turdlike aether
qualities where the distance between signals is different within the
two frames.

There in only one distance between earth and moon for two ships
travelling towards moon at any given moment with different velocities,
because spatial separation do not have turdlike qualities, it does not
contract....................

[Don Stockbauer]

See the book "E = Einstein" for a good explanation of the Twins
paradox.

[space...@gmail.com]

Children are brightest at the age of six.

Mitchell Raemsch

[JT]

Well at least they know that spatial separation is AKA a distance, and
they know it is not dependent upon the speed of the measure equipment
that is roling to measure distance between the two separated points,
isn't it a bit funny that relativists actually beleive that a
roadpainting car with a roler make the markings closer and closer the
faster the car goes, such jackass physics it must be the shrinking
diameter of roler responsible for the closer markings ;D.

The convoluted turddistances within Lorentz transform is not presented
to youths, until the have to learn special relativity.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 05:29, spacespe...@gmail.com wrote:

Spatial separation is a fundamental unvariable unit called distance. A
proper distance is always measured in restframe of the spatially
separated objects making up the distance.
If a relativist tell you that the distance between two objects differ
depending on the speed of measurer/receiver tell him to take his
turdmeters elsewhere. We do not live in the naive local inertial
observer universe of Einstein. We live in the one with consensus about
distances.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 05:29, spacespe...@gmail.com wrote:

You see Mitch a meter is no longer a unit, the SR community hijacked
it and made it variant, a convoluted turd rolled crisp with a circular
definition of lightspeed, if you will you can envision it as a spring
in the aether moving through Lorentz aether where the spring is used
as the ruler..... just like the relativist love to ponder around their
pole in the barn paradox,without understanding what their doing.

Stop using fake meters use distances instead Mitch, spatial separation
is not frame dependent...... go figure.

[JT]

If you think the clock of the faster moving receiver will go slower
you are in for a surprise, by accelerating Grails second receiver to
same speed it will be proven that the clocks still in synch.........
Although ship A travelled a lot further in the high velocity and
therefor should suffer more time dilation...... Surprise clocks still
in perfect synch although the initial spatial separation have
expanded, time dilation is an illusion of created by the ongoing
spatial separation. When it stops and the two clocks transfer their
readings to the third part receiver earth they will remain perfectly
in synch although one should suffer from more time dilation then the
other due to the longer time at high speed.

Grail kicks ass.....

[Poutnik]

space...@gmail.com from space...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)

How do you determine who is fast and who is slow ?

Both are fast or slow, depending to what you relate their movement.



--
Poutnik

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 12:54, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> spacespe...@gmail.com from spacespe...@gmail.com

It is determined of the path they supposed to travel a kid by 6 years
old know that velocity of an object always measured between two
relative staionary point along the travellers path, did you not know
this most six year old does?

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 12:54, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> spacespe...@gmail.com from spacespe...@gmail.com

Take for example Grails two ships their velocity is measured relative
the initial body they accelerated from(Earth), or relative their
designated destination. Generally speaking velocity is relative
anybody you chose to measure the velocity from but two actually get a
timing you will actually need more then a point of origin you need a
designated point of destination, and a measured distance between those
to points to be able to calculate the speed which the vehicle is
moving between the two point. That is why one prefer to measure
velocity for objects moving perpendicular or parallell the objects
marking the origin and the destination point. Elsewhere you have to
use a little Pythagoras to measure the objects *ACTUAL* relative speed
vs the space path.

It isn't that much more to say about velocities, unless one chose to
invoke Einsteins fairy and turd fantasies.

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:31:57 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On 19 Aug, 12:54, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > spacespe...@gmail.com from spacespe...@gmail.com
> > posted Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > > A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same
> > > measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By
> > > difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock.
> > > Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....
> >
> > How do you determine who is fast and who is slow ?
> >
> > Both are fast or slow, depending to what you relate their movement.
> >
>

> It is determined of the path they supposed to travel a kid by 6 years
> old know that velocity of an object always measured between two
> relative staionary point along the travellers path, did you not know
> this most six year old does?

Things are not so easy as you and 6 year old kid may think.
You are catched into easy trap of your common sense.

Kids think the Earth is the absolute stationary reference frames.
But even high school students should stop thinking like that.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:54:03 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On 19 Aug, 12:54, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > spacespe...@gmail.com from spacespe...@gmail.com
> > posted Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > > A high speed twin passing a low speed twin will both see the same
> > > measurement of time. Fast in space like light is slow time. By
> > > difference in less speed the other has always the faster clock.
> > > Passing twins will see it that way and there is no lost time....
> >
> > How do you determine who is fast and who is slow ?
> >
> > Both are fast or slow, depending to what you relate their movement.
> >

Note that I have not explicitly stated
my question was rhetorical question, not real one.

