[ preamble: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/55e87007fb4c54fb ]

"Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1147575618.325999.185360@d71g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1147487483.523324.155710@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > > > "Peri of Pera" <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >  news:1147244481.302240.36830@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He ages at the same rate as everything
> > > > > > > > > else in the universe, stationary or not. A star is 10 billion years
> > > > > > > > > old. Please tell me, what is the real age of the star if it is speeding
> > > > > > > > > away from our planet at .9c?
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Dirk, I have said before that everything in the universe ages at the
> > > same rate. The star is observed at 10billion years old and that is the correct
> > > age. If you have a
> > > different idea please tell and why.
> >
> > Judging my previous replies to you and the way you ignored
> > them, it is clear that merely telling you what my idea is and why,
> > is a waste of both my and your time.
> > Yes, I know, you said that "everything in the universe ages at the
> > same rate", and that you think that "SR stands in the way of
> > scientific progress" and that the "fundamentals of SR defy logic".
> > Then you asked "Please tell me, what is the real age of the star
> > if it is speeding away from our planet at .9c?"
> > So I give you the perfect opportunity to show that you are not
> > merely opposing some *misunderstandings* about SR with its
> > fundamentals and/or the logic that is used to make deductions
> > from these fundamentals.
> > If you do your part of the job, I will do mine.
> >
> > So, again, this is your exercise:
> >   Don't repeat what the age is according to you - we know that and
> >   why - but what do *you* think would be the answer "as calculated
> >   under the dogma of SR"?
> > First hint:
> >       The answer is not just "22.9 billion years".
> > Second hint:
> >       The answer is no just "4.27 billion years" either.
> > Requirement:
> >       Use at least 100 and at most 200 words for your answer.
> >       You don't have to use equations, but if you do, you can
> >       use between 150 and 250 words, but make sure that you
> >       clearly specify the physical meaning of all the variables.
> >
> > We can work from here.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk,
> I don't know how much a star
> measured by astronomers as 10billion years old
> and speeding away at .9c
> is older or younger according to
> SR's time dilation theory

Indeed you don't know. Otherwise you would have made the
exercise 4 days ago. It's a good thing that you already admit
that you have difficulty making the exercise.
Yet you do seem to know that "SR stands in the way of scientific
progress" and that the "fundamentals of SR defy logic". I hope
that you also admit that something doesn't add up here.

> but if you explain it to me
> I would appreciate it.

Elsewhere on this thread I already have explained and pointed
to everything you need to make the exercise. It is all there.You
just have to put it together into a coherent statement.
Don't be shy - give it a try. Show how the consequences of the
fundamentals of SR stand in the way of scientific progress.
Show your work.

Dirk Vdm

[ New thread opened ]

Dirk van der Mortel is unable to explain a question about the age of a star.
Who can help? A star is measured by astronomers to be 10 billion years old.
It is speeding away at .9c. What is the age of the star using the SR
time dilation theory?

Peter Riedt