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 438 — 16 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 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 12:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mathieu Esipov <uiao@ehemmi.ru> - 2026-09-28 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:47 +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 9 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 22 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d236fce8e11274$331390$260416$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672799 |
On 9/4/2026 9:51 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 04.09.2026 21:05, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/4/2026 9:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 04.09.2026 07:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 9/3/2026 8:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Exactly what of Newtonian Mechanics are you 'denying'? >>>>> Galilean Relativity? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not denying any part of Newtonian mechanics. >>>> But I am denying a part of "Newtonian Mechanics >>>> with Galilean Relativity" indeed. >>>> >>> >>> Thought so! :-D >>> >>> You think the word 'relative' was invented by Einstein! >> >> No, I don't, you're just slandering, as >> expected from a piece of relativistic shit >> (even if slandering is not an invention >> of your mad religion). >> > > So you know that "relativity" was used long before Einstein. > > Knowing that, why are you then "denying a part of Newtonian > Mechanics with Galilean relativity"? Because Galilean relativity is some primitive, naive, worthless ideological nonsense. At least not as harmful as Einsteinian. > > Don't you know that Galilean Relativity is an integral part > of Newtonian mechanics? No, it is not, and you have no clue about that (samely as about pretty anything else). >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d195198e47f99a$367$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672664 |
On Wed, 02 Sep 26 09:43:13 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> The system's KE is frame independent. > > and, two sentences later: > >> The sum of the two is frame dependent. > > Good. Then we agree. No I obviously made a typo. INdependent. > The total kinetic energy of a system is frame dependent. > > That was precisely the statement you called wrong. > > > There is no need to discuss the "creation" of kinetic energy, bullets, > guns, explosions or the Earth. > > Take an isolated two-body system, with equal masses moving in opposite > directions: > > m ---> v v <--- m > > In its centre-of-mass inertial frame: > > K = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)mv^2.............1 > = mv^2. > > Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving at > velocity u. > > The velocities are > > v-u > > and > > -v-u. > > Therefore > > K' = (1/2)m(v-u)^2 + (1/2)m(-v-u)^2...........2 > > = m(v^2 + u^2). > > Thus > > K' - K = mu^2. > > So even the TOTAL kinetic energy of the complete two-body system is > different in two inertial frames. I did not say it was not. I said the creation or any CHANGE in their combined KE was frame independent. > Nothing is missing. > No Earth has been ignored. > No recoil has been ignored. > Both bodies are included. And you have misunderstood my point and misquoted me. > But the clock part is even better: > >> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks. > > That is a wonderfully explicit statement of your theory. > > Your definition of a "perfect clock" is apparently: > > a clock which gives the result Ralph's theory predicts. > > So the experiment becomes: > > clocks agree -> Ralph is right and Einstein is wrong because P2 is impossible. > clocks disagree -> clocks aren't perfect There can be no other reason. > There is literally no possible observation that can falsify your claim. You are being very hypocritical. You can say the same about Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. "Clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY if they measure light speed to be c." There is literally no possible observation that can falsify EINSTEIN'S claim. Androcles used to point that out to you remember. Now you're accusing me of copying Einstein's devious little exercise in circular logic.. > And this: > >> The numbers are of the order of e-16 or smaller. > > is simply irrelevant to the proposed experiment. > > A fractional frequency difference may be 10^-16. Can you not get it into your head that space and time are totally unrelated dimensions. Even the best clocks might be expected to temporarily change rates during periods of acceleration but would function normally during any inertial state. > But frequency difference can be integrated over time into an accumulated > phase/time difference. Modern clock comparisons are designed to do > exactly that. > > More importantly, you haven't given any alternative quantitative model > of the alleged imperfections which predicts the observed difference. Readings that disagree with Einstein are easily deleted. > You merely decide AFTER seeing the result: > > disagreement = clock imperfection. > > Which leads beautifully to your final principle: > >> experiments which disprove any of Einstein's predictions will never be >> published. > > So we now have the complete experimental methodology: > > Result agrees with Ralph: > evidence. > > Result disagrees with Ralph: > imperfect apparatus. > > Published result agrees with Einstein: > fiddled statistics. > > Published result disagrees with Einstein: > suppressed. A perfect example has recently occurred right here. I have conclusively , emphatically and unquestionably proved that Einstein's P2 generates a logical impossibility. No Einstein supporter is at all interested. No journal will ever publish it,(except a Chinese one) > It is an extraordinarily robust theory. > > Not because it survives experimental tests. > > Because you have defined every possible experimental outcome as > confirmation. Just like Einstein did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dBBXzvK6oz62Ze3k4KDzyGVdi_s@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672694 |
Le 02/09/2026 à 20:41, HenryWilson a écrit :
> On Wed, 02 Sep 26 09:43:13 +0000, Python wrote:
>
>> Ralph,
>>
>>> The system's KE is frame independent.
>>
>> and, two sentences later:
>>
>>> The sum of the two is frame dependent.
>>
>> Good. Then we agree.
>
> No I obviously made a typo. INdependent.
>
>> The total kinetic energy of a system is frame dependent.
>>
>> That was precisely the statement you called wrong.
>>
>>
>> There is no need to discuss the "creation" of kinetic energy, bullets,
>> guns, explosions or the Earth.
>>
>> Take an isolated two-body system, with equal masses moving in opposite
>> directions:
>>
>> m ---> v v <--- m
>>
>> In its centre-of-mass inertial frame:
>>
>> K = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)mv^2.............1
>> = mv^2.
>>
>> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving at
>> velocity u.
>>
>> The velocities are
>>
>> v-u
>>
>> and
>>
>> -v-u.
>>
>> Therefore
>>
>> K' = (1/2)m(v-u)^2 + (1/2)m(-v-u)^2...........2
>>
>> = m(v^2 + u^2).
>>
>> Thus
>>
>> K' - K = mu^2.
>>
>> So even the TOTAL kinetic energy of the complete two-body system is
>> different in two inertial frames.
>
> I did not say it was not. I said the creation or any CHANGE in their
> combined KE was frame independent.
>
>> Nothing is missing.
>> No Earth has been ignored.
>> No recoil has been ignored.
>> Both bodies are included.
>
> And you have misunderstood my point and misquoted me.
>
>
>> But the clock part is even better:
>>
>>> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks.
>>
>> That is a wonderfully explicit statement of your theory.
>>
>> Your definition of a "perfect clock" is apparently:
>>
>> a clock which gives the result Ralph's theory predicts.
>>
>> So the experiment becomes:
>>
>> clocks agree -> Ralph is right
>
> and Einstein is wrong because P2 is impossible.
>
>> clocks disagree -> clocks aren't perfect
>
> There can be no other reason.
>
>> There is literally no possible observation that can falsify your claim.
>
> You are being very hypocritical. You can say the same about Einstein's
> definition of clock synchronization.
> "Clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY if they measure light speed to be
> c."
> There is literally no possible observation that can falsify EINSTEIN'S
> claim.
>
> Androcles used to point that out to you remember. Now you're accusing me
> of copying Einstein's devious little exercise in circular logic..
>
>> And this:
>>
>>> The numbers are of the order of e-16 or smaller.
>>
>> is simply irrelevant to the proposed experiment.
>>
>> A fractional frequency difference may be 10^-16.
>
> Can you not get it into your head that space and time are totally
> unrelated dimensions. Even the best clocks might be expected to
> temporarily change rates during periods of acceleration but would function
> normally during any inertial state.
>
>> But frequency difference can be integrated over time into an accumulated
>> phase/time difference. Modern clock comparisons are designed to do
>> exactly that.
>>
>> More importantly, you haven't given any alternative quantitative model
>> of the alleged imperfections which predicts the observed difference.
