Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672286 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 434 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 14:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 22:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-23 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:17 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:01 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 12:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 15:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 18:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 19:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 06:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 09:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 12:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 13:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 16:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-15 05:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 04:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-12 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 22:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-14 21:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-15 13:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-15 13:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 06:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 07:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 11:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-18 11:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-18 11:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-19 14:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 14:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 11:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 11:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 13:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:25 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 14:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 15:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:26 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-23 07:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000
Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:01 +0000
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 01:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 20:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-23 19:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-24 22:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-26 10:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-28 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 11:15 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Little Bakadorov <elaloda@laooe.ru> - 2026-09-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> - 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 07:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 14:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 20:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 12:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-18 08:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 17:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 17:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 09:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 19:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:29 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 00:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 07:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 21:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 22:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 15:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-22 21:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9UPywCDAuvhPDZ-YtX98Fu-mOIA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672479 |
Le 27/08/2026 à 19:14, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 27/08/2026 à 18:46, Python a écrit :
>> Richard,
>
> Honny, honny, sugar...
>
> My sugar, honny, honny...
>
>> We already had:
>>
>> anisochrony
>> chronotropy
>> direct-live
>> point M
>> time To
>> dilated distance
>
> Absolutely.
>
> On ne pourra pas te reprocher de ne pas être honnête.
>
>> We can now add the sociological mechanism supposedly explaining why
>> physicists reject all this:
>>
>> the willy.
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>> But please, for once, don't attribute that one to Poincare.
>
> D'=D.(1+cosα.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) c'est simplement issu de la transformation
> de Poincaré.
>
> Mon petit prince, je vais t'expliquer, et tu vas comprendre.
>
> Tu vois d'emblée, déjà que la correction au deuxième degré qui se trouve
> sous la barre de fraction impose
> que le terme de l'équation "grandisse". En physique, rien ne pouvant égaler la
> lumière, sqrt(1-v²/c²) < 1
>
> Ce n'est que le terme du premier degré, dû à l'anisochronie qui va pouvoir,
> parfois, faire que D'<D.
>
> Mais comment retrouve-t-on D'=D.(1+cosα.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) ?
>
> On sait que D=sqrt(x²+y²+z²) dans R.
>
> Mais on sait aussi que dans R', x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²).
>
> Or, manifestement, D'=sqrt(x'²+y²+z²) car y et z ne changent pas (il n'y a
> pas de mouvement en y et z).
>
> On remplace :
>
> D'=sqrt([(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)]²+y²+z²)
>
> C'est aussi simple que ça.
>
> Tu vas retomber sur D'=D.(1+cosα.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) dans tous les cas de
> figure.
>
> Essaye par toi-même, c'est toujours mieux quand on a la certitude d'une
> égalité mathématique par soi même.
>
>
>
> R.H.
>
>
Richard,
Yes: with To=D/c and x=D cos(alpha), your algebra does give
D' = D(1+beta cos(alpha))/sqrt(1-beta^2).
No objection there.
Unfortunately, this proves much less than you think.
You started from ONE event with coordinates
(To,x,y,z)
transformed it to
(To',x',y',z')
and calculated
sqrt(x'^2+y'^2+z'^2).
So you have calculated the spatial coordinate norm of that transformed
event.
You have NOT thereby calculated the length of a moving rod, nor the
distance between two objects measured in R'.
For that you need TWO events and the appropriate simultaneity condition
in R'.
This is precisely the distinction we have been discussing for days.
So congratulations: the algebra works.
The interpretation does not follow from the algebra.
And, regrettably, the willy has not supplied the missing second event.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7X2FdLr38jM7mJ4q3IT2PZ2BWhU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672486 |
Le 28/08/2026 à 00:17, Python a écrit : > Le 27/08/2026 à 19:14, Richard Hachel a écrit : >> D'=D.(1+cosα.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) c'est simplement issu de la transformation >> de Poincaré. > Richard, > > Yes: with To=D/c and x=D cos(alpha), your algebra does give > > D' = D(1+beta cos(alpha))/sqrt(1-beta^2). Yes, yes, yes, YES ! > No objection there. YES !!! > So you have calculated the spatial coordinate norm of that transformed > event. Obviously. > You have NOT thereby calculated the length of a moving rod, nor the > distance between two objects measured in R'. Si cela marche pour un point, cela marche pour tous. Tu prends deux points n'importe lesquels, et tu peux transposer. Prenons une grande tige qui va de A(-12,9,0,-15,0) à B(12,9,0,-15,0) dans R. La tige mesure L=24. Si c'est en année-lumière l'unité, c'est 24 années-lumière de longueur. Que se passe-t-il dans R'? Nous avons vu que, pour A, on avait alors (40,9,0,-41,0). Cherchons pour B. Pour B, x'=(-12+0,8.15)/0.6=0 L'extrémité B, qui se trouvait en x=-12, se trouve dévié en 0. Soit les coordonnées (0,9,0,-9,0) dans R'. On calcule la longueur L'=40-0=40 La tige est plus grande dans R' que dans R. Et cela marche pour tout. C'est d'une facilité et d'une logique à toute épreuve. Tu remarqueras ma cinquième coordonnée qui est le temps pour O ou pour O', alors que la quatrième est le temps pour M et M'. Ce n'est pas difficile à comprendre, et il est de notoriété publique que si Hachel enseignait la relativité dans les lycées, tous les élèves au moins moyens comprendraient (surtout ceux qui prennent des filières scientifiques). Une immense question pointe alors automatiquement son nez. Ben pour les grands pontes de la physique? Comment se fait-il que EUX soient de sombres crétins? La réponse est évidente. Le formatage. Un enfant de dix ans comprends parfaitement le français, mais est incapable de traduire "Il y a un cheval dans ce pré" en chinois. Là, c'est pareil. Complétement formaté avec une vision minkowskienne de la RR, avec une incompréhension totale de la nature de l'anisochronie, et du direct-live, ils plantent TOUS là où un gosse de 15 ans va te comprendre la RH avec perfection, et sans y trouver quoi que ce soit à redire. Mais mes amis, les mathématiques employées sont même sous le niveau de terminale. Peut-être seconde ou première. Alors pourquoi le spontes sont-ils largués? Parce que formaté. Il ne comprennent pas la différence entre t et To. Alors qu'un gosse, s'il m'écoute attentivement, va posséder toute la RR d'Hachel (avec les référentiels tournants et les référentiels accélérés) en quelques heures de cours. Mais c'est du niveau première-terminale mon truc. Et le grand ponte, ne pouvant aller qu'à la notion de chronotropie par changement de cinématique référentielle fera le singe en disant gnagnagna et gnagnagna. Pusi il s'enfermera dans l'invariance de l'intervalle espace-temps, notion complétement inutile, et facilement remplacée par To²=Tr²+€t² C'est aussi simple que ça. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <moBI5CIHZUkP2SfoeGWuA8WkQm8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672488 |
Richard,
> L'=40-0=40
>
> La tige est plus grande dans R' que dans R.
