Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 17:56 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 14:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Gernaro Close <lcgr@rrlgrane.ne> - 2023-07-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:12 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Emanuele Pezos <leop@mmpussos.zm> - 2023-07-12 08:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-11 11:03 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Wade Spyridis <didi@drdsippw.ss> - 2023-07-11 20:01 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:28 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Harry Angelopoulos <ouse@assapoyr.ug> - 2023-07-10 22:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-10 21:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 11:07 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maïkel Jacques-Sonne <mjs@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-11 18:53 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 17:38 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-12 23:34 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:11 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:32 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 19:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 17:36 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:16 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:19 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 19:47 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 12:02 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 08:32 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 13:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 20:43 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 08:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:16 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 01:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:08 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 09:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-13 18:21 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 21:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:37 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 03:54 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 13:36 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 09:03 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Elizardo Sklavenitis <otrv@vzoeaioo.tk> - 2023-07-16 19:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Meredith Adamou <utto@mddaeaem.tt> - 2023-07-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-17 11:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-17 22:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:41 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 22:49 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Honorio Christakos <iosi@asrsosch.rc> - 2023-07-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-19 10:58 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-16 06:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:35 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 23:29 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 18:37 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 23:28 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 22:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:01 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 00:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:32 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 22:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 13:07 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 13:36 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 22:19 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 21:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-15 19:09 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-16 13:23 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Dallas Anetakis <aske@aaeeatli.as> - 2023-07-16 13:41 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Twin paradox article in Wikipedia |
| Message-ID | <986ea74c-b237-4f7b-a8f5-3f66e736cb29n@googlegroups.com> |
I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, hard to read conglomeration. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a44d0ad-d890-48b7-ad0a-ace4273206f9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 19:26:54 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by youjr bunch of idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t. That's spoiling things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cAmLLvG5Z-cua04aIZmcsNMDGI4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
Le 10/07/2023 à 19:26, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit : > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! There is a Chinese proverb that says: "It is better to look stupid for five minutes than to stay stupid all your life". This means that when you don't know something, or when you don't understand something, don't hesitate to ask. There are in the universe of theoretical physics, many theoreticians, but there is one who is really a size in relativistic kinematics, and who says things that no one had ever said. The very simple way in which he treats Langevin's voyageur is of superb intellectual and logical beauty. The problem that arises becomes: "If he is telling the truth, why aren't we listening to him?" If he doesn't lie an inch... What's going on with him? Stupidity of men? Jealousy of competing theories? How to know? http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=AP9K8PWdQ8VGGn12U_lCq6JgpEU@jntp http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=ANyXQtwi2IZvxhCVx4aCbLfLYmg@jntp R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=cAmLLvG5Z-cua04aIZmcsNMDGI4@jntp>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f53eb647-a3fe-4bfd-b1d3-334722480bbbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614925 |