> Take for example Grails two ships their velocity is measured relative
> the initial body they accelerated from(Earth), or relative their
> designated destination.

I need not be taught about relativity of velocities.



--
Poutnik

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 15:01, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com

Well the truth is the two clocks of Grail still in synch although one
should suffer from more time dilatoin vs the other due to longer time
in highvelocity, when compared with the reference clock kept at earth.
This clearly invalidate Einsteins theory of special relativity. I do
not think you fully understand the concept of spatial separation,
neither did Einstein.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 14:55, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com

You are a moron dear Poutnik and i have the IQ to prove it. I said
velocity is measured relative an origin and a relative stationary
destination point, it is of none importance if a third party observer
saying these two points are moving relative his inertial frame the
time keeping is always using the relative origin and destination as
references.

No people with high IQ do not stop thinking like that they know what
spacepath and velocity is and understand that the relative angle must
be used to measure the ACTUAL relative speed, only indoctrinated
parrots beleive in turd meters and do not know that a distance
unvariant between frames, the distance between an origin and a
destination point, is not a framedependent AKA two objects at
different travelling different velocities will not each effect the
affect the actual spacepath / length measured between them. Spatial
separation AKA distance is unvariant, only TURD meters is observer
dependent.... Go figure....

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:10:30 -0700 (PDT)

> On 19 Aug, 14:55, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Things are not so easy as you and 6 year old kid may think.
> > You are catched into easy trap of your common sense.
> >
> > Kids think the Earth is the absolute stationary reference frames.
> > But even high school students should stop thinking like that.
> >

> You are a moron dear Poutnik and i have the IQ to prove it.

Until others confirm your IQ I do not take it.

> I said velocity is measured relative an origin and a relative
> stationary destination point, it is of none importance if a third
> party observer saying these two points are moving relative his
> inertial frame the time keeping is always using the relative origin
> and destination as references.

Relative velocity have no preferreed points of reference.

Technical note - try to construct your sentences easy to read,
for the reader being able to focus to their content.
Otherwise readeds struggle to understand
general grammatical and semantic structures.

As not native english, it could be not easy.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:14:58 -0700 (PDT)

> Well the truth is the two clocks of Grail still in synch although one
> should suffer from more time dilatoin vs the other due to longer time
> in highvelocity, when compared with the reference clock kept at earth.
> This clearly invalidate Einsteins theory of special relativity. I do
> not think you fully understand the concept of spatial separation,
> neither did Einstein.

I am afraid you are heavily mistaken.

Time dilation was measured experimentally multiple times.

Current technology is able to detect it
even at level of speed of 10 m/s.


--
Poutnik

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 15:43, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com

Precisely that is why the scientist so baffeled by the Grail clocks
still keeped in synch...... they should not be according to relativity

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:04:34 -0700 (PDT)

Do you have reference to that experiment,
as I do not follow the thread from beginning ?

--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

[JT]

You can read about Grail at NASA, and their different start velocities
they did end up though at same velocity (going through same
acceleration curve). But at different point in time thus one should
suffered a longer time of time dilation VS earth then the other.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 15:40, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com

> posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > On 19 Aug, 14:55, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Things are not so easy as you and 6 year old kid may think.
> > > You are catched into easy trap of your common sense.
>
> > > Kids think the Earth is the absolute stationary reference frames.
> > > But even high school students should stop thinking like that.
>
> > You are a moron dear Poutnik and i have the IQ to prove it.
>
> Until others confirm your IQ I do not take it.
>
> > I said velocity is measured relative an origin and a relative
> > stationary destination point, it is of none importance if a third
> > party observer saying these two points are moving relative his
> > inertial frame the time keeping is always using the relative origin
> > and destination as references.
>
> Relative velocity have no preferreed points of reference.

Your a joke, an inertial frame do need a point of origin and
destination and their spatial separation agreed upon for measurement
of velocity, this is always the prefered frame for measurement
understood????????

And this adhere to both timelike and spacelike separations AKA
intervalls, you do not measure spatial separation by having a car
using a moving vehicle drawing markers using timelike separation as
start off when creating distances. You could if you could guarantee
the velocity of vehicle was invariant, but this has be proven very
hard instead one use a defined "length" or circumreference agreed upon
in the inertial frame to make markers along a path and thus you can
have agreed distances between spatial separated points.