And there is the error.
You have very kindly written it explicitly into your coordinates.
For A you obtain:
A' = (40, 9, 0, -41, 0)
and for B:
B' = (0, 9, 0, -9, 0)
So your two endpoints have:
x'_A = 40 at To'_A = -41
x'_B = 0 at To'_B = -9
and you calculate:
L' = 40 - 0 = 40.
But these are positions at TWO DIFFERENT TIMES in R':
Delta To' = 32 years.
That is not the length of the rod in R'.
To measure its length in R', you need the positions of its two
endpoints at the SAME R' time.
This isn't "Minkowskian formatting".
It isn't chronotropy.
It isn't anisochrony.
It isn't the inability of physicists to understand Hachel.
It is simply the definition of measuring the length of a moving object.
Your calculation is equivalent to measuring the distance between the
front of a train today and the rear of the train next Tuesday and
calling the difference "the length of the train".
And the nicest part is that I don't even have to invoke sophisticated
physics to find the mistake.
You supplied the two different times yourself:
-41 != -9
Apparently "terminale-level" mathematics was sufficient after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zCL2szlywwvevSrIqqoZe_c56sQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672496 |
Le 28/08/2026 à 12:20, Python a écrit : > Richard, > >> L'=40-0=40 >> >> La tige est plus grande dans R' que dans R. > > And there is the error. > > You have very kindly written it explicitly into your coordinates. > > For A you obtain: > > A' = (40, 9, 0, -41, 0) Yes. > > and for B: > > B' = (0, 9, 0, -9, 0) Yes. > > So your two endpoints have: > > x'_A = 40 at To'_A = -41 > x'_B = 0 at To'_B = -9 Yes. > > and you calculate: > > L' = 40 - 0 = 40. Yes. > But these are positions at TWO DIFFERENT TIMES in R': No. > Delta To' = 32 years. Oui, pour M'. C'est vrai. Mais on s'en fout! Je suis au point O' (au moment ou je croise O) et je mesure la longueur de la tige AB. Je ne suis pas en M'. > > That is not the length of the rod in R'. > > To measure its length in R', you need the positions of its two > endpoints at the SAME R' time. Bon sang, quarante ans que je te dis que non. Je vois que tu n'as toujours pas compris, et l'extraordinaire difficulté d'enseigner la relativité d'Hachel a un cerveau préformaté par Hermann Minkowski. > It is simply the definition of measuring the length of a moving object. For crying out loud! He still hasn't grasped that that isn't what we're talking about. I fully accept that to judge a car's length, you have to measure the rear and the front at the same time. That’s obvious. Anyone arguing otherwise would be descending into absurdity. But that isn't what we're talking about. We are talking about the true concept of simultaneity *for* the observer, not about their point M. The time To represents the synchronization of the entire reference frame at M. That’s not the issue here. We are talking about the actual simultaneity of events for O or O'. And that is not the same thing. > Your calculation is equivalent to measuring the distance between the > front of a train today and the rear of the train next Tuesday and > calling the difference "the length of the train". C'est justement ce qu'il ne faut pas faire. Et c'est ce que les physiciens font en utilisant le temps abstrait To, et non le temps réel t mesuré par O et O'. Ca fait des dizaines de fois que je te le dis, mais tu ne sembles pas comprendre. Tu ne fais pas l'effort de comprendre, parce que tu es formaté à penser To. C'est pourquoi un élève de lycée va me comprendre aussitôt, et résoudre tous les problèmes de baccalauréat posé par moi en relativité hachelienne, et pas toi. Un peu comme un enfant chinois parle facilement quelques mots de chinois en Chine, mais pas toi, formaté à parler français. C'est d'autant plus étrange qu'il semble que tu comprennes certain concept, mais pas la structure géométrique d'un simple référentiel (O,x,y,z,To,t) pourtant très simple pour un lycéen. > And the nicest part is that I don't even have to invoke sophisticated > physics to find the mistake. > > You supplied the two different times yourself: > > -41 != -9 > > Apparently "terminale-level" mathematics was sufficient after all. Et voilà. Tu n'as toujours pas compris. t'=t=0 Je m'en tape de To. C'est ABSTRAIT. Utile, mais abstrait. Ce n'est pas ce que mesure O en physique anisochrone, c'est ce que mesure M. Mais M n'est pas l'observateur direct. Il faut utiliser t et t', et lorsque les deux observateurs O et O' se croisent, ils sont au même endroit et dans la même simultanéité d'univers. Ils perçoivent en direct-live le même univers. Ils voient exactement la même chose présente. Mais spatialement très déformée, à cause de x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) et seulement à cause de ça. Leur isochronie d'univers est totale. Ce qui change c'est leur chronotropie relative. Tu vas dire : "Oui, mais leur chronotropie variant, ils ne vont plus percevoir le même univers simultané longtemps". Ce sera vrai. Mais non à cause de leur vitesse, à cause le de leur position qui va s'écarter de plus en plus. La simultanéité, c'est la position (fixe ou mobile). La chronotropie, c'est la cinématique. On va bien finir par y arriver. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SbFi7wUlpjVpCZoWmuH8hMKi9Mg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672498 |
Richard,
You now explicitly agree that
A': To' = -41
B': To' = -9
cannot be used to measure the ordinary length of the rod in R',
because measuring a rod requires its endpoints at the same time.