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 19:56:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 10/07/2023 à 19:26, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit : > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > There is a Chinese proverb that says: "It is better to look stupid for > five minutes than to stay stupid all your life". > This means that when you don't know something, or when you don't > understand something, don't hesitate to ask. > There are in the universe of theoretical physics, many theoreticians, but > there is one who is really a size in relativistic kinematics, and who says > things that no one had ever said. > The very simple way in which he treats Langevin's voyageur is of superb > intellectual and logical beauty. And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by these sad idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t uin improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4498e589-53c0-4d52-a7e6-431bf0751799n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614930 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 19:56:06 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 10/07/2023 à 19:26, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog a écrit : > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > > hard to read conglomeration. > > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > There is a Chinese proverb that says: "It is better to look stupid for > > five minutes than to stay stupid all your life". > > This means that when you don't know something, or when you don't > > understand something, don't hesitate to ask. > > There are in the universe of theoretical physics, many theoreticians, but > > there is one who is really a size in relativistic kinematics, and who says > > things that no one had ever said. > > The very simple way in which he treats Langevin's voyageur is of superb > > intellectual and logical beauty. > And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by these > sad idiots "improper" clocks keep measuring improper t'=t > uin improper seconds. If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. They could be one faster one slower or synchronized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o25lrleua9t5Z4r7YfXG7x8d76U@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614946 |
Le 10/07/2023 à 23:27, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > > If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. > They could be one faster one slower or synchronized. Please do not use the term "synchronized", to say that two watches beating at the same speed have the same chronotropy. Please say: "Two clocks with the same chronotropy". Synchronized means something else, it means that they mark the same time. Watches can have the same chronotropy and be desynchronized. Please do it, it's VERY important for the rest of the concepts. Now, you seem to have a hard time understanding that two watches can beat each other slower than the other, and in a way, you're right. Two watches cannot beat less quickly than the other, it's absurd. But that's NOT what the well-understood theory of relativity says (and I wonder if anyone besides me actually understands). The theory says that they have a stronger reciprocal chronotropy. That is, each watch has an INTERNAL mechanism that beats faster than the other watch (internal chronotropy). This is NOT what the watches mark in total. For example, during the Langevin problem, the TWO watches systematically and symmetrically have a constantly positive chronotropy with respect to the other watch. Time constantly passes more quickly, but in total one watch marks 18 years, the other 30. The misunderstanding comes from the fact that the reader does not take into account the notion of spatial anisochrony, but only chronotropy. I refer you to the explanation I gave once again today about the Langevin's traveler. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gernaro Close <lcgr@rrlgrane.ne> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8huu8$n99b$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614947 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 10/07/2023 à 23:27, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : >> >> If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. >> They could be one faster one slower or synchronized. > > Please do not use the term "synchronized", > to say that two watches beating at the same speed have the same > chronotropy. nonsense. Your chronotropy means something else. You might mean chronology, but that's insignificant to this discussion. You guys are still confusing time with clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <y4vcbghj_Z8j66GqO-9w6r-u2ZQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614948 |
Le 10/07/2023 à 23:58, Gernaro Close a écrit : > nonsense. Your chronotropy means something else. You might mean > chronology, but that's insignificant to this discussion. You guys are > still confusing time with clocks. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?y4vcbghj_Z8j66GqO-9w6r-u2ZQ@jntp/Data.Media:1> R.H. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=y4vcbghj_Z8j66GqO-9w6r-u2ZQ@jntp>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emanuele Pezos <leop@mmpussos.zm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 08:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8loi4$1d762$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614948 |
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 2:58:42 PM UTC-7, Gernaro Close wrote: >> Richard Hachel wrote: >> > Le 10/07/2023 à 23:27, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : >> >> If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. >> >> They could be one faster one slower or synchronized. >> > Please do not use the term "synchronized", > > Since where did clocks running at the same speed become a dirty word? > synchronization as a concept applies as a whole. > If the universe is a whole that has an common instant. > We are not looking back to the BB as the most distant objects got to > where they are in time after it. clocks has nothing to do with speeds. I didn't start the war in uKraine. You started the war in uKraine 2014. You can just imagine the level of nazification of that country, when still are morons going to war to die, for the khazar goy gay actor clown, paid by 100s of milliards of worthless capitalist dollars, to play "president". Naming the Russian province "ukraine" as "my country", he living abroad with his khazar family of goys. *_US_senator_slams_Kiev’s_NATO_demands_* Rand Paul has called Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s complaints about the Western alliance “audacious” and “ungrateful” https://%72t.com/news/579570-rand-paul-slams-ukraine-nato-demands/ “Never look a gift horse in the mouth” “We’ve given them $100 billion, and he has the audacity to be so brazen as to tell us we’d better speed it up? I’d say that’s audacious. I’d say it’s brazen, and that's not very grateful for the $100 billion that we’ve given him so far.”