>
> Readings that disagree with Einstein are easily deleted.
>
>> You merely decide AFTER seeing the result:
>>
>> disagreement = clock imperfection.
>>
>> Which leads beautifully to your final principle:
>>
>>> experiments which disprove any of Einstein's predictions will never be
>>> published.
>>
>> So we now have the complete experimental methodology:
>>
>> Result agrees with Ralph:
>> evidence.
>>
>> Result disagrees with Ralph:
>> imperfect apparatus.
>>
>> Published result agrees with Einstein:
>> fiddled statistics.
>>
>> Published result disagrees with Einstein:
>> suppressed.
>
> A perfect example has recently occurred right here. I have conclusively ,
> emphatically and unquestionably proved that Einstein's P2 generates a
> logical impossibility. No Einstein supporter is at all interested. No
> journal will ever publish it,(except a Chinese one)
>
>> It is an extraordinarily robust theory.
>>
>> Not because it survives experimental tests.
>>
>> Because you have defined every possible experimental outcome as
>> confirmation.
>
> Just like Einstein did.
Ralph,
> I did not say it was not. I said the creation or any CHANGE in
> their combined KE was frame independent.
Fine. With that clarification, I agree in the Newtonian case you
have in mind.
Under a Galilean boost,
K' = K - uP + (1/2) M u^2.
So between initial and final states,
Delta K' - Delta K
= -u Delta P + (1/2)u^2 Delta M.
For an isolated Newtonian system with conserved momentum and
constant total mass,
Delta P = 0
Delta M = 0,
and therefore
Delta K' = Delta K.
So yes: I misunderstood your corrected claim about the CHANGE in
total kinetic energy.
Notice, however, that this is quite different from saying that
"the system's KE is frame independent", which is what you wrote.
Now to the much more interesting part:
> You can say the same about Einstein's definition of clock
> synchronization.
>
> "Clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY if they measure light
> speed to be c."
>
> There is literally no possible observation that can falsify
> EINSTEIN'S claim.
No.
You are confusing a coordinate convention with an experimental
prediction.
Einstein synchronization DEFINES the time coordinate assigned to
a distant event by
t_B = (t_A + t'_A)/2.
Yes, the equality of the corresponding one-way coordinate speeds
is conventional.
Nobody needs to "falsify" a definition.
Changing that synchronization convention changes coordinate
labels, not what two clocks read when you physically bring them
back together.
And that is precisely why your "perfect clock" argument is
different.
Take two clocks together.
Synchronize them LOCALLY.
Separate them.
Let them follow different worldlines.
Bring them back together.
Compare them LOCALLY.
Suppose they read
A = 100000.000000000 s
B = 100000.000001234 s.
There is no distant synchronization left in that comparison.
No one-way speed of light.
No simultaneity convention.
No P2.
The two clocks are sitting beside each other and displaying
different accumulated readings.
Relativity gives quantitative predictions for such differences.
Your response is:
> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks.
That is the immunity clause.
And it is NOT analogous to Einstein synchronization.
Einstein says:
Here is how I define a distant time coordinate.
You say:
Here is what a perfect physical clock must do;
if a real clock does something else, it wasn't perfect.
Those are fundamentally different statements.
> Even the best clocks might be expected to temporarily change
> rates during periods of acceleration but would function
> normally during any inertial state.
Excellent.
Now THAT is potentially a physical theory.
Write the equation.
How much does the rate change?
As a function of what?
Acceleration?
Duration?
Acceleration history?
What accumulated difference do you predict after reunion?
Then we can compare:
Ralph prediction: X
relativity prediction: Y
experiment: Z.
That is science.
But if your prediction remains simply
reunited clocks must agree,
followed by
if they don't, they weren't perfect,
then no experiment can contradict it.
And your final paragraph rather spectacularly completes the
circle:
> I have conclusively, emphatically and unquestionably proved
> that Einstein's P2 generates a logical impossibility.
followed by:
> No journal will ever publish it
except apparently:
> a Chinese one
So we now have:
journals reject Ralph
-> evidence of suppression
journal accepts Ralph
-> presumably evidence that Ralph is right.
Again, every road leads to Ralph.
If your P2 paradox is a logical contradiction, forget journals.
Write it in the shortest possible form:
premises
equations
deduction
contradiction: X and not-X.
A genuine logical contradiction doesn't require sympathetic
editors, imperfect clocks, deleted data, or a theory of
publication bias.
Four or five lines of algebra should be considerably more
"conclusive, emphatic and unquestionable" than saying that it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d25581c88ac1e5$1877$1836956$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672706 |
On Wed, 02 Sep 26 20:44:52 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 02/09/2026 à 20:41, HenryWilson a écrit : >>> There is no need to discuss the "creation" of kinetic energy, bullets, >>> guns, explosions or the Earth. >>> >>> Take an isolated two-body system, with equal masses moving in opposite >>> directions: >>> >>> m ---> v v <--- m >>> >>> In its centre-of-mass inertial frame: >>> >>> K = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)mv^2.............1 >>> = mv^2. >>> >>> Now observe exactly the same system from an inertial frame moving at >>> velocity u. >>> >>> The velocities are >>> >>> v-u >>> >>> and >>> >>> -v-u. >>> >>> Therefore >>> >>> K' = (1/2)m(v-u)^2 + (1/2)m(-v-u)^2...........2 >>> >>> = m(v^2 + u^2). >>> >>> Thus >>> >>> K' - K = mu^2. >>> >>> So even the TOTAL kinetic energy of the complete two-body system is >>> different in two inertial frames. >> >> I did not say it was not. I said the creation or any CHANGE in their >> combined KE was frame independent. >> > >> And you have misunderstood my point and misquoted me. By the way, your equation K = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)mv^2.............1 describes the KE of a single mass = 2m. You didn't prove anything with that argument. >> But the clock part is even better: >>> >>>> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks. >>> >>> That is a wonderfully explicit statement of your theory. >>> >>> Your definition of a "perfect clock" is apparently: >>> >>> a clock which gives the result Ralph's theory predicts. >>> >>> So the experiment becomes: >>> >>> clocks agree -> Ralph is right >> >> and Einstein is wrong because P2 is impossible. You got that right. >> You are being very hypocritical. You can say the same about Einstein's >> definition of clock synchronization. >> "Clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY if they measure light speed to >> be c." >> There is literally no possible observation that can falsify EINSTEIN'S >> claim. >> >> Androcles used to point that out to you remember. Now you're accusing >> me of copying Einstein's devious little exercise in circular logic.. >> >>> And this: >>> >>>> The numbers are of the order of e-16 or smaller. >>> >>> is simply irrelevant to the proposed experiment. >>> >>> A fractional frequency difference may be 10^-16. >> >> Can you not get it into your head that space and time are totally >> unrelated dimensions. Even the best clocks might be expected to >> temporarily change rates during periods of acceleration but would >> function normally during any inertial state. >> >>> But frequency difference can be integrated over time into an >>> accumulated phase/time difference. Modern clock comparisons are >>> designed to do exactly that. >>> >>> More importantly, you haven't given any alternative quantitative model >>> of the alleged imperfections which predicts the observed difference. >> >> Readings that disagree with Einstein are easily deleted. >> >>> You merely decide AFTER seeing the result: >>> >>> disagreement = clock imperfection. >>> >>> Which leads beautifully to your final principle: >>> >>>> experiments which disprove any of Einstein's predictions will never >>>> be published. >>> >>> So we now have the complete experimental methodology: >>> >>> Result agrees with Ralph: >>> evidence. >>> >>> Result disagrees with Ralph: >>> imperfect apparatus. >>> >>> Published result agrees with Einstein: >>> fiddled statistics. >>> >>> Published result disagrees with Einstein: >>> suppressed. >> >> A perfect example has recently occurred right here. I have conclusively >> , emphatically and unquestionably proved that Einstein's P2 generates a >> logical impossibility. No Einstein supporter is at all interested. No >> journal will ever publish it,(except a Chinese one) No response, eh! > >> I did not say it was not. I said the creation or any CHANGE in their >> combined KE was frame independent. > > Fine. With that clarification, I agree in the Newtonian case you have in > mind. > > Under a Galilean boost, > > K' = K - uP + (1/2) M u^2. > > So between initial and final states, > > Delta K' - Delta K > = -u Delta P + (1/2)u^2 Delta M. > > For an isolated Newtonian system with conserved momentum and constant > total mass, > > Delta P = 0 Delta M = 0, > > and therefore > > Delta K' = Delta K. > > So yes: I misunderstood your corrected claim about the CHANGE in total > kinetic energy. The