Good.
So your
40 = 40 - 0
is NOT the length of the rod in R' in the usual physical sense.
It is another quantity, defined using what you call the "direct-live
simultaneity" of O', for which you assert
t'_A = t'_B = 0
despite
To'_A != To'_B.
Fine. Then the question is no longer mathematical.
What physical measurement performed by O' gives 40?
Describe the experiment.
What does O' actually do with rulers, clocks, light signals, radar,
photographs, detectors, whatever you like, whose result is
40 light-years
rather than the standard Lorentz measurement
24/gamma = 14.4 light-years?
Saying
"t'=0 because these events are really simultaneous for O'"
doesn't answer that question. It is precisely your additional
postulate.
And saying that To' is "what M' measures" doesn't derive it either:
M' is your fictitious federator, not an instrument sitting at either
end of the rod.
So we have made substantial progress.
Yesterday, 40 was presented as the transformed length.
Today you agree that the ordinary simultaneous measurement does not
give 40, and explain that 40 belongs instead to a new Hachelian notion
of "real/direct-live simultaneity".
Wonderful.
Now all that remains is the minor detail generally known as physics:
how do we measure it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sAsBbIUwcKsJguE8Mx9DdXILBz4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672499 |
Le 28/08/2026 à 14:20, Python a écrit : > Richard, > > You now explicitly agree that > > A': To' = -41 > B': To' = -9 Oui, cela veut dire que l'événement, pour l'observateur abstrait fédérateur, s'est produit il y a 41 unités de temps pour A et 9 unités de temps pour B. Nous sommes d'accord. Nous sommes encore d'accord quand tu dis : "Mais ce n'est pas simultané". Mais... simultané pour M ou M'. Qui sont des fédérateurs, et non les observateurs mêmes. > cannot be used to measure the ordinary length of the rod in R', > because measuring a rod requires its endpoints at the same time. > > Good. Yes, very good. > > So your > > 40 = 40 - 0 > > is NOT the length of the rod in R' in the usual physical sense. Absolutely. Mais parfois, "usual physical sense" n'a guère d'inbtérêt. "Usual theological sense" qui dit que la Vierge Marie a fait un bébé toute seule, pas plus. > > It is another quantity, defined using what you call the "direct-live > simultaneity" of O', for which you assert > > t'_A = t'_B = 0 Oui, c'est exactement ça : "Si les observateurs sont conjoints, alors leurs observations sont conjointes" C'est pour ça qu'Hachel est le plus grand. Sa simplicité déboussolle. > despite > > To'_A != To'_B. Evidemment. > Fine. Then the question is no longer mathematical. > > What physical measurement performed by O' gives 40? > > Describe the experiment. > > What does O' actually do with rulers, clocks, light signals, radar, > photographs, detectors, whatever you like, whose result is > > 40 light-years > > rather than the standard Lorentz measurement > > 24/gamma = 14.4 light-years? > > Saying > > "t'=0 because these events are really simultaneous for O'" > > doesn't answer that question. It is precisely your additional > postulate. > > And saying that To' is "what M' measures" doesn't derive it either: > M' is your fictitious federator, not an instrument sitting at either > end of the rod. > > So we have made substantial progress. > > Yesterday, 40 was presented as the transformed length. > > Today you agree that the ordinary simultaneous measurement does not > give 40, and explain that 40 belongs instead to a new Hachelian notion > of "real/direct-live simultaneity". > > Wonderful. > > Now all that remains is the minor detail generally known as physics: > > how do we measure it? Avec des montres, avec des appareillages, avec des télescopes. Mais ce n'est pas facilement faisables, bien que nous soyons dans des époques où tout va forcément très vite. On croyait impossible une expérience montrant la vitesse de la terre dans l'éther. C'était mal connaître monsieur Michelson. T'inquiète, lui, il a trouvé. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lEPEMFbSb2Pxz9vAaBqYoaxhr-Q@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672506 |
Richard,
> Avec des montres, avec des appareillages, avec des télescopes.
That's not an experiment.
I asked for the protocol which produces your 40 light-years.
Which clocks?
Where are they?
What events do they record?
What readings are obtained?
How are those readings combined to obtain 40?
"Clocks, instruments and telescopes" is approximately as operational
as saying "with physics".
> On croyait impossible une expérience montrant la vitesse de la terre
> dans l'éther.
>
> C'était mal connaître monsieur Michelson.