. - No it isn't. He is a khazar gypsy goy. You don't undrestand the khazar goys. That's what you get when you empower clowns with billions of dollars. Zelenskyy's leadership legacy will be remembered as one driven by foreign interests and puppetry to the United States. Regrettably, his actions have not aligned with the best interests of the Ukrainian people. The devastating loss of 350,000 lives can be attributed to his misguided decisions and the influence of his puppet masters in the US. Furthermore, his refusal to sign a reasonable peace agreement proposed by Russia has resulted in the forfeiture of $12.7 trillion worth of valuable land and resources. It is disheartening to witness such disregard for the welfare of his nation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 11:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u8jr0m$2umjm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614947 |
On 7/10/2023 5:42 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 10/07/2023 à 23:27, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : >> >> If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. >> They could be one faster one slower or synchronized. > > Please do not use the term "synchronized", > to say that two watches beating at the same speed have the same > chronotropy. Why confuse Mitch with fake made-up words? It appears Mitch already has lots of problems with language, such as using the wrong words for things (like "weight" when usually "force" is correct, or "neutronium"). Confusing him with made-up words nobody is going to use is worthless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9b58efc-8759-4fc0-8d5a-694eba121e34n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614992 |
On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 17:03:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 7/10/2023 5:42 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: > > Le 10/07/2023 à 23:27, "mitchr...@gmail.com" a écrit : > >> > >> If you have two clocks each cannot be going slower than the other. > >> They could be one faster one slower or synchronized. > > > > Please do not use the term "synchronized", > > to say that two watches beating at the same speed have the same > > chronotropy. > Why confuse Mitch with fake made-up words? It appears Mitch already has And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wade Spyridis <didi@drdsippw.ss> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8kcei$13qer$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614992 |
Volney wrote: > On 7/10/2023 5:42 PM, Richard Hachel wrote: >> Please do not use the term "synchronized", to say that two watches >> beating at the same speed have the same chronotropy. > > Why confuse Mitch with fake made-up words? It appears Mitch already has > lots of problems with language, such as using the wrong words for things > (like "weight" when usually "force" is correct, or "neutronium"). > Confusing him with made-up words nobody is going to use is worthless. I'd keep the Begging Clown Zelensky 🤡 at Arms Length also, or maybe quite a bit Further. Apparently his Armpit's and Breath Absolutely Reek🤢🤮 NATO outlined the need for “additional democratic and security sector reforms” in the country. Zelensky killed Democracy with his martial law, his banning of opposition parties, his take over of his press, allowing a public kill list, and so much more. watch Budanov, that "intelligence" nazi sack of shit, saying he wants kill all Russians. Might be another khazar goy motherfucker with a mask on. He looks like shit. "Major General"?? How the fuck you get being a general in that fucking country, a stolen province of Russian Federation. Zelensky Has Press Conference *_With_His_Cast_of_Gotham-Esque_Cartoon_Character_Villains_* https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/2kHrnlbhbWBI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5d6a789-f712-4f60-928f-90ff219a5c28n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! Prokary, this sentence is entirely unsatisfactory to even a dilute skeptic, as an explanation " In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two observers to compare their proper times, the symmetry of the situation must be broken: At least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match that of the other.[42]" I also note from citation 42 that as late as 1996 the physics community still believed that the twins needed additional explanation. As to your figures, my boy, I want you to imagine the new set of two figures, 4.4b. In this set of figures the obtuse angle of the triangle in the spacetime diagram is pointing to the left side of the page instead of the right side of the page, with all that implies. From here we now apply your same arguments about the annual time signals and conclude that the earthbound twin claims to be younger. I'm afraid that you will still require the now deprecated acceleration argument to have any chance of alleviating the nagging doubts of the new, young & skeptical generation of science kids. Good luck. What do you say, Mitch?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zGcY9iTm52_W3dha2wnDkeIeLSA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614950 |
