Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 21:50:37 -0700 Organization: To protect and to server Message-ID: <64ACDF9D.5AFC@ix.netcom.com> References: <986ea74c-b237-4f7b-a8f5-3f66e736cb29n@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="998627"; posting-host="nLYg9UBeoMWa070gP9wQcw.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A"; Cancel-Lock: sha256:WP3M9siEWwTSQsaerteS9DCc2zbXsExirjP4hIgJSao= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 230710-14, 07/10/2023), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:614972 Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! you just added another crook... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.