>
> T'inquiète, lui, il a trouvé.
This is an especially entertaining example.
Michelson and Morley precisely did NOT measure the expected motion of
the Earth through a stationary luminiferous ether.
Their famous result was null.
So your experimental validation of RH currently consists of:
Experiment measuring 40 ly: not specified
Actual measurement of 40 ly: none
Prediction differing from SR: 40 ly vs 14.4 ly
Supporting historical example: a famous null result
We're making progress.
You have finally produced a very clear experimentally distinguishable
prediction.
Now you merely need the experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KeT0uRpPV__YsdGe4hL_L4xgoCU@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672510 |
Le 28/08/2026 à 17:16, Python a écrit : >> C'était mal connaître monsieur Michelson. >> >> T'inquiète, lui, il a trouvé. > Their famous result was null. No, the result was not null. On the contrary, it was very positive, and it opened the door to modern science. It was immediately understood that the ether was a scientific myth and that there was no absolute reference frame. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18cec98b834d98f2$189894$796307$4236dc63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672322 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:57:23 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.08.2026 00:18, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 22:15:12 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >> >>> The reading on the faces of clock A and B clocks are always equal to >>> the readings on the faces of the C-clocks they are instantly >>> co-located with, but no reading "remain on A's face", the clocks are >>> running. >> >> Correction. Einstein ensured that the readings of A and C are the same >> whether they are co-located or not. You can move them around for a >> thousand years and their readings will always coincide. That is >> obviously the case whether they are together or not. > > Yes, A and B will at any time show the same as the "time of the > stationary system". That's why they are synchronous in the stationary > system. > But A and B are moving, so the coordinate time in the stationary system > will change as they go, and a clock must be compared to coordinate time > at the position where it is. > > > Quote from Einstein: > "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, > clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary > system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any > instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where > they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the > stationary system.” > > Einstein didn't name the coordinate clocks showing “time of the > stationary system”, but you did: > > Your figure in the OP: > A____Om_____B ->v moving frame > C____C_____C___C_____C__Os__C stationary frame > > So the "C-clocks" are coordinate clocks in the stationary system. > > > Read the following carefully, and you will see that there are no > inconsistencies. > > So: > Event 1: > - When the light is emitted from A > the number tA appears on clock A's face and on the C-clock > momentarily co-located with clock A. > > Event 2: > - When the light emitted from A hits clock B > the number tB appears on clock B's face and on the C-clock > momentarily co-located with clock B. > > Event 3: > - When the light hits clock A after being reflected from B > the number tA' appears on clock A's face and on the C-clock > momentarily co-located with clock A. > > > tB - tA = rAB/(c-v) tA'- tB = rAB/(c+v) > > The intervals (tB - tA) and (tA'- tB) can be read off clock A and B and > and three different C-clocks. > > Event 1: A and C1 show tA > A_________B ->v > C____C1______C2_____C3_____C____C All Cs showing the same. > > > Event 2: B and C3 show tB > A_________B ->v > C____C1______C2_____C3_____C____C All Cs showing the same. > > > Event 3: B and C2 show tA' > A_________B ->v > C____C1______C2_____C3_____C____C All Cs showing the same. > > The C-clocks co-located with A and B always show the same, > A and B are synchronous in the stationary frame. > > > The C-clocks advances by (tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v) between event 1 and 2 The > C-clocks advances by (tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v) between event 2 and 3 > (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB),A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame. > > >>> tA, tA' and tB are readings at specific events, they don't remain on >>> the clock's faces. >> >> Remember the light source is connected to clock A. >> Let's call the two time INTERVALS IA and IB. >> In the stationary frame IA <> IB In the moving frame IA = IB > > This is you giant misconception. > > The intervals (tB - tA) and (tA'- tB) are the same in both frames. HAHHAHAHAAHAAAAAHAHAAA! Paul is even dumber than Einstein. If P2 was correct, they would have different values in the stationary frame but the same values in the moving frame. THAT IS THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! > A and B are synchronous in the stationary frame because both clocks at > any time show the same as the time of the stationary system. > This has nothing to do with the transit time of a light beam. > > The clocks are not synchronous in their rest frame because the transit > time from A to B is different from the transit time from B to A. Oh dear! Paul does not appear to understand that according to Einstein, the transit time from A to B is NOT different from the transit time from B to A, when viewed in the MOVING frame. That is the whole point. Om does not care what Os thinks. According to Einstein's silly postulate, he just sees light moving at c in both directions between two stationary objects. What is more, Einstein should have realized that the stationary observer would have been aware that P2 also applied in the moving frame and foreseen the logical impossibility that my paradox has now revealed. He obviously did not fully understand the impact of his own postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <116icqa$37lgn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672369 |
Den 24.08.2026 18:08, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:57:23 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> The intervals (tB - tA) and (tA'- tB) are the same in both frames.
>
> HAHHAHAHAAHAAAAAHAHAAA! Paul is even dumber than Einstein.
>
> If P2 was correct, they would have different values in the stationary
> frame but the same values in the moving frame. THAT IS THE LOGICAL
> IMPOSSIBILITY!
Read my other post. I will repeat it here:
If you find something which you think is wrong,
quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong.
Quote from Einstein:
"We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod,
clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the
stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond
at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places
where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in
the stationary system.”
Einstein didn't name the coordinate clocks showing
“time of the stationary system”, but Ralph did:
Ralph's figure in the OP:
A____Om_____B ->v moving frame
C____C_____C___C_____C__Os__C stationary frame
The "C-clocks" are coordinate clocks in the stationary system (SS).
