Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426883 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-29 22:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-02 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-02 06:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 05:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-03 19:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-03 22:35 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 22:44 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-04 09:47 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-04 07:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-05 01:22 +0200
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-05 10:02 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-07 09:22 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 05:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:28 -0700
Poser Stephane Baune hard at work, posting imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-09 11:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 10:14 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 03:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-10 23:31 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 12:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 13:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 14:04 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-10 12:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-16 07:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:59 -0700
Imbecile Stephane Baune "explains" the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-18 08:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-16 16:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-19 09:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-19 12:32 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 09:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 13:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-21 07:43 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 10:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 17:08 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-18 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-24 10:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-24 10:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-20 03:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:37 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 03:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 08:40 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 08:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 21:20 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-10 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 00:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-11 07:48 -0700
Ken Shito as cretin as Stephane Baune "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 13:30 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 07:55 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 13:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-13 23:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 10:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:09 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:35 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-13 16:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 02:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-11 00:58 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 05:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 00:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 03:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 03:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 06:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-14 06:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-14 04:13 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-11 10:23 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 12:18 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-09 23:15 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-13 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 10:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-13 15:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-08-14 06:53 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-14 08:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 04:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-17 04:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-18 23:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-18 07:07 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 08:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-19 09:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-19 14:33 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 07:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 08:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-20 11:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-20 16:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:21 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 05:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:44 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:56 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:38 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 17:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:41 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:27 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 09:11 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-24 16:29 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-24 15:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 02:24 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:25 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:11 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 01:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-28 11:57 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 23:37 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 23:41 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 22:09 -0400
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:36 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-23 07:19 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:25 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 07:28 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 12:03 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 21:31 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 08:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 07:32 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-28 09:48 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-29 12:46 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-29 14:40 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-29 14:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 08:21 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 14:13 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 15:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:14 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 16:31 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:58 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 19:12 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:53 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:54 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:51 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-03 19:06 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 05:09 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 05:52 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 07:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 08:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-04 08:20 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-04 11:01 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:21 -0700
Cretin Ken Sito at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-05 06:29 -0700
Re: Cretin Ken Sito at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:50 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 06:08 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:05 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:39 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-05 14:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 07:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-06 11:10 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 09:46 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 10:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:00 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:25 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 16:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 16:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:54 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:24 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 04:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 04:42 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:23 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 11:45 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 23:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 21:00 -0500
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-21 19:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:35 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-22 20:26 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 04:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-20 23:18 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:43 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 05:22 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 12:33 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 19:19 +0000
