Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387792 > unrolled thread

Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-14 16:41 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-14 19:23 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-14 23:32 -0700
        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 06:06 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-14 23:56 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 05:03 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 06:20 -0700
        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-07-15 06:37 -0700
          Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 06:45 -0700
            Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-15 19:08 +0200
              Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 16:24 -0700
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 08:49 +0200
                  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 05:25 -0700
                    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 16:23 +0200
                      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 07:48 -0700
                        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 21:14 +0200
                      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 12:40 -0700
                        Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-16 23:13 +0200
                Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-07-16 09:32 +0200
                  Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 13:06 -0700
    Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-15 13:52 -0700
      Re: Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 22:15 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#387792 — Absurdity Called Einstein's Twin Paradox

Special relativity predicts that either twin ages more slowly than the other, as judged from the other twin's system:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than the other (as judged from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity unless "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period, the traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the idea that "enough strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-around period and this "enough strangeness" miraculously affects the distant stationary twin is simply idiotic.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#387796

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:41:27 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Special relativity predicts that either twin ages more slowly than the other,
> as judged from the other twin's system:

Of, course they are VERY far apart when they make those predictions.
You can only be sure of what REALLY happens when you bring them together
at the beginning and end of the trip.

> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
> "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant
> star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the
> trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness
> occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."
> 
> Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than
> the other (as judged from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity
> unless "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to
> make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period, the
> traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the
> idea that "enough strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-
> around period and this "enough strangeness" miraculously affects the
> distant stationary twin is simply idiotic."

Yes , it would be absurd if the "strangeness occurred at the stationary
twin's location, but it doesn't:  It occurs at the traveling twin's
position.  Proof:  Let there be another observer moving with the traveling
twin, but he keeps on going when the traveling twin turns around.
Obviously, he will continue to see the stationary twin continue to age
slowly, contrary to what the traveling twin sees while turning around.

So Pentcho leaps to the absurd concept instead of the one that makes
sense.  It figures!

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387802

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 5:41:27 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > Special relativity predicts that either twin ages more slowly than the other,
> > as judged from the other twin's system:
> 
> Of, course they are VERY far apart when they make those predictions.
> You can only be sure of what REALLY happens when you bring them together
> at the beginning and end of the trip.
> 
> > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf
> > "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant
> > star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the
> > trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness
> > occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."
> >
> > Special relativity's prediction that either twin ages more slowly than
> > the other (as judged from the other twin's system) leads to absurdity
> > unless "enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to
> > make A end up older". However, during the turning-around period, the
> > traveling twin is very far away from his stationary brother so the
> > idea that "enough strangeness" is somehow produced during the turning-
> > around period and this "enough strangeness" miraculously affects the
> > distant stationary twin is simply idiotic."
> 
> Yes , it would be absurd if the "strangeness occurred at the stationary
> twin's location, but it doesn't:  It occurs at the traveling twin's
> position.  Proof:  Let there be another observer moving with the traveling
> twin, but he keeps on going when the traveling twin turns around.
> Obviously, he will continue to see the stationary twin continue to age
> slowly, contrary to what the traveling twin sees while turning around.
> 
> So Pentcho leaps to the absurd concept instead of the one that makes
> sense.  It figures!
> 
> Gary



I don't get it, are you saying it requires three observers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387810

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:31:19 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > Yes , it would be absurd if the "strangeness occurred at the stationary
> > twin's location, but it doesn't:  It occurs at the traveling twin's
> > position.  Proof:  Let there be another observer moving with the traveling
> > twin, but he keeps on going when the traveling twin turns around.
> > Obviously, he will continue to see the stationary twin continue to age
> > slowly, contrary to what the traveling twin sees while turning around.
> > 
> > So Pentcho leaps to the absurd concept instead of the one that makes
> > sense.  It figures!
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> I don't get it, are you saying it requires three observers?

Only to prove that Pentcho is absurd :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387805

W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 04:23:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> 
> Of, course they are VERY far apart when they make those predictions.
> You can only be sure of what REALLY happens when you bring them together
> at the beginning and end of the trip.