main point is that creation is a change and so involves at least two objects. The system must be considered.although in most practical situations one object is much larger than the other and V^2 is negligible compared with v^2 > Notice, however, that this is quite different from saying that "the > system's KE is frame independent", which is what you wrote. No it isn't Any physicist should understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is what would happen if KE was frame dependent. > Now to the much more interesting part: > >> You can say the same about Einstein's definition of clock >> synchronization. >> >> "Clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY if they measure light speed to >> be c." >> >> There is literally no possible observation that can falsify EINSTEIN'S >> claim. > > No. > > You are confusing a coordinate convention with an experimental > prediction. Im not confusing anything. I am merely stating what Einstein said and used to build his silly theory. > Einstein synchronization DEFINES the time coordinate assigned to a > distant event by > > t_B = (t_A + t'_A)/2. > > Yes, the equality of the corresponding one-way coordinate speeds is > conventional. > > Nobody needs to "falsify" a definition. > > Changing that synchronization convention changes coordinate labels, not > what two clocks read when you physically bring them back together. I doubt if even you know what you are talking about. Are you trying to emulate Ross finlayson? > And that is precisely why your "perfect clock" argument is different. > > Take two clocks together. > > Synchronize them LOCALLY. > > Separate them. > > Let them follow different worldlines. > > Bring them back together. > > Compare them LOCALLY. > > Suppose they read > > A = 100000.000000000 s B = 100000.000001234 s. > > There is no distant synchronization left in that comparison. > No one-way speed of light. > No simultaneity convention. > No P2. > > The two clocks are sitting beside each other and displaying different > accumulated readings. > > Relativity gives quantitative predictions for such differences. AH I see your problem. You were taught the spacetime car equivalent where the odometers of a two cars disagree after travelling from A to B via different routes. That's how they explain Einstein's time dilation to unsuspecting students..traveling different spacetime paths.. They don't point out that the car's clocks still agree perfectly. > > Your response is: > >> If they disagree it merely proves they were not perfect clocks. > > That is the immunity clause. > > And it is NOT analogous to Einstein synchronization. > > Einstein says: > > Here is how I define a distant time coordinate. > > You say: > > Here is what a perfect physical clock must do; > if a real clock does something else, it wasn't perfect. > > Those are fundamentally different statements. > > >> Even the best clocks might be expected to temporarily change rates >> during periods of acceleration but would function normally during any >> inertial state. > > Excellent. > > Now THAT is potentially a physical theory. > > Write the equation. There is no bloody single equation. Every clock will be affected differently if affected at all. Are you deliberately trying to waste my time? > And your final paragraph rather spectacularly completes the circle: > >> I have conclusively, emphatically and unquestionably proved that >> Einstein's P2 generates a logical impossibility. > > followed by: > >> No journal will ever publish it > > except apparently: > >> a Chinese one > > So we now have: > > journals reject Ralph > -> evidence of suppression > > journal accepts Ralph > -> presumably evidence that Ralph is right. > > Again, every road leads to Ralph. > > > If your P2 paradox is a logical contradiction, forget journals. > > Write it in the shortest possible form: > > premises equations deduction contradiction: X and not-X. > > A genuine logical contradiction doesn't require sympathetic editors, > imperfect clocks, deleted data, or a theory of publication bias. > > Four or five lines of algebra should be considerably more "conclusive, > emphatic and unquestionable" than saying that it is. You obviously have not taken my paradox seriously. It is well published right here in two different ways. Maybe you just want pretend it has not happened because your whole life will collapse if you are forced to read it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117co7h$2gpu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672694 |
Den 02.09.2026 20:41, skrev HenryWilson:
>
> A perfect example has recently occurred right here. I have conclusively ,
> emphatically and unquestionably proved that Einstein's P2 generates a
> logical impossibility. No Einstein supporter is at all interested. No
> journal will ever publish it,(except a Chinese one)
Are you referring to the "proof" I showed was nonsense?
You never responded to the post where I proved you wrong.
So I will repeat it here: (a couple of typos corrected)
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 speed of light is isotropic c in the 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.
================================================
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.
(tB - tA) > (tA'- tB)
So far everything is correct according to both
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity and SR.
Now we consider the rest frame of clock A and B.
------------------------------------------------
According to SR the speed of light is c in this frame.
SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are
equal in both directions.
Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA' - tA)
Transit time T = (tA'- tA)/2.
To be in synch, tB should show T.
However, tB shows T + F where F is a positive offset.
T = tB-F
(T - tA) = (tA' - T)
(tB - F - tA) = (tA' - tB + F)
F = tB - (tA' - tA)/2
Clock B is F ahead of clock A.
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.
----------------------------------
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!
===========================
It isn't even funny! 🙁
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d27f959c040730$1$1900558$4236dc63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672740 |
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 23:19:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 02.09.2026 20:41, skrev HenryWilson: <irelevant religious nonsense snipped>. > Still not got it? Correct, you have missed the point of the paradox altogether. It is probably to hard for you. > 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. Correct...and again totally irrelevant. > > ---------------------------------- > 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! > =========================== > > It isn't even funny! 🙁 Paul, don't try to avoid the truth. Stop preaching irrelevancies and concentrate on the paradox. Please answer the only question that matters: "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE NUMBERS during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os or by (b) THE SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?" Use your brilliant Norwegian mind and tell the world which is correct. a or b? In your next post Paul, just write 'a' or 'b', and a short note to say why. Your inability to do so will be effectively claiming that NUMBER is frame dependent...which we can then add to the long list of imaginary factors that Einstein's theories rely on but do not actually exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117kim3$2mhu5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672847 |
Den 05.09.2026 20:18, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 23:19:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 02.09.2026 20:41, skrev HenryWilson:
>
> <irelevant religious nonsense snipped>.
>
>> Still not got it?
>
> Correct, you have missed the point of the paradox altogether.
> It is probably to hard for you.
>
>> 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.
>
> Correct...and again totally irrelevant.
>>
>
> Paul, don't try to avoid the truth. Stop preaching irrelevancies and
> concentrate on the paradox. Please answer the only question that matters:
>
> "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE NUMBERS
> during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os or by (b) THE
> SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?"
You have not addressed what I wrote at all.
Try again.
If you find something wrong in the below, state exactly
what you think is wrong, and what you think is right.
You never responded to the post where I proved you wrong.
So I will repeat it here: (a couple of typos corrected)
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 speed of light is isotropic c in the 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.
================================================
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.
(tB - tA) > (tA'- tB)
So far everything is correct according to both
Newtonian Mechanics with Galilean Relativity and SR.
Now we consider the rest frame of clock A and B.
------------------------------------------------
According to SR the speed of light is c in this frame.
SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are
equal in both directions.
Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA' - tA)
Transit time T = (tA'- tA)/2.
To be in synch, tB should show T.
However, tB shows T + F where F is a positive offset.