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:29 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:14 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:17 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Why is there more than one explanation for the Twin Paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 22:41 -0700
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 11:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onhnu9$ecq$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429704 |
On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the ladder >>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn >>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time >>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>> >>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>> >>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>> he saw both doors >>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>> you denied it existed. >>>> >>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>> >>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >> >> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > > It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through a 2” hole no matter how you try. The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. Same for the ball. Somehow you're just not getting this. >> >>> >>>> >>>> You are incapable of learning anything new. It was a mistake for you to try >>>> to learn relativity 20 years ago, because you just can't do it anymore. >>> >>> ROTFLOL.....Pot, Kettle, black. >> >> I'm the one reading, Ken. You avoid reading like the plague. > > You don’t understand what you read. Its properly because you are a woodworker. > Ken, you have no basis to say that one who reads does not understand, because you have not read at all. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6dcf92d2-958c-496d-8356-ada255e6228e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429721 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the ladder > >>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > >>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > >>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > >>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > >>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > >>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > >>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > >>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > >>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > >>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > >>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > >>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > >>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > >>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > >>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > >>>>>> crash with either door. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > >>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > >>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > >>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > >>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > >>>>> > >>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > >>>>> he saw both doors > >>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > >>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > >>>>> you denied it existed. > >>>> > >>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > >>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > >>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > >>> > >>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > >> > >> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > >> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > > > > It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through a 2” hole no matter how you try. > > The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > Same for the ball. > Somehow you’re just not getting this. So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think you are full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onif9m$1jgk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429757 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the ladder >>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn >>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>>>> he saw both doors >>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>>>> you denied it existed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>>>> >>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >>>> >>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. >>> >>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through >>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. >> >> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. >> Same for the ball. >> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > > So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > you are full of shit. > Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. I'll just remind you of your stance: "I know physics because I have written a book about something I call physics. No, I haven't read any books on physics. It would be a waste of time for me to read any books about physics. Much better for me to just write one rather than read any. Trust me that I am an expert in physics even though I haven't read anything about the subject. And no, I can't do arithmetic, and I can't work any problems even in a beginner's book on the subject. It is unfair to require the public to do that to understand physics." -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bf44e8f-db82-4433-ba14-89d758ca6f2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429763 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the ladder > >>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > >>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > >>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > >>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > >>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > >>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > >>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > >>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > >>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > >>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > >>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > >>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > >>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > >>>>>>>> crash with either door. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > >>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > >>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > >>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > >>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > >>>>>>> he saw both doors > >>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > >>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > >>>>>>> you denied it existed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > >>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > >>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > >>>> > >>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > >>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > >>> > >>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through > >>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. > >> > >> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > >> Same for the ball. > >> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > > > > So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > > so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > > gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > > you are full of shit. > > > > Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. > > I'll just remind you of your stance: > "I know physics because I have written a book about something I call > physics. No, I haven't read any books on physics. It would be a waste of > time for me to read any books about physics. Much better for me to just > write one rather than read any. Trust me that I am an expert in physics > even though I haven't read anything about the subject. And no, I can't do > arithmetic, and I can't work any problems even in a beginner's book on the > subject. It is unfair to require the public to do that to understand > physics." > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onimgq$1rh3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429765 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>>>>>> he saw both doors >>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. >>>>> >>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through >>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. >>>> >>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. >>>> Same for the ball. >>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. >>> >>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger >>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets >>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think >>> you are full of