Yes. You can be sure. 
1. The age of a person is the difference 
between the current date and the birthdate 
of the person
2. The birthdates of twins are the same
3. An observer can have only one current date

1+2+3 makes us sure einsteinians are a bunch 
of idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387807

Einstein's twin paradox is an absurdity unless an additional ad hoc assumption is correct: the acceleration ("gravitational field", in Einstein's words) experienced by the traveling twin in the turning-around period generates "enough strangeness", and this "enough strangeness" makes the distant stationary twin age very fast:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

The additional ad hoc assumption (the turning-around acceleration makes the distant stationary twin age very fast) is idiotic of course, and accordingly the twin story is an absurdity, not a paradox. All clever Einsteinians know that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial and in some twin-paradox scenarios even does not exist:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/ 
 Ronald Lasky: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental." [Note that in 1918 Einstein is one of those "partially informed people".] 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
 Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
 Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
 Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387812

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:04:05 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's twin paradox is an absurdity unless an additional ad hoc
> assumption is correct: the acceleration ("gravitational field", in
> Einstein's words) experienced by the traveling twin in the turning-
> around period generates "enough strangeness", and this "enough
> strangeness" makes the distant stationary twin age very fast:

More Pentcho baloney.  This is proof that Prevaricating Pentcho is absurd.
It has been explained that the "strangeness" does not occur at the
stationary twin's location, but at the traveling twin's.

And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The invariance
of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
relativity.  Because of these, the "twin paradox" must logically occur.
Absurdity is not applicable to reality.

> The additional ad hoc assumption (the turning-around acceleration makes
> the distant stationary twin age very fast) is idiotic of course

This is Puerile Pentcho's purposely-idiotic presumption.  The distant
stationary twin just APPEARS to age as seen by the traveling twin.
Another observer would not see this happen, so obviously the absurdity
is in Pentcho's fevered brain.

> and accordingly the twin story is an absurdity, not a paradox. All clever
> Einsteinians know that the turning-around acceleration is immaterial and
> in some twin-paradox scenarios even does not exist:

Nature does not need a reason for what it does.  Only mentally-unstable
people do.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387814

W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The invariance
> of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
> relativity. 

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
error).


> Absurdity is not applicable to reality.

But it is applicable to absud lies of your bunch of
idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387817

El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 9:37:57 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The invariance
> > of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
> > relativity. 
> 
> A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
> guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
> error).
> 

Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God, reading the time through the Internet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387828

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:f85e7974-444e-4082-bdf3-19d00aa291f6@googlegroups.com...

El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 9:37:57 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 
> napisał:
> > And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The 
> > invariance
> > of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
> > relativity.
>
> A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
> guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
> error).
>

|Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God

No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387852

El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 13:08:39 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:f85e7974-444e-4082-bdf3-19d00aa291f6@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 9:37:57 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> > W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 
> > napisał:
> > > And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The 
> > > invariance
> > > of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
> > > relativity.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> > Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
> > guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
> > error).
> >
> 
> |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
> 
> No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.

What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model god???

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387859

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:207dfec6-9e40-47fb-89c6-d321d0c84cfb@googlegroups.com...

El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 13:08:39 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:f85e7974-444e-4082-bdf3-19d00aa291f6@googlegroups.com...
>
> El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 9:37:57 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
> > W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > napisał:
> > > And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The
> > > invariance
> > > of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
> > > relativity.
> >
> > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> > Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
> > guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
> > error).
> >
>
> |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
>
> No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.

|What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or 
sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model 
god???

I'm not interested. Probably atomic. What matters, they
are precise enough to work at GPS. While those of yours
are good only for kid's play, supreme idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387864

El sábado, 16 de julio de 2016, 2:49:24 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 

> >
> > |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
> >
> > No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> > imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.
> 
> |What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or 
> sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model 
> god???
> 
> I'm not interested. Probably atomic. What matters, they
> are precise enough to work at GPS. While those of yours
> are good only for kid's play, supreme idiot.

So the GPS receivers have probably atomic clocks , according to the Model God guru...way to go!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387869

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:842c220b-4a71-4a06-b8ff-2b4cdaefc108@googlegroups.com...

El sábado, 16 de julio de 2016, 2:49:24 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup

> >
> > |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
> >
> > No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> > imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.
>
> |What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or
> sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model
> god???
>
> I'm not interested. Probably atomic. What matters, they
> are precise enough to work at GPS. While those of yours
> are good only for kid's play, supreme idiot.

|So the GPS receivers have probably atomic clocks , according to the Model 
God guru...way to go!!!