The C-clocks co-located with A and B always show the same,
A and B are synchronous in the stationary frame.
================================================
Read the following carefully, and you will see that there
are no inconsistencies.
Event 1: Light pulse is emitted from A. A and C₁ show tA.
--------------------------------------------------------
A_________B ->v
C____C₁_______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA
x₁
C₁ and A are at the position x₁ at event 1.
Event 2: Light pulse hits B and is reflected. B and C₃ show tB.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A_________B ->v
C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tB.
x₁ x₃
C₃ and B are at position x₃ at event 2.
Since B is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have:
(x₃-x₁) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA)
Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have:
c⋅(tB - tA) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA)
(tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v)
Event 3: Light pulse hits A. A and C₂ show tA'.
A_________B ->v
C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA'.
x₁ x₂ x₃
C₂ and A are at position x₂ at event 3.
Since A is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have:
(x₃-x₂) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB)
Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have:
c⋅(tA'- tB) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB)
(tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v)
All the times and distances are measured in the SS.
However, tA and tA' are times shown by clock A
while tB is shown by clock B.
Since (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB),
A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame.
================================================
We know that the transit time T of the pulse between
A and B is the same in both direction.
T = (tA + tA')/2.
To be in synch, tB should show T/2.
However, tB shows T/2 + F where F is a positive offset.
(tB + F - tA) = (tA' - tB - F)
F = (tA + tA')/2 - tB
Clock A is F ahead of clock B.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18cee922b7fe1cb5$188393$566809$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672380 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:24:43 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.08.2026 18:08, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 21:57:23 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> The intervals (tB - tA) and (tA'- tB) are the same in both frames. >> >> HAHHAHAHAAHAAAAAHAHAAA! Paul is even dumber than Einstein. >> >> If P2 was correct, they would have different values in the stationary >> frame but the same values in the moving frame. THAT IS THE LOGICAL >> IMPOSSIBILITY! > > Read my other post. I will repeat it here: > > If you find something which you think is wrong, > quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong. What is wrong is that you are not applying P2 to the moving frame. If you do that, it becomes obvious that the travel times are equal in that frame and the reading advance of clock A will agree. tB-tA = tA'-tB according to Einstein from the eyes of Om. Do you not agree that P2 applies to all frames. I cannot believe you are that naive. > Quote from Einstein: > "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, > clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary > system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any > instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where > they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the > stationary system.” .....'at the places where they happen to be!!!!! In other words, """anywhere""". > Einstein didn't name the coordinate clocks showing “time of the > stationary system”, but Ralph did: > > Ralph's figure in the OP: > A____Om_____B ->v moving frame > C____C_____C___C_____C__Os__C stationary frame > > The "C-clocks" are coordinate clocks in the stationary system (SS). > > The C-clocks co-located with A and B always show the same, > A and B are synchronous in the stationary frame. Unless you believe an Aether exists and Lorentz's transforms are real, all clocks in the universe are capable of correctly measuring time in any system. > ================================================ > > Read the following carefully, and you will see that there are no > inconsistencies. I have read it many times and there are no inconsistencies. There is one massive omission. > Event 1: Light pulse is emitted from A. A and C₁ show tA. > -------------------------------------------------------- > A_________B ->v > C____C₁_______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA > x₁ > C₁ and A are at the position x₁ at event 1. > > > Event 2: Light pulse hits B and is reflected. B and C₃ show tB. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > A_________B ->v > C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tB. > x₁ x₃ > C₃ and B are at position x₃ at event 2. > Since B is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: > (x₃-x₁) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) > Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: > c⋅(tB - tA) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) > (tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v) > > > Event 3: Light pulse hits A. A and C₂ show tA'. > A_________B ->v > C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA'. > x₁ x₂ x₃ > C₂ and A are at position x₂ at event 3. > Since A is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: > (x₃-x₂) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) > Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: > c⋅(tA'- tB) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) > (tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v) > > All the times and distances are measured in the SS. > However, tA and tA' are times shown by clock A while tB is shown by > clock B. > > Since (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB),.....................equation 1. > A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame. That is what Os would think if he was pretty clueless. A better informed Os or Paul Andersen would know that P2 also applied to the moving frame (Einstein said it would), and so the above equations would NOT coincide with those of Om, who would be at rest with both A and B, observe light moving at c and therefore be certain that the two times must be equal, purely through symmetry. > ================================================ > > We know that the transit time T of the pulse between A and B is the same > in both direction. You just said they were different (equation 1). Have you changed you mind? But at least you have now applied P2 to the moving frame. > T = (tA + tA')/2. > To be in synch, tB should show T/2. Only if P2 was correct. > However, tB shows T/2 + F where F is a positive offset. > > (tB + F - tA) = (tA' - tB - F) > F = (tA + tA')/2 - tB > > Clock A is F ahead of clock B. Which is quite correct since light moving at c in the stationary frame moves at c+v and c-v in the moving frame....but this has nothing to do with the paradox. Synchronization is not the issue. No clock readings need to be subtracted. What matters is the fact that if P2 happened to be correct, the reading of clock A would be PREDICTED by Einstein to advance by two different pairs of pure numbers concurrently. That logical impossibility becomes quite obvious when P2 operates independently in the stationary and moving frames. The only conclusion is that P2 cannot be correct. I might add that I have returned temporarily to this news group largely to see if my Paradox can be understood by people who are familiar with the subject. This is not a typical clock experiment and I realize the logic is rather unusual and difficult. You are already mentioned in my main book for alerting me to the fact that all support for Einstein involves circular logic and at this stage, it looks like you will get extra praise for helping me make the paradox idiot proof before I publish it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54RpZVGE6PHkNLN0SCGjuUdEFuo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672382 |
Ralph,
You write:
"the reading of clock A would be PREDICTED by Einstein
to advance by two different pairs of pure numbers concurrently."