T = tB-F
(T - tA) = (tA' - T)
(tB - F - tA) = (tA' - tB + F)
F = tB - (tA' - tA)/2
Clock B is F ahead of clock A.
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.
----------------------------------
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!
===========================
It isn't even funny! 🙁
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d2f89c71107446$6350$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672890 |
On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 22:33:50 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 05.09.2026 20:18, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> Correct, you have missed the point of the paradox altogether. >> It is probably to hard for you. After all, the whole top brass of Physics has missed it for 120 years. >> >>> 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. >> >> Correct...and again totally irrelevant. >>> >>> >> Paul, don't try to avoid the truth. Stop preaching irrelevancies and >> concentrate on the paradox. Please answer the only question that >> matters: >> >> "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE NUMBERS >> during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os or by (b) >> THE SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?" Answer the question Paul or admit I am right. > You have not addressed what I wrote at all. > Try again I did read it and already replied. > If you find something wrong in the below, state exactly what you think > is wrong, and what you think is right. > > You never responded to the post where I proved you wrong. > So I will repeat it here: (a couple of typos corrected) You didn't prove me wrong because what you posted was entirely irrelavant to my paradox. It is obviously beyond you ability to understand. > > 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 speed of light is isotropic c in the 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. > ================================================ > > > 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. > > (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB) 1) So SR predicts the reading of clock A will ADVANCES by two different numbers during the opposite transits. > So far everything is correct according to both Newtonian Mechanics with > Galilean Relativity and SR. > > Now we consider the rest frame of clock A and B. > ------------------------------------------------ > According to SR the speed of light is c in this frame. > > SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are equal in both > directions. > > Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA' - tA) > Transit time T = (tA'- tA)/2. > > To be in synch, tB should show T. > However, tB shows T + F where F is a positive offset. > > T = tB-F > > (T - tA) = (tA' - T) > (tB - F - tA) = (tA' - tB + F) > F = tB - (tA' - tA)/2 > > Clock B is F ahead of clock A. > So clock A and clock B are not in sync. All totally irrelevant. > ======================================= > > 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. 2) Yes, So SR predicts the reading of clock TA will advance by THE SAME number during the opposite transits. > ---------------------------------- > 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! I'm sorry to have to agree that you are. Maybe you meant to say "i cannot believe I am so stupid" Just compare your own conflicting truisms above, labelled 1 and 2 You might even understand the paradox when you do. > =========================== > > It isn't even funny! 🙁 It is very sad when previously intelligent people start to lose their minds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117ovid$60fb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672912 |
Den 07.09.2026 09:15, skrev HenryWilson: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 22:33:50 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 05.09.2026 20:18, skrev HenryWilson: > >>>> >>> Paul, don't try to avoid the truth. Stop preaching irrelevancies and >>> concentrate on the paradox. Please answer the only question that >>> matters: >>> >>> "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE NUMBERS >>> during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os or by (b) >>> THE SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?" Read the answer below. > > I did read it and already replied. > >> If you find something wrong in the below, state exactly what you think >> is wrong, and what you think is right. >> >> You never responded to the post where I proved you wrong. >> So I will repeat it here: (a couple of typos corrected) > > You didn't prove me wrong because what you posted was entirely irrelavant > to my paradox. It is obviously beyond you ability to understand. > >> >> 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 speed of light is isotropic c in the 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. >> ================================================ >> >> >> 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. >> >> (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB) According SR's definition of simultaneity this means that clock A and clock B are not synchronous. That means that clock B is some offset F ahead or behind clock A. That means that neither (tB - tA) nor (tA' - tB) are transit times. The transit times are (tB-F - tA) and (tA' - tB + F) The transit times are equal. Newton would understand that if you are measuring the transit times between two clocks by reading one clock at emission, and the other at reception, then the clocks have to be synechrounous. > > 1) So SR predicts the reading of clock A will ADVANCES by two different > numbers during the opposite transits. The sum of the transit times are: (tB - tA)+(tA'- tB) = (tA' - tA) clock A advances (tA' - tA) between event 1 and event 3. So A advances (tA' - tA)/2 during the opposite transits. > >> So far everything is correct according to both Newtonian Mechanics with >> Galilean Relativity and SR. >> >> Now we consider the rest frame of clock A and B. >> ------------------------------------------------ >> According to SR the speed of light is c in this frame. >> >> SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are equal in both >> directions. >> >> Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA' - tA) >> Transit time T = (tA'- tA)/2. >> >> To be in synch, tB should show T. >> However, tB shows T + F where F is a positive offset. >> >> T = tB-F >> >> (T - tA) = (tA' - T) >> (tB - F - tA) = (tA' - tB + F) >> F = tB - (tA' - tA)/2 >> >> Clock B is F ahead of clock A. >> So clock A and clock B are not in sync. Which is the very point in Einsteins thought experiment. > >> ======================================= >> >> 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. > > 2) Yes, So SR predicts the reading of clock TA will advance by THE SAME > number during the opposite transits. Right. Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d36e85acdb1b43$12798$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673007 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 14:38:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 07.09.2026 09:15, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 22:33:50 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 05.09.2026 20:18, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> >>>> Paul, don't try to avoid the truth. Stop preaching irrelevancies and >>>> concentrate on the paradox. Please answer the only question that >>>> matters: >>>> >>>> "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE >>>> NUMBERS during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os >>>> or by (b) >>>> THE SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?" > > Read the answer below. > > >> I did read it and already replied. >> >>> If you find something wrong in the below, state exactly what you think >>> is wrong, and what you think is right. >>> >>> You never responded to the post where I proved you wrong. >>> So I will repeat it here: (a couple of typos corrected) >> >> You didn't prove me wrong because what you posted was entirely >> irrelavant to my paradox. It is obviously beyond you ability to >> understand. >> >> >>> 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 speed of light is isotropic c in the 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. >>> ================================================ >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB) > > According SR's definition of simultaneity this means that clock A and > clock B are not synchronous. That means that clock B is some offset F > ahead or behind clock A. > That means that neither (tB - tA) nor (tA' - tB) > are transit times. > The transit times are (tB-F - tA) and (tA' - tB + F) > > The transit times are equal. > > Newton would understand that if you are measuring the transit times > between two clocks by reading one clock at emission, and the other at > reception, > then the clocks have to be synechrounous. >> >> 1) So SR predicts the reading of clock A will ADVANCES by two different >> numbers during the opposite transits. > > > The sum of the transit times are: > (tB - tA)+(tA'- tB) = (tA' - tA) > > clock A advances (tA' - tA) between event 1 and event 3. > So A advances (tA' - tA)/2 during the opposite transits. > > >>> So far everything is correct according to both Newtonian Mechanics >>> with Galilean Relativity and SR. >>> >>> Now we consider