Le 11/07/2023 à 00:14, patdolan a écrit : >> I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > Prokary, this sentence is entirely unsatisfactory to even a dilute skeptic, as > an explanation > > " In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two observers > to compare their proper times, the symmetry of the situation must be broken: At > least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match that of > the other.[42]" > > I also note from citation 42 that as late as 1996 the physics community still > believed that the twins needed additional explanation. > > As to your figures, my boy, I want you to imagine the new set of two figures, > 4.4b. In this set of figures the obtuse angle of the triangle in the spacetime > diagram is pointing to the left side of the page instead of the right side of the > page, with all that implies. From here we now apply your same arguments about the > annual time signals and conclude that the earthbound twin claims to be younger. > I'm afraid that you will still require the now deprecated acceleration argument to > have any chance of alleviating the nagging doubts of the new, young & skeptical > generation of science kids. Good luck. > > What do you say, Mitch? This is still the case. Physicists do not understand this paradox, which involves a stroke of genius that they cannot have (i.e. admitting the reciprocity of apparent effects and accepting the covariant elasticity of distances) But today, it's dramatic, because the explanation is still very difficult to understand, and it took decades and a spark for Doctor Hachel to give it. So the most dramatic thing is that now we have it, and the scientific community should get down on their knees and cry. But not at all. We spit on it. It's absolutely insane! In a normally constituted scientific society, one should say "Mr. Hachel, sit down here, and we will hear you..." It is clear that this is not happening AT ALL. I refer to my post of the day dealing with this with a few dozen small explanatory drawings. I have limited hope that someone will finally understand the logic of the reasoning, but I hold out little hope. Human intelligence being unable to understand why the distance of 12 ly increases to 36 ly here, and 4 ly there. Such an intellectual limitation is tragic. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harry Angelopoulos <ouse@assapoyr.ug> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u8i124$n99b$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614952 |
Richard Hachel wrote: > But today, it's dramatic, because the explanation is still very > difficult to understand, and it took decades and a spark for Doctor > Hachel to give it. Wasn't it US/NATO who tried to topple his government in a coup? A prime example of someone falling in love with one's rapist. https://%72t.com/news/579508-turkey-agrees-to-support-sweden-nato-bid/ what a putrid wanker, this erdogan. I bet the people of his country, the Muslims, will fuck his ass, without america and EU. What an insult to every Muslim on this planet selling out to a country that allows such disrespect for Islam. Erdogan is a disgrace. what a fucking traitor. Yesterday the Asow soldiers release, today the NATO ally and from the beginnine the drone producer for Ukraine. That's a real friend of Putin. What a surprise! Erdoğa looked like a wet rat before the election, and now, he is just a rat!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcf68a9d-f3ab-4202-9351-74e1d022291bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614952 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 3:28:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 11/07/2023 à 00:14, patdolan a écrit : > >> I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > Prokary, this sentence is entirely unsatisfactory to even a dilute skeptic, as > > an explanation > > > > " In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two observers > > to compare their proper times, the symmetry of the situation must be broken: At > > least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match that of > > the other.[42]" > > > > I also note from citation 42 that as late as 1996 the physics community still > > believed that the twins needed additional explanation. > > > > As to your figures, my boy, I want you to imagine the new set of two figures, > > 4.4b. In this set of figures the obtuse angle of the triangle in the spacetime > > diagram is pointing to the left side of the page instead of the right side of the > > page, with all that implies. From here we now apply your same arguments about the > > annual time signals and conclude that the earthbound twin claims to be younger. > > I'm afraid that you will still require the now deprecated acceleration argument to > > have any chance of alleviating the nagging doubts of the new, young & skeptical > > generation of science kids. Good luck. > > > > What do you say, Mitch? > This is still the case. Physicists do not understand this paradox, which > involves a stroke of genius that they cannot have (i.e. admitting the > reciprocity of apparent effects and accepting the covariant elasticity of > distances) > > But today, it's dramatic, because the explanation is still very difficult > to understand, and it took decades and a spark for Doctor Hachel to give > it. > > So the most dramatic thing is that now we have it, and the scientific > community should get down on their knees and cry. > > But not at all. > > We spit on it. > > It's absolutely insane! > > In a normally constituted scientific society, one should say "Mr. Hachel, > sit down here, and we will hear you..." > > It is clear that this is not happening AT ALL. > > I refer to my post of the day dealing with this with a few dozen small > explanatory drawings. I have limited hope that someone will finally > understand the logic of the reasoning, but I hold out little hope. > > Human intelligence being unable to understand why the distance of 12 ly > increases to 36 ly here, and 4 ly there. > > Such an intellectual limitation is tragic. > > R.H. Now, now Dr. Hachel...calm thyself. We don't spit on Prokary. Your day will come. Perhaps you should up your game like Ross and record a Youtube for us. In looking over Prokary's link to the wiki editing summary page I note that none other than damned old Dirk Vdm enjoys the largest share of the contributions. This is probably true of every relativity article on wiki. I have written elsewhere that dk Vdm is the King of Relativity to perhaps 5 billion people. Or rather, he is the unseen and evil Professor Moriarty of Relativity, controlling all aspects of it to an unsuspecting online public. He does not visit our forum anymore. And I know why. In at TLA (three letter abbreviation) BBP! He can't answer it. In his Confessions, St. Augustine writes of the Manichean wiseman and Bishop Faustus. By this time the 29 year old Augustine has begun to doubt the beguiling theories of the Manichees, who were unable to respond to Augustine's objections. They implored Augustine to lay his most vexing questions before the great Fautus, which he does. But Faustus turns out to be a blathering fools. Augustine loses his Manichean faith as a result. Dirk is the Bishop Faustus of Relativity. He stands answerless before 5 billion truth-thirsty souls on the question of the BBP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 11:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kh4m6rFeod9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614952 |