No.
Clock A participates in only TWO of the three events:
E1: emission at A
E2: reflection at B
E3: return at A
Clock A has readings at E1 and E3.
Therefore the only elapsed time actually recorded by clock A is
tA' - tA.
There is no reading of clock A at E2, because E2 occurs at B.
So neither
tB - tA
nor
tA' - tB
is "the advance of clock A".
Each expression contains a reading from clock B.
That is exactly why synchronization is unavoidable.
You keep saying
"synchronization is not the issue"
while constructing your alleged paradox from two ONE-WAY transit times
between spatially separated clocks.
But one-way transit times cannot be obtained from one clock.
They necessarily require two distant clocks and therefore a
synchronization
convention.
That is not an interpretation of SR. It is elementary metrology.
Now consider the moving frame.
Yes, A and B are at rest there.
Yes, P2 says that light propagates at c in both directions in the
Einstein coordinates of that frame.
Therefore the geometrical propagation times between A and B are equal.
But the particular clocks A and B in Einstein's thought experiment were
NOT
Einstein-synchronized in that frame.
They were deliberately adjusted to remain synchronized with the stationary
frame.
Consequently their displayed one-way differences
tB - tA
and
tA' - tB
are unequal even though the propagation times in their own rest frame are
equal.
There is no contradiction.
There is simply a clock offset.
If the moving observer resets A and B so that they are
Einstein-synchronized
in their own frame, then their readings give equal one-way transit times.
But after doing that they are no longer synchronized with the stationary
C-clocks.
You cannot have both synchronizations simultaneously.
That is precisely relativity of simultaneity.
Your claimed contradiction is obtained by demanding that A and B
simultaneously
retain the stationary-frame synchronization AND possess the moving-frame
synchronization.
Einstein predicts that they cannot.
You assume that they must.
Then you announce that Einstein is inconsistent.
There is an even shorter way to put it:
Clock A measures the round trip.
A and B together measure the two one-way trips.
The first requires no distant synchronization.
The second does.
So when you say
"No clock readings need to be subtracted"
and
"synchronization is not the issue",
you are removing exactly the operation required to define the quantities
on
which your paradox depends.
There are therefore no "two different advances of clock A".
There is one advance of A:
tA' - tA.
And everybody agrees on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <116ku2n$3i8l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672382 |
Den 25.08.2026 03:47, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:24:43 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Read my other post. I will repeat it here:
>>
>> If you find something which you think is wrong,
>> quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong.
>
> What is wrong is that you are not applying P2 to the moving frame.
> If you do that, it becomes obvious that the travel times are equal in that
> frame and the reading advance of clock A will agree. tB-tA = tA'-tB
> according to Einstein from the eyes of Om.
I do indeed "use the P2".
You have obviously not read what wrote, so we must start again.
Read it this time!
>
>> Quote from Einstein:
>> "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod,
>> clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary
>> system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any
>> instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where
>> they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the
>> stationary system.”
>
> .....'at the places where they happen to be!!!!! In other words,
> """anywhere""".
Don't be ridiculous. An event is a point in space and time.
That is a position in space given by a x-coordinate, and a time
shown by a clock at the position in space "where it happens to be".
Now you can read Einstein's thought example and try to find
something which is wrong.
Ralph's figure in the OP:
A____Om_____B ->v moving frame
C____C_____C___C_____C__Os__C stationary frame
The "C-clocks" are coordinate clocks in the stationary system (SS).
Clock A and B are at the ends of a rod with length rAB.
The rod is moving with the speed v relative to the SS.
The C-clocks co-located with A and B always show the same,
A and B are synchronous in the stationary frame.
================================================
Read the following carefully, and you will see that there
are no inconsistencies.
Event 1: Light pulse is emitted from A. A and C₁ show tA.
--------------------------------------------------------
A_________B ->v
C____C₁_______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA
x₁
C₁ and A are at the position x₁ at event 1.
The coordinates of event 1 are (x₁,tA)
Event 2: Light pulse hits B and is reflected. B and C₃ show tB.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A_________B ->v
C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tB.
x₁ x₃
C₃ and B are at position x₃ at event 2.
The coordinates of event 1 are (x₃,tB)
Since B is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have:
(x₃-x₁) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA)
Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have:
c⋅(tB - tA) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA)
(tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v)
Event 3: Light pulse hits A. A and C₂ show tA'.
A_________B ->v
C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA'.
x₁ x₂ x₃
C₂ and A are at position x₂ at event 3.
The coordinates of event 3 are (x₂,tA')
Since A is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have:
(x₃-x₂) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB)
Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have:
c⋅(tA'- tB) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB)
(tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v)
All the times and distances are measured in the SS.
But tA and tA' are times shown by clock A
while tB is shown by clock B.
tA, tA' and tB are "pure numbers" independent of
frames of reference.
Since (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB),
A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame.
================================================
Here I "use the P2".
The speed of light is c in the rest frame of clock A and B.
We know that the transit time T of the pulse between
A and B is the same in both direction.
T = (tA + tA')/2.
To be in synch, tB should show T/2.
However, tB shows T/2 + F where F is a positive offset.
(tB + F - tA) = (tA' - tB - F)
F = (tA + tA')/2 - tB
Clock A is F ahead of clock B.