the rest frame of clock A and B. >>> ------------------------------------------------ >>> According to SR the speed of light is c in this frame. >>> >>> SR predicts that the transit times between A and B are equal in both >>> directions. >>> >>> Note that (tA'- tB)+(tB - tA) = (tA' - tA) >>> Transit time T = (tA'- tA)/2. >>> >>> To be in synch, tB should show T. >>> However, tB shows T + F where F is a positive offset. >>> >>> T = tB-F >>> >>> (T - tA) = (tA' - T) >>> (tB - F - tA) = (tA' - tB + F) >>> F = tB - (tA' - tA)/2 >>> >>> Clock B is F ahead of clock A. >>> So clock A and clock B are not in sync. > > Which is the very point in Einsteins thought experiment. Paul, please stop repeating this stuff. I know all about it and it is totally irrelevant. No clock times need to be read or subtracted and clock synchronization is not an issue at all. In fact clocks are not really needed at all. The paradox proves that declaring ANY speed frame independent leads to a logical impossibility. I think you are deliberately acting dumb because you have realized I am correct. What matters are your own deductions that lead to my labelled points 1 and 2 above. The paradox asks which one is correct, 1 or 2, That's what I want to hear from you Paul. not irrelevant repetitive raving. I don't know why you are so desperate to avoid answering. I have pointed out that SR survives the paradox because, contrary to popular interpretation, it does not actually postulate that light always moves at the same speed in space. SR merely provides a mathematical way to make MEASURED light speed, aka OWLS, appear to have the value c in any particular observer frame. .and although entirely imaginary, it is workable to some extent. Note, in some translations of Einstein's 1905 paper, the word 'determined' is used rather than 'measured'.It was immediately popular because it had potential to rescue many damaged reputations. > > >>> ======================================= >>> >>> 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. >> >> 2) Yes, So SR predicts the reading of clock TA will advance by THE SAME >> number during the opposite transits. > > Right. > > Case closed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117s51p$1beck$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673031 |
Den 08.09.2026 21:16, skrev HenryWilson: > > Paul, please stop repeating this stuff. I know all about it and it is > totally irrelevant. No clock times need to be read or subtracted and clock > synchronization is not an issue at all. Let's consider a very simple thought experiment. We will analyse it strictly according to Newtonian Mechanics. In a thought experiment all measurements can be done with infinite precision. Given two clocks A and B. The clocks are side by side and clock A shows t₀ when clock B simultaneously shows t₀+Δt. The clocks are not synchronous, clock B is Δt ahead of clock A. Now we move clock A and clock B such that they are a distance L from each other. Let Δt = 1 ns, and L = 1 m. We will assume that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s (It could be anything, but we need a concrete number.) At event 1 a light pulse is emitted from clock A. At event 2 the light pulse hits clock B and is reflected. At event 3 the reflected light pulse hits Clock A. The transit time T of the light pulse is obviously the same in both directions. T = L/c = 3.336ns Event 1 happens at some arbitrary time t₁. Let's say t₁ = 10ns. At event 1 clock A shows tA = t₁ = 10ns At event 2 clock B shows tB = t₁+Δt+T = 14.336ns At event 3 clock A shows tA'= t₁+T+T = 16.671ns (tB - tA) = 4.336ns This is not the transit time from A to B (tA'- tB) = 2.336ns This is not the transit time from B to A (tB - tA) ≠ (tA'- tB) because the clocks are not synchronous. The transit time is: [(tB - tA)+(tA'- tB)]/2 = (tA'-tA)/2 = 3.336ns = T Newton and Einstein would agree about the above! ================================================ And so will you because you know all about this, don't you? Or don't you? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d3cadbc0b2391d$13850$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673056 |
On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 19:30:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 08.09.2026 21:16, skrev HenryWilson: >> >> Paul, please stop repeating this stuff. I know all about it and it is >> totally irrelevant. No clock times need to be read or subtracted and >> clock synchronization is not an issue at all. > > Let's consider a very simple thought experiment. > We will analyse it strictly according to Newtonian Mechanics. > > In a thought experiment all measurements can be done with infinite > precision. > > Given two clocks A and B. The clocks are side by side and clock A shows > t₀ when clock B simultaneously shows t₀+Δt. > The clocks are not synchronous, clock B is Δt ahead of clock A. Now we > move clock A and clock B such that they are a distance L from each > other. > > Let Δt = 1 ns, and L = 1 m. > We will assume that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s (It could be > anything, but we need a concrete number.) > > At event 1 a light pulse is emitted from clock A. > At event 2 the light pulse hits clock B and is reflected. > At event 3 the reflected light pulse hits Clock A. > > The transit time T of the light pulse is obviously the same in both > directions. T = L/c = 3.336ns > > Event 1 happens at some arbitrary time t₁. Let's say t₁ = 10ns. > > At event 1 clock A shows tA = t₁ = 10ns > > At event 2 clock B shows tB = t₁+Δt+T = 14.336ns > > At event 3 clock A shows tA'= t₁+T+T = 16.671ns > > (tB - tA) = 4.336ns This is not the transit time from A to B (tA'- tB) > = 2.336ns This is not the transit time from B to A > > (tB - tA) ≠ (tA'- tB) because the clocks are not synchronous. > > The transit time is: > [(tB - tA)+(tA'- tB)]/2 = (tA'-tA)/2 = 3.336ns = T > > Newton and Einstein would agree about the above! > ================================================ > > And so will you because you know all about this, don't you? > Or don't you? Why should I not agree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <117usum$285ag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673062 |
Den 10.09.2026 01:28, skrev HenryWilson: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 19:30:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 08.09.2026 21:16, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>> Paul, please stop repeating this stuff. I know all about it and it is >>> totally irrelevant. No clock times need to be read or subtracted and >>> clock synchronization is not an issue at all. >> >> Let's consider a very simple thought experiment. >> We will analyse it strictly according to Newtonian Mechanics. >> >> In a thought experiment all measurements can be done with infinite >> precision. >> >> Given two clocks A and B. The clocks are side by side and clock A shows >> t₀ when clock B simultaneously shows t₀+Δt. >> The clocks are not synchronous, clock B is Δt ahead of clock A. Now we >> move clock A and clock B such that they are a distance L from each >> other. >> >> Let Δt = 1 ns, and L = 1 m. >> We will assume that the speed of light is c = 299792458 m/s (It could be >> anything, but we need a concrete number.) >> >> At event 1 a light pulse is emitted from clock A. >> At event 2 the light pulse hits clock B and is reflected. >> At event 3 the reflected light pulse hits Clock A. >> >> The transit time T of the light pulse is obviously the same in both >> directions. T = L/c = 3.336ns >> >> Event 1 happens at some arbitrary time t₁. Let's say t₁ = 10ns. >> >> At event 1 clock A shows tA = t₁ = 10ns >> >> At event 2 clock B shows tB = t₁+Δt+T = 14.336ns >> >> At event 3 clock A shows tA'= t₁+T+T = 16.671ns >> >> (tB - tA) = 4.336ns This is not the transit time from A to B. >> (tA'- tB) = 2.336ns This is not the transit time from B to A >> >> (tB - tA) ≠ (tA'- tB) because the clocks are not synchronous. >> >> The transit time is: >> [(tB - tA)+(tA'- tB)]/2 = (tA'-tA)/2 = 3.336ns = T >> >> Newton and Einstein would agree about the above! >> ================================================ >> >> And so will you because you know all about this, don't you? >> Or don't you? > > Why should I not agree? > OK, you agree with Newton and Einstein. So now you know that: If (tB - tA) ≠ (tA'- tB) then the clocks are not synchronous and then neither (tB - tA) nor (tA'- tB) are transit times. The transit time is: T = (tA'-tA)/2 in both directions. Both Newton and Einstein predict that clock A advances T = (tA'-tA)/2 in both direction. |> On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 22:33:50 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: |>> |>> 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 clockB. |>> tA, tA' and tB are "pure numbers" independent of |>> frames of reference. |>> |>> (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB) | Den 07.09.2026 09:15, skrev HenryWilson: |> |> So SR predicts the reading of clock A will ADVANCES by two different |> numbers during the opposite transits. |> You thought (tB - tA) and (tA'- tB) were two different transit times. Now you know you were wrong. | On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 14:38:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | |> (tB - tA) > (tA'- tB) |> According SR's definition of simultaneity this |> means that clock A and clock B