shit. >>> >> >> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. > > You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? > Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing and opening of doors. Ha. > >> >> I'll just remind you of your stance: >> "I know physics because I have written a book about something I call >> physics. No, I haven't read any books on physics. It would be a waste of >> time for me to read any books about physics. Much better for me to just >> write one rather than read any. Trust me that I am an expert in physics >> even though I haven't read anything about the subject. And no, I can't do >> arithmetic, and I can't work any problems even in a beginner's book on the >> subject. It is unfair to require the public to do that to understand >> physics." >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8bf99fe-059b-408b-9435-99315c026ef9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429772 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:41:51 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > >>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > >>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > >>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > >>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > >>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > >>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > >>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > >>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > >>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > >>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > >>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > >>>>>>>>> he saw both doors > >>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > >>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > >>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > >>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > >>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > >>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through > >>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. > >>>> > >>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > >>>> Same for the ball. > >>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > >>> > >>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > >>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > >>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > >>> you are full of shit. > >>> > >> > >> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. > > > > You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? > > Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. > > And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing > and opening of doors. > Ha. > Actually id does. Length measurement is directly related to marking the two ends of an object simultaneously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a11de038-8343-4c00-9192-9bc0d087ebf6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429772 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:41:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > >>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > >>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > >>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > >>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > >>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > >>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > >>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > >>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > >>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > >>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > >>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > >>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > >>>>>>>>> he saw both doors > >>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > >>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > >>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > >>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > >>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > >>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through > >>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. > >>>> > >>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > >>>> Same for the ball. > >>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > >>> > >>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > >>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > >>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > >>> you are full of shit. > >>> > >> > >> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. > > > > You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? > > Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. > > And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing > and opening of doors. > Ha. Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there.....so go and ask them. I don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path length is able to fit into the barn. 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the expanded light-path length of the barn. Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onmuti$1vlg$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429909 |
kenseto wrote: >> closing and opening of doors. >> Ha. > > Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there.....so go and ask them. I > don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: > 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is > contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path > length is able to fit into the barn. > 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is > expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the > expanded light-path length of the barn. > Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. We can agree in that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 12:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onn1di$ck8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429909 |
On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:41:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>>>>>>>> he saw both doors >>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >>>>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through >>>>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. >>>>>> >>>>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. >>>>>> Same for the ball. >>>>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. >>>>> >>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger >>>>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets >>>>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think >>>>> you are full of shit. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. >>> >>> You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? >>> Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. >> >> And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing >> and opening of doors. >> Ha. > > Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there. Riiiight. They put the doors in every single application of length contraction. Or they didn't but they forgot to tell you that the doors aren't there in every application, subjecting the common man to unnecessary confusion. Because if you're confused about something, it's obviously someone else's fault. > ....so go and ask them. I don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: > 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path length is able to fit into the barn. > 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the expanded light-path length of the barn. > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. > "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do you think less highly of pipefitters and factory workers? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <602cb4e5-831b-4801-a45e-18d827642b68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429919 |
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:41:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > >>>>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > >>>>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > >>>>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > >>>>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > >>>>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > >>>>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > >>>>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > >>>>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > >>>>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > >>>>>>>>>>> he saw both doors > >>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > >>>>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > >>>>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > >>>>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > >>>>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > >>>>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through > >>>>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > >>>>>> Same for the ball. > >>>>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > >>>>> > >>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > >>>>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > >>>>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > >>>>> you are full of shit. