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 | 13 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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 22:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64B22C52.39E6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #615267 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Mike Fontenot wrote: > > > > Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the other > > twin is aging more slowly. Yet they each agree that the home twin (she) > > is older at their reunion. The only way that can be true is that the > > traveling twin (he) must conclude that she instantaneously ages by a > > large amount during his instantaneous turnaround. > > "instantaneous turnaround."???? is dat even possible? > > don't you need to slow down > come to a complete stop > stop > refuel > then turn > around First the traveling twin needs to slow down. Then it needs to change direction... maybe slowing down to make a uturn... after the uturn it needs to speed up again.. then when it reaches the earth... it needs to slow down again. A lot of time is lost with all dis uturns and slowing down. But whp bothers to measure it? -- 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]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VOOdndnnLOPvfS_5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #615262 |
On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the > other twin is aging more slowly. You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. You'll find that it requires a series of assistants at rest in the observer's inertial frame, pre-arranged to be sequentially passing next to the other twin; these assistants then observe the other twin's age and communicate that and their own time to the observer. From that series of reports the observer can conclude what you say. That is so outrageous that it is useless. Moreover, it is not part of the usual twin scenario. > Yet they each agree that the home twin (she) is older at their > reunion. Yes. > The only way that can be true is that the traveling twin (he) must > conclude that she instantaneously ages by a large amount during his > instantaneous turnaround. Nope. They can conclude that the elapsed proper times over their two paths through spacetime differ. It simply is not possible to "localize" that difference to specific portions of their paths, as this requires integrals over each ENTIRE path. That _IS_ how this is modeled in relativity. Your claims are just your own personal fantasies. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4630ab7d-2969-4c77-b590-4433c7a66a69n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615396 |
On Saturday, 15 July 2023 at 20:07:57 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > > Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the > > other twin is aging more slowly. > You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. And you're REALLY FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 11:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <a03599bc-25bc-b07b-6f59-08d014ae73b5@comcast.net> |
| In reply to | #615396 |
On 7/15/23 12:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the >> other twin is aging more slowly. > > You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. > It's called "the time dilation equation" of special relativity. It is one of the two most famous results in all of special relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khirl3FocbmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615481 |
On 7/16/2023 12:45 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > On 7/15/23 12:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >>> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the >>> other twin is aging more slowly. >> >> You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. >> > > It's called "the time dilation equation" of special relativity. It is > one of the two most famous results in all of special relativity. Your writing skills leave much to be desired. You wrote "must conclude..." Then when Tom pointed out this problem, you ignored it or you didn't appreciate the problem that your writing skills created, having nothing to do with the underlying science. If you're going to try again take what I just told you int consideration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiKdnVZS3PPdLin5nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #615481 |
On 7/16/23 12:45 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > On 7/15/23 12:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: >>> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the >>> other twin is aging more slowly. >> >> You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. > > It's called "the time dilation equation" of special relativity. You need to learn how it is applied. You'll find that to measure it requires the unrealistic assistants I described earlier. If you don't measure it, you're just fantasizing what you "think" would occur, and that is not science. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8930b23b-8324-4b9a-98e1-c2f041d96e81n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615497 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 05:19:41 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/23 12:45 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > > On 7/15/23 12:07 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 7/14/23 11:32 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote: > >>> Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the > >>> other twin is aging more slowly. > >> > >> You REALLY need to specify HOW such a conclusion could be reached. > > > > It's called "the time dilation equation" of special relativity. > You need to learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY of our idiot guru!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <AWoP4B57EP6tADzon2J4pyTvNNs@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615262 |
Le 14/07/2023 à 18:32, Mike Fontenot a écrit : > Each twin, when they are NOT accelerating, must conclude that the other > twin is aging more slowly. Yet they each agree that the home twin (she) > is older at their reunion. The only way that can be true is that the > traveling twin (he) must conclude that she instantaneously ages by a > large amount during his instantaneous turnaround. This is what all the relativists in the world say. As they don't understand anything about the theory, they invent a "time-gap" when making a U-turn. This does not exist with Dr. Hachel. And it's not the death threats against him that will do anything about it. Doctor Hachel is very clear on this. There is no change on the watches during the short duration of the U-turn (at 0.8c tangential speed on a semi-circle, T(stella)24 hours and T(Terrence)=40 hours. That is to say peanuts. You simply have to add the duration of the outward journey for Stella and the duration of the return journey for Stella. We get Tr1=Tr2. And Tr=Tr1+Tr2. That is: 9+9=18 years old. For Terrence, Tapp=Tr=Tapp(go)+Tapp(return)=27+3=30 Everything else is scientific denial and human filth. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 13:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u90k06$ojb2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615401 |