are not synchronous. |> That means that clock B is some offset F ahead or |> behind clock A. |> That means that neither (tB - tA) nor (tA' - tB) |> are transit times. |> The transit times are (tB-F - tA) and (tA' - tB + F) |> |> The transit times are equal. |> The sum of the transit times are: |> (tB - tA)+(tA'- tB) = (tA' - tA) |> |> clock A advances (tA' - tA) between event 1 and event 3. |> So A advances (tA' - tA)/2 during the opposite transits. Now you know that I was right. Note that tA, tB and tA' are frame independent entities, so T = (tA' - tA)/2 in any frame you might choose to observe it in. | Den 05.09.2026 20:18, skrev HenryWilson: | |> Please answer the only question that matters: |> |> "Does the reading of clock A advance by (a) TWO DIFFERENT PURE NUMBERS |> during the opposite transits as PREDICTED BY EINSTEIN and Os or by (b) THE |> SAME NUMBER, as also PREDICTED by Einstein via Om?" |> |> Use your brilliant Norwegian mind and tell the world which is correct. a |> or b? |> |> In your next post Paul, just write 'a' or 'b', and a short note to say |> why. |> |> Your inability to do so will be effectively claiming that NUMBER is frame |> dependent...which we can then add to the long list of imaginary factors |> that Einstein's theories rely on but do not actually exist. It is interesting to see that you were aware of the fact that the PURE NUMBERS tA, tB and tA' are frame independent, yet you fail to understand that this implies that clock A will advance equally in any frame you might choose to observe it in. Could "Ralph's Paradox" be a logical blunder? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d41a84f123c07f$6895$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673085 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:30:32 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 10.09.2026 01:28, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 19:30:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > |> In your next post Paul, just write 'a' or 'b', and a short note to > say |> why. > |> > |> Your inability to do so will be effectively claiming that NUMBER is > frame |> dependent...which we can then add to the long list of imaginary > factors |> that Einstein's theories rely on but do not actually exist. > > It is interesting to see that you were aware of the fact that the PURE > NUMBERS tA, tB and tA' are frame independent, yet you fail to understand > that this implies that clock A will advance equally in any frame you > might choose to observe it in. > > Could "Ralph's Paradox" be a logical blunder? No Paul it could not...A main reason for returning to this NG was to make some of my impending book's more difficult revelations 'idiot proof'.... and you have been very helpful in the past. I have modified sections of my paradox to make it even clearers. Please replace the original paragraphs with this: "The experiment will now be slightly modified for clarification.. Since clock B is not relevant, it will be replaced with mirror, M, the light source will be fastened to clock A and all clocks will be digital. Now, according to P2, a light pulse sent from A to M and back to A will still move at c in the stationary frame...and again the derivation of equation3 remains intact. However, the pulse also moves at c in Om’s rest frame, according to P2. Therefore, both the STATIONARY observer and Einstein, will predict that the readings of the C clocks will advance by two different pure numbers, say, N+n and N-n during the opposite transits of the pulse (using equation3). However, according to the MOVING observer and Einstein, the pulse moves at c in both directions in clocks A's own rest frame and so its reading is predicted to advance by the SAME number N (= R/c) during those opposite transits, purely due to symmetry (confirmed by 1 above). Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent yet Einstein's theory directly predicts two conflicting numerical outcomes for the same process, a logical contradiction." Note there is now no 'clock B'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <N8vwwg0TTQOE19LQchBgSHmW9js@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673097 |
Le 11/09/2026 à 01:48, HenryWilson a écrit :
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:30:32 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 10.09.2026 01:28, skrev HenryWilson:
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 19:30:18 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> |> In your next post Paul, just write 'a' or 'b', and a short note to
>> say |> why.
>> |>
>> |> Your inability to do so will be effectively claiming that NUMBER is
>> frame |> dependent...which we can then add to the long list of imaginary
>> factors |> that Einstein's theories rely on but do not actually exist.
>>
>> It is interesting to see that you were aware of the fact that the PURE
>> NUMBERS tA, tB and tA' are frame independent, yet you fail to understand
>> that this implies that clock A will advance equally in any frame you
>> might choose to observe it in.
>>
>> Could "Ralph's Paradox" be a logical blunder?
>
> No Paul it could not...A main reason for returning to this NG was to make
> some of my impending book's more difficult revelations 'idiot proof'....
> and you have been very helpful in the past. I have modified sections of
> my paradox to make it even clearers. Please replace the original
> paragraphs with this:
>
> "The experiment will now be slightly modified for clarification.. Since
> clock B is not relevant, it will be replaced with mirror, M, the light
> source will be fastened to clock A and all clocks will be digital. Now,
> according to P2, a light pulse sent from A to M and back to A will still
> move at c in the stationary frame...and again the derivation of equation3
> remains intact. However, the pulse also moves at c in Om’s rest frame,
> according to P2.
> Therefore, both the STATIONARY observer and Einstein, will
> predict that the readings of the C clocks will advance by two different
> pure numbers, say, N+n and N-n during the opposite transits of the pulse
> (using equation3). However, according to the MOVING observer and Einstein,
> the pulse moves at c in both directions in clocks A's own rest frame and
> so its reading is predicted to advance by the SAME number N (= R/c) during
> those opposite transits, purely due to symmetry (confirmed by 1 above).
> Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent yet Einstein's theory
> directly predicts two conflicting numerical outcomes for the same process,
> a logical contradiction."
>
> Note there is now no 'clock B'.
Ralph,
removing clock B has actually made the error in your paradox easier
to see.
Let the three relevant LIGHT events be:
E = emission at A
R = reflection at mirror M
F = return to A.
E and F occur ON clock A.
Therefore the readings of clock A at E and F are genuine local
clock readings.
Every observer agrees on those readings.
No problem there.
But R does NOT occur on clock A.
So when you ask:
"what does clock A read when the light reaches M?"
you are asking for the event on A which is SIMULTANEOUS with the
remote event R.
And that is exactly where your argument changes events without
noticing it.
In A's rest frame S':
E -------- A1 -------- F
|
| simultaneous
|
R
By symmetry, A1 is halfway in proper time:
tau(E,A1) = tau(A1,F) = L/c.
So if A reads 0 at E, it reads
L/c
at A1 and
2L/c
at F.
Now look from another inertial frame S in which the apparatus moves.
The event R is the SAME reflection event.
But because simultaneity is relative, the event on A simultaneous
with R in S is NOT A1.
Call it A2.
So:
A1 != A2.
Clock A has one definite reading at A1
and another definite reading at A2.
Every observer agrees on BOTH readings.
What differs between frames is which of those two events is judged
simultaneous with the distant reflection R.
That is the whole "paradox".
Your claim
> Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent
is perfectly correct.
If clock A reads, say,
123456
at some particular event on its worldline, everybody agrees that
it reads 123456 at THAT event.
But you are comparing:
reading of A at event A1
with
reading of A at different event A2.
Those numbers are allowed to differ because A1 and A2 are different
events.
Relativity never says otherwise.
We can even calculate it explicitly.
Let A and M be at rest in S', separated by proper distance L.
Take c=1 for simplicity.
In S':
E : (t',x') = (0,0)
R : (L,L)
F : (2L,0).
The event on A simultaneous with R in S' is therefore
A1 : (L,0).
Clock A reads L there.
Now transform the reflection event R to a frame S in which the
apparatus moves at velocity v:
t_R = gamma(L + vL)
x_R = gamma(L + vL).
The event A2 on A which is simultaneous with R in S must satisfy
t_A2 = t_R.
Since A moves as x=vt in S, transforming A2 back to A's rest frame
gives its proper time
t'_A2 = t_R/gamma
= L(1+v).
Thus A reads
L
at A1,
but
L(1+v)
at A2.
No clock reading changed frame.
A1 and A2 are simply different events on the same clock.
This is why the two coordinate transit times in S can be unequal
while the two halves are symmetric in S'.
You are not obtaining two predictions for the SAME clock interval.
You are using two different definitions of the remote endpoint of
that interval.
Removing clock B did not remove relativity of simultaneity.
It merely hid it in the phrase:
"the reading of clock A during the transit to mirror M."