----------------------------------
This comment of yours:
"What matters is the fact that if P2 happened to be correct,
the reading of clock A would be PREDICTED by Einstein to advance
by two different pairs of pure numbers concurrently. That logical
impossibility becomes quite obvious when P2 operates independently
in the stationary and moving frames."
.. is stupid beyond belief!
===========================
Clock A is predicted to advance the "pure number" (rAB/(c-v)+rAB/(c+v))
between event 1 and event 3.
"Pure numbers" are independent of frames of reference.
Why do you think that the fact that the speed of light is c
in the rest frame of clock A and B can make clock A advance by
a different number than it factually does?
It isn't even funny! :-(
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18cf26e453084d73$37644$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672419 |
On 8/25/2026 10:31 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 25.08.2026 03:47, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:24:43 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Read my other post. I will repeat it here: >>> >>> If you find something which you think is wrong, >>> quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong. >> >> What is wrong is that you are not applying P2 to the moving frame. >> If you do that, it becomes obvious that the travel times are equal in >> that >> frame and the reading advance of clock A will agree. tB-tA = tA'-tB >> according to Einstein from the eyes of Om. > > I do indeed "use the P2". > You have obviously not read what wrote, so we must start again. > Read it this time! > >>> Quote from Einstein: >>> "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, >>> clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the >>> stationary >>> system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any >>> instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places where >>> they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the >>> stationary system.” >> >> .....'at the places where they happen to be!!!!! In other words, >> """anywhere""". > > Don't be ridiculous. An event is a point in space and time. > That is a position in space given by a x-coordinate, and a time > shown by a clock at the position in space "where it happens to be". Fortunately - we have GPS now, so we can be absolutely sure that that moronic mumble of the idiot has nothing in common with real clocks, real indications or real anything. And, since it was not even consistent - no surprise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18cf560923ec73bb$188464$566809$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672419 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:31:39 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 25.08.2026 03:47, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:24:43 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Read my other post. I will repeat it here: >>> >>> If you find something which you think is wrong, >>> quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong. >> >> What is wrong is that you are not applying P2 to the moving frame. >> If you do that, it becomes obvious that the travel times are equal in >> that frame and the reading advance of clock A will agree. tB-tA = >> tA'-tB according to Einstein from the eyes of Om. > > I do indeed "use the P2". > You have obviously not read what wrote, so we must start again. > Read it this time! > > >>> Quote from Einstein: >>> "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, >>> clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the >>> stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond >>> at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places >>> where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in >>> the stationary system.” >> >> .....'at the places where they happen to be!!!!! In other words, >> """anywhere""". > > Don't be ridiculous. An event is a point in space and time. > That is a position in space given by a x-coordinate, and a time shown by > a clock at the position in space "where it happens to be". If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. > Now you can read Einstein's thought example and try to find something > which is wrong. > Paul, I don;t have to read it again. I know perfectly well what Einstein claims and I know why it leads to the paradox. That latter part is apparently too hard for you. > Since B is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: > (x₃-x₁) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) > Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: > c⋅(tB - tA) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) > (tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v > Event 3: Light pulse hits A. A and C₂ show tA'. > A_________B ->v > C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA'. > x₁ x₂ x₃ > C₂ and A are at position x₂ at event 3. > The coordinates of event 3 are (x₂,tA') > > Since A is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: > (x₃-x₂) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) > Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: > c⋅(tA'- tB) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) > (tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v) Correct! You have stated the stationary observer's calculation according to Newton. I'm sure you will now agree that the reading of clock C will advance by DIFFERENT numbers during those opposite transits. Since A does whatever any C clock does, its reading wilL do the same...advance by two DIFERENT numbers. > All the times and distances are measured in the SS. > But tA and tA' are times shown by clock A while tB is shown by clock B. > tA, tA' and tB are "pure numbers" independent of frames of reference. > > Since (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB), > A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame. No Paul. You cannot say that. You must qualify it with the phrase "Therefore if P2 is correct....,A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame. > ================================================ > Here I "use the P2". > The speed of light is c in the rest frame of clock A and B. I already pointed that out..but you didn't go far enough... > We know that the transit time T of the pulse between A and B is the same > in both direction. Great! So now you will agree that, irrespective of their synchronization the reading of clock A (or clock B) is predicted by Einstein and Om to advance by THE SAME number during those opposite transits..but we just established that they will differ.. Need I continue?...You have finally discovered the logical impossibility. You will obviously now realize that the reading of clock A is PREDICTED to respond in two different ways during the same operation. Thanks Paul. . I assume you will now agree that postulating P2 generates a logical impossibility...and so P2 must be false. Can you imagine the ramifications of that, Paul?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <116paph$1fcpi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672423 |