Probably. And their indications are t'=t with the precision of
an acceptable error. The way ends here, poor idiot. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387873

El sábado, 16 de julio de 2016, 10:23:29 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:842c220b-4a71-4a06-b8ff-2b4cdaefc108@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El sábado, 16 de julio de 2016, 2:49:24 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> 
> > >
> > > |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
> > >
> > > No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> > > imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.
> >
> > |What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or
> > sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model
> > god???
> >
> > I'm not interested. Probably atomic. What matters, they
> > are precise enough to work at GPS. While those of yours
> > are good only for kid's play, supreme idiot.
> 
> |So the GPS receivers have probably atomic clocks , according to the Model 
> God guru...way to go!!!
> 
> Probably. And their indications are t'=t with the precision of
> an acceptable error. The way ends here, poor idiot.

Yes and with you, as always proving you know nothing about the subject, as all morons and kooks do.

Go back to your computer models which, by the way, nobody know or use....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387888

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:b949a0af-2e57-4259-898c-7a0023b73e15@googlegroups.com...
> |So the GPS receivers have probably atomic clocks , according to the Model
> God guru...way to go!!!
>
> Probably. And their indications are t'=t with the precision of
> an acceptable error. The way ends here, poor idiot.

|Yes and with you, as always proving you know nothing about the subject, as 
all morons and kooks do.
|Go back to your computer models which, by the way, nobody know or use....

As always proving you know nothing about the subject, as all morons and 
kooks do.
Go back to your physics phantasmagories which, by the way, nobody know or 
use.... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387892

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:23:29 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:842c220b-4a71-4a06-b8ff-2b4cdaefc108@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El sábado, 16 de julio de 2016, 2:49:24 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> 
> > >
> > > |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
> > >
> > > No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
> > > imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.
> >
> > |What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or
> > sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model
> > god???
> >
> > I'm not interested. Probably atomic. What matters, they
> > are precise enough to work at GPS. While those of yours
> > are good only for kid's play, supreme idiot.
> 
> |So the GPS receivers have probably atomic clocks , according to the Model 
> God guru...way to go!!!
> 
> Probably. And their indications are t'=t with the precision of
> an acceptable error.

As stated, this is false. If you have a secret meaning for your usage of "their indications",
and "t' = t", then you have to describe it. Otherwise it's just magic words.

> The way ends here, poor idiot.

You haven't said anything (for the reason I mentioned above), so there was nothing
here to "end".

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387896

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c9f67bad-be8f-43f8-868e-f177985bf678@googlegroups.com...


> Probably. And their indications are t'=t with the precision of
> an acceptable error.

|As stated, this is false.

A lie, as expected from a relativistic scum.

|If you have a secret meaning for your usage of "their indications",
|and "t' = t",  then you have to describe it.

I've already done it 5 or 6 times. Talking to such an idiot is futile,
you don't even notice, not talking about comprehending. But,
ok, once again. By "indications" I mean numbers on the clocks
output (usually - the display). And by = I mean that when
substracted, they give 0 (with the precision of an acceptable
error).


> The way ends here, poor idiot.

|You haven't said anything (for the reason I mentioned above), so there was 
nothing

I did. You've not noticed, because you're such an
incredible moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387860

On 16.07.2016 01:24, paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 13:08:39 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
>> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup
>> dyskusyjnych:f85e7974-444e-4082-bdf3-19d00aa291f6@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> El viernes, 15 de julio de 2016, 9:37:57 (UTC-4), mlwo...@wp.pl  escribió:
>>> W dniu piątek, 15 lipca 2016 15:21:01 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
>>> napisał:
>>>> And reality does not require a "reason" to explain itself.  The
>>>> invariance
>>>> of the speed of light is a measured phenomenon, as is the principle of
>>>> relativity.
>>>
>>> A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
>>> Measurements show time, as defined by your idiot
>>> guru, galilean (with the precision of an acceptable
>>> error).
>>>
>>
>> |Of course those time measurements are made by the great Model God
>>
>> No, poor  idiot. They're made by real clocks, instead being
>> imagined by a bunch of insane idiots.
>
> What are those real clocks? Are they atomic clocks, or longines clocks or sand clocks or other clocks from your insane imagination, supreme model god???
>

Experiments testing the invariance of the speed of light:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#387894

W dniu sobota, 16 lipca 2016 09:32:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> Experiments testing the invariance of the speed of light:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf


Experiments testing the invariance of the Geocentric ideas:
1. stupidity
2. cretinism
3. fallacy
..
1000. belief

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web