There is no local event on A marking the end of that outbound
transit.
You have to manufacture one by simultaneity.
Different inertial frames manufacture different ones.
So your proposed contradiction is:
"different events on clock A have different readings."
That is true.
But it is not a paradox.
If you want an actual contradiction, give two Lorentz frames that
assign different numerical readings to clock A at the SAME EVENT
on A.
Not two different events declared simultaneous with a remote
reflection.
That would be a contradiction.
This isn't one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d45f8e9471b848$14870$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673119 |
On Fri, 11 Sep 26 07:47:23 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 11/09/2026 à 01:48, HenryWilson a écrit : >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:30:32 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> "The experiment will now be slightly modified for clarification.. Since >> clock B is not relevant, it will be replaced with mirror, M, the light >> source will be fastened to clock A and all clocks will be digital. Now, >> according to P2, a light pulse sent from A to M and back to A will >> still move at c in the stationary frame...and again the derivation of >> equation3 remains intact. However, the pulse also moves at c in Om’s >> rest frame, according to P2. >> Therefore, both the STATIONARY observer and Einstein, will >> predict that the readings of the C clocks will advance by two different >> pure numbers, say, N+n and N-n during the opposite transits of the >> pulse (using equation3). However, according to the MOVING observer and >> Einstein, >> the pulse moves at c in both directions in clocks A's own rest frame >> and so its reading is predicted to advance by the SAME number N (= R/c) >> during those opposite transits, purely due to symmetry (confirmed by 1 >> above). Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent yet Einstein's >> theory directly predicts two conflicting numerical outcomes for the >> same process, >> a logical contradiction." >> >> Note there is now no 'clock B'. > > Ralph, > > removing clock B has actually made the error in your paradox easier to > see. > > Let the three relevant LIGHT events be: > > E = emission at A R = reflection at mirror M F = return to A. > > E and F occur ON clock A. > > Therefore the readings of clock A at E and F are genuine local clock > readings. > > Every observer agrees on those readings. > > No problem there. > > > But R does NOT occur on clock A. > > So when you ask: > > "what does clock A read when the light reaches M?" You just cannot understand any of this. Clocks don't have to read anything or be read by anyone. The paradox comes from Einstein's predictions of what the clocks do. . Getit now?. > you are asking for the event on A which is SIMULTANEOUS with the remote > event R. > > And that is exactly where your argument changes events without noticing > it. According to Einstein, A does exactly what C does. > > > In A's rest frame S': A is at rest in the moving frame and effectively at rest in the stationary frame according to Einstein because it is synched with C which is at rest. > > E -------- A1 -------- F > | > | simultaneous | > R > > By symmetry, A1 is halfway in proper time: > > tau(E,A1) = tau(A1,F) = L/c. > > So if A reads 0 at E, it reads > > L/c > > at A1 and > > 2L/c > > at F. > > > Now look from another inertial frame S in which the apparatus moves. > > The event R is the SAME reflection event. > > But because simultaneity is relative, the event on A simultaneous with R > in S is NOT A1. Simultaneity was only declared relative becajuse of Einstein delusional error. It is not at all relevant to what Einstein predicts for clock A. > Call it A2. > > So: > > A1 != A2. > > Clock A has one definite reading at A1 and another definite reading at > A2. > > Every observer agrees on BOTH readings. > > What differs between frames is which of those two events is judged > simultaneous with the distant reflection R. > > > That is the whole "paradox". > > > Your claim > >> Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent > > is perfectly correct. > > If clock A reads, say, > > 123456 > > at some particular event on its worldline, everybody agrees that it > reads 123456 at THAT event. > > But you are comparing: > > reading of A at event A1 > > with > > reading of A at different event A2. > > Those numbers are allowed to differ because A1 and A2 are different > events. > Relativity never says otherwise. Einstein PREDICTS that clock A will advance by the same number in the moving frame. Einstein also PREDICTS that A's readings will advance by different numbers in the stationary frame. That's all you need to know to establish the paradox. Simultaneity has nothing to do with what Einstein clearly predicts. > We can even calculate it explicitly. > > Let A and M be at rest in S', separated by proper distance L. > > Take c=1 for simplicity. > > In S': > > E : (t',x') = (0,0) > R : (L,L) > F : (2L,0). > > The event on A simultaneous with R in S' is therefore > > A1 : (L,0). > > Clock A reads L there. > > > Now transform the reflection event R to a frame S in which the apparatus > moves at velocity v: > > t_R = gamma(L + vL) > x_R = gamma(L + vL). > > The event A2 on A which is simultaneous with R in S must satisfy > > t_A2 = t_R. > > Since A moves as x=vt in S, transforming A2 back to A's rest frame gives > its proper time > > t'_A2 = t_R/gamma > = L(1+v). > > Thus A reads > > L > > at A1, > > but > > L(1+v) > > at A2. > > No clock reading changed frame. > > A1 and A2 are simply different events on the same clock. > > > This is why the two coordinate transit times in S can be unequal while > the two halves are symmetric in S'. > > You are not obtaining two predictions for the SAME clock interval. > > You are using two different definitions of the remote endpoint of that > interval. > > > Removing clock B did not remove relativity of simultaneity. > > It merely hid it in the phrase: > > "the reading of clock A during the transit to mirror M." > > > There is no local event on A marking the end of that outbound transit. > > You have to manufacture one by simultaneity. > > Different inertial frames manufacture different ones. > > > So your proposed contradiction is: > > "different events on clock A have different readings." > > That is true. > > But it is not a paradox. > > > If you want an actual contradiction, give two Lorentz frames that assign > different numerical readings to clock A at the SAME EVENT on A. > > Not two different events declared simultaneous with a remote reflection. > > That would be a contradiction. > > This isn't one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <84AhU0vAZWm_uJcCWpvFdrPEQg4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673141 |
Ralph, you keep saying: "Einstein predicts clock A advances by the same number in one frame and by different numbers in another." Fine. Then identify the SAME TWO EVENTS on clock A. Call them P and Q. What are P and Q? For any two fixed events P and Q on A's worldline, the elapsed proper time Δtau_A(P,Q) is invariant. Every Lorentz frame predicts the SAME numerical advance of clock A between those same two events. So if you claim a contradiction, give: event P on A event Q on A and then show: frame S predicts Δtau_A(P,Q) = X frame S' predicts Δtau_A(P,Q) = Y with X != Y. That would indeed be a contradiction. But your present argument uses: emission E on A, reflection R on M, return F on A. E and F are on A. R is NOT on A. Therefore there is no unique "reading of A at R" until you choose which event on A is simultaneous with R. And different frames choose different events on A. That is exactly why your two "advances" differ. > Simultaneity has nothing to do with what Einstein clearly predicts. It has everything to do with it, because your outbound transit ends at R, which is a remote event on M. To assign a simultaneous reading of A to that remote event, you need a simultaneity convention. Remove that assignment and your paradox disappears. > A is at rest in the moving frame and effectively at rest in the > stationary frame according to Einstein because it is synched with C No. Being synchronized with another clock does not make a clock at rest in that clock's frame. Synchronization is not velocity. If A is moving in S, then A is moving in S. Its being synchronized with some stationary clock C does not alter its worldline. So the challenge is now very simple: Give me TWO NAMED EVENTS P and Q on clock A. Then give Einstein's two allegedly different predictions for the advance of A between those SAME events. If you cannot do that, there is no paradox. There are only different event pairs. A clock reading is frame-independent at an event. Which event is simultaneous with a distant reflection is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d4bb1359f83c4e$18852$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673158 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 26 10:09:13 