On 2023-07-10 22:28:05 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said: > This is still the case. Physicists do not understand this paradox, > which involves a stroke of genius that they cannot have (i.e. admitting > the reciprocity of apparent effects and accepting the covariant > elasticity of distances) > > But today, it's dramatic, because the explanation is still very > difficult to understand, and it took decades and a spark for Doctor > Hachel to give it. > > So the most dramatic thing is that now we have it, and the scientific > community should get down on their knees and cry. > > But not at all. > > We spit on it. > > It's absolutely insane! > > In a normally constituted scientific society, one should say "Mr. > Hachel, sit down here, and we will hear you..." Have you ever attended a meeting of a "normally constituted scientific society"? Which one? When? > > It is clear that this is not happening AT ALL. > > I refer to my post of the day dealing with this with a few dozen small > explanatory drawings. I have limited hope that someone will finally > understand the logic of the reasoning, but I hold out little hope. > > Human intelligence being unable to understand why the distance of 12 ly > increases to 36 ly here, and 4 ly there. > > Such an intellectual limitation is tragic. > > R.H. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cafeadc7-c745-4a7f-8cb3-9a4bdeea0855n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614950 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:14:18 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > Prokary, this sentence is entirely unsatisfactory to even a dilute skeptic, as an explanation > > " In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two observers to compare their proper times, the symmetry of the situation must be broken: At least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match that of the other.[42]" > > I also note from citation 42 that as late as 1996 the physics community still believed that the twins needed additional explanation. To the vast majority of physicists (except Dingle and friends), the correct answer to the "paradox" has never been in doubt. What has been a topic of controversy is how best *to explain* the problem. A plurality of the papers that I looked at have appeared in American Journal of Physics or its sister publications, and have been concerned with pedagogical issues, student problem-solving, alternate approaches to engaging student intuition and the like. A large fraction of papers that I have examined use the "frame switch" approach to explaining the asymmetry. This is the approached favored by Debs, which seems to be the most-cited of the papers that I examined. It is not the approach that I favor. Since what I wrote was not intended to be a completely comprehensive article covering all possible approaches, I went for the approach which, in my opinion, required the least stretch of student intuition, even though it is difficult to extract out of the Doppler explanation the important role of relativity of simultaneity. > As to your figures, my boy, I want you to imagine the new set of two figures, 4.4b. In this set of figures the obtuse angle of the triangle in the spacetime diagram is pointing to the left side of the page instead of the right side of the page, with all that implies. All that implies is that you do not understand Minkowski diagrams. Nobody on the Earth feels any acceleration. Massive earthquakes and tsunamis would wreak havoc if you forced the Earth to follow the path that you describe. > From here we now apply your same arguments about the annual time signals and conclude that the earthbound twin claims to be younger. I'm afraid that you will still require the now deprecated acceleration argument to have any chance of alleviating the nagging doubts of the new, young & skeptical generation of science kids. Good luck. > > What do you say, Mitch?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d38e6af-c1b0-4d6f-bfe1-e88b9589e505n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614966 |
On Tuesday, 11 July 2023 at 04:46:58 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 5:14:18 PM UTC-5, patdolan wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10:26:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > > hard to read conglomeration. > > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > > Prokary, this sentence is entirely unsatisfactory to even a dilute skeptic, as an explanation > > > > " In reality, there is no paradox at all, because in order for the two observers to compare their proper times, the symmetry of the situation must be broken: At least one of the two observers must change their state of motion to match that of the other.[42]" > > > > I also note from citation 42 that as late as 1996 the physics community still believed that the twins needed additional explanation. > To the vast majority of physicists (except Dingle and friends), the correct You mean - to the vast majority of insane worshippers of The Shit. And the "physics" of your idiot guru wasn't even consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-10 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64ACDF9D.5AFC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! you just added another crook... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web