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. > >>> > >>> You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? > >>> Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. > >> > >> And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing > >> and opening of doors. > >> Ha. > > > > Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there. > > Riiiight. They put the doors in every single application of length > contraction. They put the doors there whenever they need the the concept of RoS explain length contraction. > Or they didn't but they forgot to tell you that the doors aren't there > in every application, subjecting the common man to unnecessary confusion. You tell me. > > Because if you're confused about something, it's obviously someone > else’s fault. Not at all. I am not confused. It is you who tried to bullshit me. > > > ....so go and ask them. I don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: > > 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path length is able to fit into the barn. > > 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the expanded light-path length of the barn. > > > > Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. > > > > "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's > professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do > you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? Yes, just as you call me ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onnsg6$1j8o$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429940 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:41:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> barn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he saw both doors >>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>>>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>>>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>>>>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >>>>>>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through >>>>>>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. >>>>>>>> Same for the ball. >>>>>>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger >>>>>>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets >>>>>>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think >>>>>>> you are full of shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. >>>>> >>>>> You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? >>>>> Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. >>>> >>>> And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing >>>> and opening of doors. >>>> Ha. >>> >>> Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there. >> >> Riiiight. They put the doors in every single application of length >> contraction. > > They put the doors there whenever they need the the concept of RoS > explain length contraction. > >> Or they didn't but they forgot to tell you that the doors aren't there >> in every application, subjecting the common man to unnecessary confusion. > > You tell me. > >> >> Because if you're confused about something, it's obviously someone >> else’s fault. > > Not at all. I am not confused. It is you who tried to bullshit me. > >> >>> ....so go and ask them. I don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: >>> 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is >>> contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path >>> length is able to fit into the barn. >>> 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is >>> expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the >>> expanded light-path length of the barn. >>> >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. >>> >> >> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's >> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do >> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? > > Yes, just as you call me ignorant. Oh my, confessing to bigotry. You are ignorant because you've read nothing about the subject. Ignorance is the default state until you learn something about a subject by reading. You haven't done that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 02:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ono1p5$ct2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #429946 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. >>> >>> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's >>> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do >>> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? >> >> Yes, just as you call me ignorant. >Oh my, confessing to bigotry. >You are ignorant because you've read nothing about the subject. Ignorance >is the default state until you learn something about a subject by reading. >You haven't done that. That's not correct. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever. Ken absolutely refuses to be cured, by reading books or whatever. That's why he is called Stupid Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 11:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onp1fa$199j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429951 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. >>>> >>>> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's >>>> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do >>>> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? >>> >>> Yes, just as you call me ignorant. > >> Oh my, confessing to bigotry. >> You are ignorant because you've read nothing about the subject. Ignorance >> is the default state until you learn something about a subject by reading. >> You haven't done that. > > That's not correct. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever. > > Ken absolutely refuses to be cured, by reading books or whatever. > > That's why he is called Stupid Ken. > Ken is absolutely terrified of reading, it fills him with horror and frustration. So any excuse, any at all, will serve. Anyone tells him to read and learn? Ken calls him a know-nothing. Sad, isn't it? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A079BD.2750@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #429959 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > >>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. > >>>> > >>>> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's > >>>> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do > >>>> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? > >>> > >>> Yes, just as you call me ignorant. > > > >> Oh my, confessing to bigotry. > >> You are ignorant because you've read nothing about the subject. Ignorance > >> is the default state until you learn something about a subject by reading. > >> You haven't done that. > > > > That's not correct. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever. > > > > Ken absolutely refuses to be cured, by reading books or whatever. > > > > That's why he is called Stupid Ken. > > > > Ken is absolutely terrified of reading, it fills him with horror and > frustration. > So any excuse, any at all, will serve. > > Anyone tells him to read and learn? Ken calls him a know-nothing. Sad, > isn't it? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables a book is just *one* sole opinion of the author...there is no section in the book for others to debate it. 600 pages of just one person's opinion is a ...little too much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41fa53db-63ac-467c-80ba-3cc39a705ced@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429951 |
W dniu piątek, 25 sierpnia 2017 04:24:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: > > >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. > >>> > >>> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's > >>> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do > >>> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? > >> > >> Yes, just as you call me ignorant. > > >Oh my, confessing to bigotry. > >You are ignorant because you've read nothing about the subject. Ignorance > >is the default state until you learn something about a subject by reading. > >You haven't done that. > > That's not correct. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever. > > Ken absolutely refuses to be cured, by reading books or whatever. Some books cure. Some others make you ill, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onp7lo$1iil$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429940 |