Den 15.07.2023 21:09, skrev Richard Hachel: > > This is what all the relativists in the world say. > As they don't understand anything about the theory, they invent a > "time-gap" when making a U-turn. > This does not exist with Dr. Hachel. > And it's not the death threats against him that will do anything about it. > Doctor Hachel is very clear on this. > There is no change on the watches during the short duration of the > U-turn (at 0.8c tangential speed on a semi-circle, T(stella)24 hours and > T(Terrence)=40 hours. > That is to say peanuts. > You simply have to add the duration of the outward journey for Stella > and the duration of the return journey for Stella. We get Tr1=Tr2. > And Tr=Tr1+Tr2. > That is: 9+9=18 years old. > For Terrence, Tapp=Tr=Tapp(go)+Tapp(return)=27+3=30 > > Everything else is scientific denial and human filth. > > R.H. https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf https://paulba.no/twins.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7c35cf0-4afb-411c-bba5-2734469196c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615464 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 13:23:53 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 15.07.2023 21:09, skrev Richard Hachel: > > > > This is what all the relativists in the world say. > > As they don't understand anything about the theory, they invent a > > "time-gap" when making a U-turn. > > This does not exist with Dr. Hachel. > > And it's not the death threats against him that will do anything about it. > > Doctor Hachel is very clear on this. > > There is no change on the watches during the short duration of the > > U-turn (at 0.8c tangential speed on a semi-circle, T(stella)24 hours and > > T(Terrence)=40 hours. > > That is to say peanuts. > > You simply have to add the duration of the outward journey for Stella > > and the duration of the return journey for Stella. We get Tr1=Tr2. > > And Tr=Tr1+Tr2. > > That is: 9+9=18 years old. > > For Terrence, Tapp=Tr=Tapp(go)+Tapp(return)=27+3=30 > > > > Everything else is scientific denial and human filth. > > > > R.H. > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf You're free to repeat your idiocies as many times as you want to, it won't help them much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WD3zFke29DfD6MmLg6yZrKmCA5o@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615464 |
Le 16/07/2023 à 13:23, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > Den 15.07.2023 21:09, skrev Richard Hachel: >> >> This is what all the relativists in the world say. >> As they don't understand anything about the theory, they invent a >> "time-gap" when making a U-turn. >> This does not exist with Dr. Hachel. >> And it's not the death threats against him that will do anything about it. >> Doctor Hachel is very clear on this. >> There is no change on the watches during the short duration of the >> U-turn (at 0.8c tangential speed on a semi-circle, T(stella)24 hours and >> T(Terrence)=40 hours. >> That is to say peanuts. >> You simply have to add the duration of the outward journey for Stella >> and the duration of the return journey for Stella. We get Tr1=Tr2. >> And Tr=Tr1+Tr2. >> That is: 9+9=18 years old. >> For Terrence, Tapp=Tr=Tapp(go)+Tapp(return)=27+3=30 >> >> Everything else is scientific denial and human filth. >> >> R.H. > > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf > https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf > > https://paulba.no/twins.html Merci Paul. It is possible that I will also produce a pdf on electromagnetic emissions very similar to yours and another on Langevin's traveler. Or even another on accelerated repositories. If you're interested, I think you could work on this problem with me to produce one or two small pdfs in common (write in French and in English). Simply, it would be necessary to go beyond this stupid and clumsy opinion (although the death threats that I sometimes receive make me think that these are people who have understood that I was not the last of the imbeciles in relativistic intuitiveness) which would that "Doctor Hachel is the worst crank". R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dallas Anetakis <aske@aaeeatli.as> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u90s2d$2ctrt$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615469 |
Richard Hachel wrote: >> https://paulba.no/twins.html > > Merci Paul. > > It is possible that I will also produce a pdf on electromagnetic > emissions very similar to yours and another on Langevin's traveler. > Or even another on accelerated repositories. > If you're interested, I think you could work on this problem with me to > produce one or two small pdfs in common (write in French and in > English). Simply, it would be necessary to go beyond this stupid and > clumsy opinion (although the death threats that I sometimes receive make > me think that these are people who have understood that I was not the > last of the imbeciles in relativistic intuitiveness) which would that > "Doctor Hachel is the worst crank". but norwegen is an 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, a shithole making 𝗳𝗮𝗸𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆, without which, they cannot even exists. They illegally occupy that country. They are 𝘇𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗲𝘀 each and everyone. VIkings -> 𝗩𝗜_𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 -> the tribe of 6 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀. They stole a country like ukraine. Their corrupted state commits terrorism. Criminals along the history. 𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗢𝗣𝗦22 (aka 𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶_𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙞𝙘_𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨_𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧_2022) These countries will exercise 𝗮_𝗺𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱_𝗼𝗳_𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, demonstrating the 𝗶𝗻𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗼𝗳_𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀. Exercise scenarios include amphibious, gunnery, 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲, air defense, and 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, as well as 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹, 𝘂𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱_𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 and 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝘃𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲_𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, and medical responses. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <khiaknFlpf3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #615469 |
On 2023-07-16 13:08:19 +0000, "Dr." Richard Hachel said: > Le 16/07/2023 à 13:23, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : >> Den 15.07.2023 21:09, skrev Richard Hachel: >>> >>> This is what all the relativists in the world say. >>> As they don't understand anything about the theory, they invent a >>> "time-gap" when making a U-turn. >>> This does not exist with Dr. Hachel. >>> And it's not the death threats against him that will do anything about it. >>> Doctor Hachel is very clear on this. >>> There is no change on the watches during the short duration of the >>> U-turn (at 0.8c tangential speed on a semi-circle, T(stella)24 hours >>> and T(Terrence)=40 hours. >>> That is to say peanuts. >>> You simply have to add the duration of the outward journey for Stella >>> and the duration of the return journey for Stella. We get Tr1=Tr2. >>> And Tr=Tr1+Tr2. >>> That is: 9+9=18 years old. >>> For Terrence, Tapp=Tr=Tapp(go)+Tapp(return)=27+3=30 >>> >>> Everything else is scientific denial and human filth. >>> >>> R.H. >> >> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf >> https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByDoppler.pdf >> >> https://paulba.no/twins.html > > Merci Paul. > > It is possible that I will also produce a pdf on electromagnetic > emissions very similar to yours and another on Langevin's traveler. > Or even another on accelerated repositories. > If you're interested, I think you could work on this problem with me to > produce one or two small pdfs in common (write in French and in > English). > Simply, it would be necessary to go beyond this stupid and clumsy > opinion (although the death threats that I sometimes receive make me > think that these are people who have understood that I was not the last > of the imbeciles in relativistic intuitiveness) which would that > "Doctor Hachel For the hundredth time, which university awarded your doctorate, "Doctor" Hachel, and what was the title of your thesis? > is the worst crank". > > R.H. -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web