Den 26.08.2026 13:02, skrev HenryWilson: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 22:31:39 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 25.08.2026 03:47, skrev HenryWilson: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:24:43 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> Read my other post. I will repeat it here: >>>> >>>> If you find something which you think is wrong, >>>> quote me literally, and explain why it is wrong. >>> >>> What is wrong is that you are not applying P2 to the moving frame. >>> If you do that, it becomes obvious that the travel times are equal in >>> that frame and the reading advance of clock A will agree. tB-tA = >>> tA'-tB according to Einstein from the eyes of Om. >> >> I do indeed "use the P2". >> You have obviously not read what wrote, so we must start again. >> Read it this time! >> >> >>>> Quote from Einstein: >>>> "We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, >>>> clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the >>>> stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond >>>> at any instant to the “time of the stationary system” at the places >>>> where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in >>>> the stationary system.” >>> >>> .....'at the places where they happen to be!!!!! In other words, >>> """anywhere""". >> >> Don't be ridiculous. An event is a point in space and time. >> That is a position in space given by a x-coordinate, and a time shown by >> a clock at the position in space "where it happens to be". > If the readings of A and C coincide whenever they come together it is > obvious that their readings coincide wherever they are. > >> Now you can read Einstein's thought example and try to find something >> which is wrong. >> > Paul, I don;t have to read it again. I know perfectly well what Einstein > claims and I know why it leads to the paradox. That latter part is > apparently too hard for you. > >> Since B is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: >> (x₃-x₁) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) >> Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: >> c⋅(tB - tA) = rAB + v⋅(tB - tA) >> (tB - tA) = rAB/(c-v > >> Event 3: Light pulse hits A. A and C₂ show tA'. >> A_________B ->v >> C____C₁______C₂_____C₃_____C____C All Cs show tA'. >> x₁ x₂ x₃ >> C₂ and A are at position x₂ at event 3. >> The coordinates of event 3 are (x₂,tA') >> >> Since A is moving at the speed v in the SS, we have: >> (x₃-x₂) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) >> Since the speed of light is c in the SS, we have: >> c⋅(tA'- tB) = rAB - v⋅(tA'- tB) >> (tA'- tB) = rAB/(c+v) > > Correct! You have stated the stationary observer's calculation according > to Newton. I'm sure you will now agree that the reading of clock C will > advance by DIFFERENT numbers during those opposite transits. Since A does > whatever any C clock does, its reading wilL do the same...advance by two > DIFERENT numbers. > >> All the times and distances are measured in the SS. >> But tA and tA' are times shown by clock A while tB is shown by clock B. >> tA, tA' and tB are "pure numbers" independent of frames of reference. >> >> Since (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB), >> A and B are not synchronous in their rest frame. > > No Paul. You cannot say that. You must qualify it with the phrase > "Therefore if P2 is correct....,A and B are not synchronous in their rest > frame. OK. >> ================================================ >> Here I "use the P2". >> The speed of light is c in the rest frame of clock A and B. > > I already pointed that out..but you didn't go far enough... > >> We know that the transit time T of the pulse between A and B is the same >> in both direction. So you find everything OK so far. > > Great! So now you will agree that, irrespective of their synchronization > the reading of clock A (or clock B) is predicted by Einstein and Om to > advance by THE SAME number during those opposite transits..but we just > established that they will differ.. :-D Sure, SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are equal in both directions. But (tB - tA) is not the transit time between A and B, and (tA'- tB) is not the transit time between B and A. BECAUSE THE CLOCKS ARE NOT SYNCHRONOUS! > > Need I continue?...You have finally discovered the logical impossibility. > You will obviously now realize that the reading of clock A is PREDICTED to > respond in two different ways during the same operation. This is nonsense. Read what you snipped: We know that the transit time T of the pulse between A and B is the same in both direction. Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA + tA') T = (tA + tA')/2. To be in synch, tB should show T/2. However, tB shows T/2 + F where F is a positive offset. (tB + F - tA) = (tA' - tB - F) F = (tA + tA')/2 - tB Clock A is F ahead of clock B. So clock A and clock B are not in sync. Still not got it? The transit time from A to B is (tB + F - tA) The transit time from B to A is (tA' - tB - F) (tB + F - tA) = (tA' - tB - F) The transit times are equal as predicted by SR. > > Thanks Paul. . I assume you will now agree that postulating P2 generates a > logical impossibility...and so P2 must be false. > > Can you imagine the ramifications of that, Paul? Quite. The ramification is that you have made a logical blunder. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6IeZnOe1uxBgalpvdKgBxyP2D9o@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672444 |
Le 27/08/2026 à 14:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > We know that the transit time T of the pulse between > A and B is the same in both direction. Ici, on peut déjà arrêter de lire. C'est la bourde la plus colossale de l'histoire de de physique relativiste. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <116rhkp$25m53$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672445 |
On 27/08/2026 15:51, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 27/08/2026 à 14:32, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > >> We know that the transit time T of the pulse between >> A and B is the same in both direction. > > Ici, on peut déjà arrêter de lire. > > C'est la bourde la plus colossale de l'histoire de de physique relativiste. Can you show a sitation where a difference cannot be explained with the assumptions that the travel time of light is the same in every direction and that clocks are out of synchrony? -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <clLFtVRtv-BAwygTmfk4DQfN32M@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672493 |
Le 28/08/2026 à 10:42, Mikko a écrit : > Can you show a sitation where a difference cannot be explained with > the assumptions that the travel time of light is the same in every > direction and that clocks are out of synchrony? Since the premise is ridiculous, the question does not arise. I would remind you that stating the speed of light is *c* is an abstract assertion based on an anisochronous fallacy. For Hachel, quantum transactions are instantaneous. Nothing in space prevents photons from reaching retinas instantly. Those little hooked fingers of space that slow things down exist only in the fertile imaginations of scientists. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <116u4es$32j34$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672497 |
On 28/08/2026 14:24, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 28/08/2026 à 10:42, Mikko a écrit : >> Can you show a sitation where a difference cannot be explained with >> the assumptions that the travel time of light is the same in every >> direction and that clocks are out of synchrony? > > Since the premise is ridiculous, the question does not arise. Too late. You already participated in the discussion. > I would remind you that stating the speed of light is *c* is an abstract > assertion based on an anisochronous fallacy. So you say but there is no need to believe any of that. That the speed of light in vacuum is c and that the same c is a part of other laws of nature is compatible with everything observed about nature. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web