granpa

if A and B are both at the origin at T=0 and A instantly accelerates to v at T=0 then you just switch frames immediately to the new frame. In that frame it is B that is moving. Therefore it is B's clock that is ticking slower in that frame. At T=1 B stops moving in that frame. In that frame it is therefore B that ages less. I suspect that you are just arguing with people to try to get them to do your homework for you. I wouldnt have posted this answer but it was trivial and I couldnt resist the urge to point out how obviously wrong you are.

any accelerating charge will emit electromagnetic radiation. This is very basic stuff. If you dont understand even this then maybe you shouldnt be trying to figure out nuclear fusion. You would probably be better of studying the basics first. I very much doubt that anyone here is going to take the time to try to explain fusion to you when you dont even understand something as simple as charges emitting electromagnetic radiation.

In the new frame both will agree that B is younger.

lol Theres no such thing as a 'table'. just a construction make of wood and nails for the purpose of holding things up off the ground.

lol Thats called being super 'argumentative'.

dunno. consider the case where vinitial=0 xinitial=0 then v=sqrt(x) v is double valued. It can be positive or negative corresponding to t>0 and t<0 respectively

that implies that space stretches in a gravity well. (only in the direction of the gravitational fied lines)

time runs slower in the gravity well so the light becomes compressed. There is no need for breaks. This can be seen easily with special relativity. I dont see any easy way to solve for length contraction in a gravity well.

I am granpa at physics forums its confusing because i dont know whether to scroll up or down. sure it only take a moment to figure out but when you click on a hundred email links a day it adds up to a lot of needless aggravation. ok its prabably not 100/day but it is quite a few.

see "Thread Display Mode" under " Thread Display Options" at http://www.physicsforums.com/profile.php?do=editoptions (you might need an accout though) the option for me are linear-oldest first linear-newest first all my forums except this one offer this as an option Yes. maybe that is the thing to do. I'll just change them all to display oldest first and I'll just always click on the little arrow thing. On the other hand, That might not work for links in emails. I subscribe to a lot of threads with instant notification via email

thats not what i mean. when viewing one particular thread i want newer posts to be above older posts thats how all my other forums are set up and it confuses me when i come here and its different.

how do I set the display order so that newest posts are at displayed first

the rate and even the direction of ticking of the stationary clock from the accelerating twins point of view will depend on the distance between them.

think of its fourier transform

the twins paradox is non-intuitive enough without dragging doppler effect into it. its all about relativity of simultaneity and how it changes whenever one accelerates. look it up http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=314080

the classical explanation for gravity is that active gravitational mass creates a gravitational field that acts on passive gravitational mass causing it to accelerate toward the active gravitational mass. the general relativity explanation for gravity is that inertial mass causes massive bodies to move in straight lines (or rather geodesics) through 4D spacetime which is itself distorted by the same massive bodies thus explaining the fact that all objects fall at the same rate in any given gravitational field. (this is known as the equivalence principle and strictly speaking means that passive gravitational mass is always proportional to inertial mass.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_(general_relativity) if that doesnt answer your question then I dont know what more you want.

well yeah. thats a good question too.

you are saying that something caused the beginning to happen? If that were the case then the beginning wouldn't be the beginning because something that existed before the beginning caused it to happen. you can only go so far back in time and then you reach the beginning. you just cant go any further. Just as its meaningless to ask what is north of the north pole so its also meaningless to ask what happened before the beginning and it is meaningless therefore to ask what caused the beginning to happen. it isn't that the answer is incomprehensible. Its that the question you are asking is simply meaningless.

you cant go before the beginning anymore than you can go north of the north pole why assume that everything came from nothing. Isnt it simpler to just assume that everything came from everything. if we assume that the universe began in the simplest possible state then what is the simplest possible state? the simplest possible state would be a single binary bit.

Specific Angular Momentum? is that anything like angular velocity? no. more like angular velocity times r^2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter

you are assuming that chimps and dolphins ARE animals. what separates humans (of whatever species) from the animals is our capacity for reason. what Jung called 'directed thinking' or 'logos'. it is this capacity that leads to language

functions of damaged areas can be taken up by adjacent areas but the patient has to re-learn them

post 1: post 7: in our universe a particle could divide into 2 identical particles. but they wouldnt really be identical because they would have different positions. in such a universe as described above there is no such thing as 'position'. so it would be meaningless to say that a particle had divided into 2 if the 2 resulting particles were not distinguishable in some way. I only just realized that 'distiction' is what 'laws of form' is all about. I'm not sure that laws of form is the whole answer but it might be worth looking into the basic idea.

uh...I dont think so. even the aborigines used slash and burn.