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > > you keep saying: > > "Einstein predicts clock A advances by the same number > in one frame and by different numbers in another." > > Fine. > > Then identify the SAME TWO EVENTS on clock A. > > Call them P and Q. > > What are P and Q? > > For any two fixed events P and Q on A's worldline, the elapsed proper > time > > Δtau_A(P,Q) > > is invariant. > > Every Lorentz frame predicts the SAME numerical advance of clock A > between those same two events. > > So if you claim a contradiction, give: > > event P on A event Q on A > > and then show: > > frame S predicts Δtau_A(P,Q) = X frame S' predicts Δtau_A(P,Q) = Y > > with X != Y. > > That would indeed be a contradiction. > > > But your present argument uses: > > emission E on A, > reflection R on M, > return F on A. > > E and F are on A. > > R is NOT on A. > > Therefore there is no unique "reading of A at R" until you choose which > event on A is simultaneous with R. > > And different frames choose different events on A. > > That is exactly why your two "advances" differ. > > >> Simultaneity has nothing to do with what Einstein clearly predicts. > > It has everything to do with it, because your outbound transit ends at > R, which is a remote event on M. > > To assign a simultaneous reading of A to that remote event, you need a > simultaneity convention. > > Remove that assignment and your paradox disappears. > > >> A is at rest in the moving frame and effectively at rest in the >> stationary frame according to Einstein because it is synched with C > > No. > > Being synchronized with another clock does not make a clock at rest in > that clock's frame. > > Synchronization is not velocity. > > If A is moving in S, then A is moving in S. > > Its being synchronized with some stationary clock C does not alter its > worldline. > > > So the challenge is now very simple: > > Give me TWO NAMED EVENTS P and Q on clock A. > > Then give Einstein's two allegedly different predictions for the advance > of A between those SAME events. > > If you cannot do that, there is no paradox. > > There are only different event pairs. > > A clock reading is frame-independent at an event. > > Which event is simultaneous with a distant reflection is not. Let me explain in very simple terms...no worldlines, no simultaneity, just Einstein and you, his dedicated supporter. Imagine you are the stationary observer and are performing Einstein's experiment. This involves sending a light pulse from a light source 'A' to a rigidly connected mirror and reflecting it back again, while that system is moving towards you. The source has a clock, A, which you have synchronized with your wrist watch...You know the two have stayed in exact time for fifty years, irrespective of what has happened to either. You now perform the experiment by moving the system towards you and sending a light pulse from A to the mirror and back again while it is moving. You know that the light pulse moves at c relative to you because Einstein said so. You cleverly emulate Einstein by calculating that the pulse takes more time to go one way than the other. (equation3). That means you wrist watch would measure those times to be different if it was equipped to do so. In other words its reading would advance by two different numbers...and naturally, clock A must behave identically. You now have a problem because according to Einstein, the pulse also moves at c in both direction in A's rest frame, meaning that the travel times must be equal. A's reading must therefore advance by the same numbers during the opposite transits....which conflicts with what you previously determined. Einstein's P2 has generated a logical impossibility. Your only option is to assume that it cannot be correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RnyGKcJQYqDBD3yE4tA3JeECYBA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673175 |
Ralph,
Your post makes your error exceptionally clear.
It is contained in one sentence:
> my wrist watch would measure those times to be different...
> and naturally, clock A must behave identically.
No.
That "naturally" is precisely the assumption which creates your
paradox.
Your wristwatch is at rest in the stationary frame S.
Clock A is moving in S.
Einstein most certainly does NOT predict that they advance by the
same amount during arbitrary coordinate-time intervals in S.
That would contradict time dilation.
Let's do your experiment with actual events and numbers.
Let S' be the rest frame of A and the mirror M.
Let their separation be L.
Take c explicitly.
The three LIGHT events are:
E = emission from A
R = reflection at M
F = return to A.
In S':
E : t'=0, x'=0
R : t'=L/c, x'=L
F : t'=2L/c, x'=0.
Therefore, in the apparatus rest frame, the two light transit times
are indeed equal:
E -> R : L/c
R -> F : L/c.
So far, exactly as you say.
Now let the whole apparatus move at velocity v in S.
Lorentz-transform those SAME three events.
With beta=v/c:
t_E = 0
t_R = gamma (L/c + vL/c^2)
= gamma L/c (1+beta)
and
t_F = gamma 2L/c.
Therefore the coordinate transit times measured in S are
E -> R:
Δt_out = gamma L/c (1+beta)
and
R -> F:
Δt_back = t_F-t_R
= gamma L/c (1-beta).
They are unequal.
Again, exactly as you say.
And where is the contradiction?
There isn't one.
Because those are coordinate-time intervals in S.
They are NOT two successive readings of clock A.
Clock A is present at E.
Clock A is present at F.
Clock A is NOT present at R.
The reflection occurs on mirror M.
So your sentence
"clock A must behave identically"
has silently assigned a reading of A to the remote reflection R.
Which reading?
That requires deciding which event on A is simultaneous with R.
And THAT depends on the frame.
In A's rest frame S', the event on A simultaneous with R occurs at
t'_A = L/c.
So A's clock divides E -> F into
L/c + L/c.
In the stationary frame S, the event on A simultaneous with R is a
DIFFERENT event on A.
Since A's proper time is t/gamma along its motion, its reading at
the S-simultaneous event is
tau_A = t_R/gamma
= L/c (1+beta).
Thus S divides A's worldline, using S-simultaneity, into
L/c (1+beta)
and
L/c (1-beta).
Their sum is still
2L/c.
Nothing contradictory has happened.
So Einstein predicts:
A's total reading E -> F:
2L/c
in EVERY frame.
What changes is which event on A you pair with the distant
reflection R.
Your two statements are therefore:
In S':
R is simultaneous with the event where A reads L/c.
In S:
R is simultaneous with the event where A reads
L/c (1+beta).
Those are different events on A.
The numbers are different because the events are different.
> Pure number obviously cannot be frame dependent
Correct.
The reading of A at a GIVEN EVENT is not frame dependent.
But you have not exhibited one event at which Einstein gives two
different readings.
You have exhibited two different events on A, selected by two
different simultaneity conventions.
There is another problem in your setup:
> The source has a clock, A, which you have synchronized with your
> wrist watch... You know the two have stayed in exact time for fifty
> years, irrespective of what has happened to either.
That is not an assumption of Einstein's theory.
It is a direct denial of it.
Two clocks which subsequently follow different inertial motions do
not remain synchronized in S merely because you synchronized them
once.
You have inserted absolute time into the premises and then announced
that relativity contradicts it.
So your paradox requires two extra assumptions which Einstein does
not make:
1. a moving A must advance exactly like the stationary wristwatch;
2. "A's reading at the remote reflection R" has a unique meaning
independent of simultaneity.
Both are false in SR.
You said:
> no worldlines, no simultaneity, just Einstein
Unfortunately the reflection is remote from clock A.
You cannot ask what A reads "during the outbound transit" without
specifying where that interval ends on A.
That is not philosophical decoration.
It is the missing endpoint in your calculation.
So the challenge remains unchanged:
Give two actual events P and Q ON clock A and show
S predicts A advances X between P and Q,
while
S' predicts A advances Y between THE SAME P and Q,
with X != Y.
That would be a contradiction.
Your E-R-F construction does not do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d4d656d260ee31$77283$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673191 |
On 9/13/2026 10:58 AM, Python wrote: > Ralph, > > Your post makes your error exceptionally clear. > > It is contained in one sentence: > >> my wrist watch would measure those times to be different... >> and naturally, clock A must behave identically. > > No. > > That "naturally" is precisely the assumption which creates your > paradox. That "naturally" is obvious for poor victims of you mad, brainwashing religion. Clocks have never did anything "naturally" and they never will. It's only those moronic gedanken tales of yours pumping you with delusions of clocks "naturally" following the commands of your moronic gurus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web