On 8/24/17 5:25 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:12:22 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/24/17 11:11 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:41:51 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ladder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors >>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crash with either door. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously >>>>>>>>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he saw both doors >>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole >>>>>>>>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which >>>>>>>>>>>>> you denied it existed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen >>>>>>>>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of >>>>>>>>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through >>>>>>>>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. >>>>>>>> Same for the ball. >>>>>>>> Somehow you’re just not getting this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger >>>>>>> so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets >>>>>>> gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think >>>>>>> you are full of shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. >>>>> >>>>> You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? >>>>> Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. >>>> >>>> And you think that length contraction always involves simultaneous closing >>>> and opening of doors. >>>> Ha. >>> >>> Idiot your SR brothers put the doors there. >> >> Riiiight. They put the doors in every single application of length >> contraction. > > They put the doors there whenever they need the the concept of RoS explain length contraction. Not so, Ken. The doors are only used in that ONE thinking puzzle. There are literally hundreds of applications and thinking puzzles that involve length contraction and relativity of simultaneity is a fundamental concept in each case. It's really a shame that you've not read up on this subject. > >> Or they didn't but they forgot to tell you that the doors aren't there >> in every application, subjecting the common man to unnecessary confusion. > > You tell me. > >> >> Because if you're confused about something, it's obviously someone >> else’s fault. > > Not at all. I am not confused. It is you who tried to bullshit me. > >> >>> ....so go and ask them. I don’t need the fucking doors at all. IRT says: >>> 1. From the barn point of view: The light-path length of the pole is contracted by a factor of 1/gamma and thus the contracted light-path length is able to fit into the barn. >>> 2. From the pole’s point of view: The light-path length of the barn is expanded and thus it is able to fit its light-path length into the expanded light-path length of the barn. >>> >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid. No wonder you are merely a woodworker. >>> >> >> "Merely" a woodworker? Are you a shameless bigot about people's >> professions, Ken? Do you look down on people based on what they do? Do >> you think less highly of pipe fitters and factory workers? > > Yes, just as you call me ignorant. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc0907aa-c973-4aca-87ec-8260e6d2330d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #429765 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:24:26 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:38:35 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 12:59:57 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 8/22/17 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:56:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> On 8/21/17 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 8:44:52 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 7:21:06 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 15:32:35 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> El domingo, 20 de agosto de 2017, 11:48:00 (UTC-3), kenseto escribió: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:59:41 PM UTC-4, Paparios wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> You snipped the second part of my post: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "The situation for the observer with the ladder is different. For him the ladder > > >>>>>>>>>>>> has the same length it had before moving, but it will pass through the barn > > >>>>>>>>>>>> unharmed, since the doors for that observer do not close at the same time > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (due to relativity of simultaneity)”. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> But you said according to the barn observer the pole is completely > > >>>>>>>>>>> inside the barn briefly with both doors closed simultaneously. This > > >>>>>>>>>>> is only possible if the pole is materially contracted. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Wrong, the barn observer sees the pole being shorter. That does not mean the > > >>>>>>>>>> pole changed its length. What the barn observer sees is the geometrical > > >>>>>>>>>> projection of the pole over his location. It is a matter of perspective. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In that case, your claim that the pole can be trapped in the barn with > > >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously is a case claim. What you mean is that > > >>>>>>>>> the geometric projection length of the pole can fit into the barn with > > >>>>>>>>> both doors closed simultaneously......is that what you mean?????? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 1) The observer riding with the pole can testify a) that the pole did not > > >>>>>>>> change its length during its pass through the barn; b) that just before the > > >>>>>>>> front of the pole reached the output door, the door closed and opened very > > >>>>>>>> fast; c) that just after the tail of the pole passed through the entrance > > >>>>>>>> door, that door closed and opened very fast. This clearly means both doors > > >>>>>>>> did not closed and opened at the same time and so obviously the pole did not > > >>>>>>>> crash with either door. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I am not talking about the pole observer. I am talking about the barn observer. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 2) The observer on the ground of the barn can testify a) he saw the pole > > >>>>>>>> entering the barn and leaving the barn; b) he saw both doors simul taneously > > >>>>>>>> closing and opening while the pole was inside the barn. This clearly means > > >>>>>>>> the pole appeared to be shorter for the barn observer, since he did not see > > >>>>>>>> the pole crashing against any of the doors. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> So assertions are your argument???? The barn observer cannot testify that > > >>>>>>> he saw both doors > > >>>>>>> simultaneously closing and opening while the pole > > >>>>>>> was inside the barn. Why? Because this means material contraction which > > >>>>>>> you denied it existed. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Seto, this is your style. You simply assert that things cannot happen > > >>>>>> unless they happen the way you think they do, and you've never learned > > >>>>>> alternative ways that you haven't envisioned. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I was taught that a larger object cannot fit into a smaller container. > > >>>> > > >>>> And if you were taught that the length of an object is independent of > > >>>> its motion relative to the container, then you were taught WRONG. > > >>> > > >>> It is you who is wrong......a 4” ball will not be able to pass through > > >>> a 2” hole no matter how you try. > > >> > > >> The size of the 2" hole depends on the reference frame. > > >> Same for the ball. > > >> Somehow you’re just not getting this. > > > > > > So are you saying that from the ball’s point of view the hole get larger > > > so it can get through it and from the hole point of view the ball gets > > > gets smaller so the ball can pass through it? I don’t think so. I think > > > you are full of shit. > > > > > > > Ken, you've never learned any of this. Not one stick. > > You are full of shit.....with my example your RoS cannot rescue you. Why? Because there is no fucking doors that open and close non-simultaneously. And you truly think you have a point? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 01:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89836db1-1d4e-4b9a-b3eb-53312e49b513@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430006 |
I see that no-one has answered my question: me (gehan.am...@gmail.com change) Aug 19 - show quoted text - Why does it need to be brought back? In this age of virtual reality why is physical presence necessary? Video transmissions would do, would they not? Suppose the twins never physically meet but their spaceships are brought back and they see each other through video?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <334a676e-0c66-4cd7-a36e-5abb5da27a52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #430219 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:40:41 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > I see that no-one has answered my question: > > me (gehan.am...@gmail.com change) > > Aug 19 > > > > - show quoted text - > Why does it need to be brought back? In this age of virtual reality why is physical presence necessary? Video transmissions would do, would they not? > > Suppose the twins never physically meet but their spaceships are brought back and they see each other through video? It doesn't "need to be brought back". Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#What_it_looks_like:_the_relativistic_Doppler_shift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kpidnUOlc9IF1jnEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #430219 |
On 8/28/17 3:40 AM, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > Why does it need to be brought back? I interpret your "it" to mean the traveling twin of the twin paradox, or at least her clock. It _DOES_ need to be brought back, because that is the essence of the physical situation in the twin paradox. > In this age of virtual reality why is physical presence necessary? Video > transmissions would do, would they not? Only if you correctly model their effects. That is a complication best omitted from discussions of the twin paradox, because it is not part of the usual description of the physical situation. > Suppose the twins never physically meet but their spaceships are brought > back and they see each other through video? If you want to consider some other physical situation, that is certainly possible, but it is NOT the twin paradox. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web