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:22:05 -0700 (PDT)

> On 19 Aug, 15:40, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I said velocity is measured relative an origin and a relative
> > > stationary destination point, it is of none importance if a third
> > > party observer saying these two points are moving relative his
> > > inertial frame the time keeping is always using the relative origin
> > > and destination as references.
> >
> > Relative velocity have no preferreed points of reference.
>
> Your a joke, an inertial frame do need a point of origin and
> destination and their spatial separation agreed upon for measurement
> of velocity, this is always the prefered frame for measurement
> understood????????

Not if we clarify the terms to speak the same language.

inertial frame does need a point of origin of coordinate system
inertial frame does need a point of destination nor origin
in sense of statrt and end point of motion.

Reference point of velocity measure is the point
wrt it the velocity is measured.

There is infinite number of reference points
wrt which the velocity of object can be measured.
And no preferred among them.

>
> And this adhere to both timelike and spacelike separations AKA
> intervalls, you do not measure spatial separation by having a car
> using a moving vehicle drawing markers using timelike separation as
> start off when creating distances.

You need not.

> You could if you could guarantee
> the velocity of vehicle was invariant, but this has be proven very
> hard

You would have first existing absolute rest.

[Poutnik]

Poutnik from pou...@privacy.invalid
posted Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:43:07 +0200

> inertial frame does need a point of destination nor origin
> in sense of statrt and end point of motion.
>

Correction

inertial frame does NOT need a point of destination nor origin
in sense of statt and end point of motion.

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 16:47, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Poutnik from pout...@privacy.invalid

You are aware that all matter have extension in space, everything not
containing real objects with a measured spatial separation (using an
invariant unit) is just futile monkey buisness measuring space turds
on piece of paper.
A velocity in freespace can not be measured without reference objects
with a known spatial separation, how old are you? Shouldn't you know
this thing at your age?

[JT]

On 19 Aug, 16:43, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com

What absolute rest there is no such thing, measurements is all about
consensus using a common unit within a frame of reference. Relativists
really doesn't measure anything they juggle turds, until they get
bored. A unit is invariant by nature, it is not a property of
velocity, distance between point A and B (at rest worth eachother) is
not dependent upon object C's velocity when it pass A.

[Y]

While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
opened.

-y

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:55:57 -0700 (PDT)

> A velocity in freespace can not be measured without reference objects
> with a known spatial separation, how old are you? Shouldn't you know
> this thing at your age?
>

And exactly that I have been saying too by other words
for multiple times.
How old are you? Shouldn't you recognize it this thing at your age?

BTW I am 47, graduated as master of science in Analytical chemistry.
My mark for physics at Masaryk University was excellent.

I am not a physicist, physics is just partly related to my area,
partly as a hobby.

[Poutnik]

JT from jonas.t...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:05:18 -0700 (PDT)

> > > You could if you could guarantee
> > > the velocity of vehicle was invariant, but this has be proven very
> > > hard
> >
> > You would have first existing absolute rest.
>
> What absolute rest there is no such thing,

Exactly, you may noticed >would< .

[Poutnik]

Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)

>
> While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> opened.
>

You mix the things.
Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.

Acceleration and rotation can be relative,
but have at the same time also absolute value.

[Y]

On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> Y from yanar...@hotmail.com

> posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
> > While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> > motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> > opened.
>
> You mix the things.
> Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.

That is rich coming from you Poutnik, who repeatedly exclaims that
motion requires time.

-y

[Y]

It's almost as if your now claiming that motion is independent of
velocity. Which is something I have been trying to teach you for a
while.

-y

[Poutnik]

Y from yana...@hotmail.com
posted Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:55:41 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On Aug 22, 11:52 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 9:31 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> > > posted Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > > While motion is relative, if you shake two cans of coke where the
> > > > motion remains synchronised wrt each other, they still explode when
> > > > opened.

You could you come to such a stupid thing, that if cans shaken
synchronously, they will not explode ? It is basic misunderstanding
of even Galileo relativity.

> >
> > > You mix the things.
> > > Velocity is relative, not the motion in general.
> >
> > That is rich coming from you Poutnik, who repeatedly exclaims that
> > motion requires time.

Without existence of time, the time change is not possible.
That is why motion requires time.

> >
> > -y
>
> It's almost as if your now claiming that motion is independent of
> velocity. Which is something I have been trying to teach you for a
> while.
>
> -y

[space...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:06:00 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
> Y from yana...@hotmail.com
>
> posted Wed, 22 Aug 2012 06:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>

Distance is curved. Frama place motion geometry is also curved moving in distance.

Mitchell Raaemsch