Article View: sci.physics
Article #1338Re: Twins Paradox Resolved
From: John C. Baez
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:37
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:37
14 lines
1160 bytes
1160 bytes
In article <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes: > After 25 messages in three days on the Twins Paradox, the silence over >the past few days has been deafening. Perhaps because those who have enough skill to become really interested in your version of the Twin Paradox already worked it out in the last go-around. Not that I mean any disrespect to this version. But I wasted 3 hours last week working through all sorts of variations on the Twin Paradox with some mathematician colleagues last week, so I'm twinned out. Just in case it ain't abundantly clear to all those lurkers out there - the Twin "Paradox" is not a paradox, just an amusing puzzle.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul22.153702.25130@galois.mit.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!galois!riesz!jbaezReferences:
<BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.physics Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!galois!riesz!jbaez From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) Subject: Re: Twins Paradox Resolved Message-ID: <1992Jul22.153702.25130@galois.mit.edu> Sender: news@galois.mit.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: riesz Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA References: <BrrztE.J4u@well.sf.ca.us> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:37:02 GMT Lines: 15