Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #358961 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-28 20:16 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-07-29 20:16 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 205 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-28 20:16 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-07-28 19:16 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-07-28 19:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-28 20:44 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 14:20 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 00:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 09:28 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 01:03 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-07-30 08:19 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-28 19:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-29 23:20 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 01:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 09:30 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-30 16:28 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-31 19:46 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-31 19:52 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 18:02 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-02 10:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:03 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-03 23:36 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 15:35 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-04 16:38 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 11:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-04 21:54 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-04 14:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 16:28 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 07:33 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 17:10 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-05 15:51 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 09:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 18:16 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-05 16:22 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 09:47 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 19:13 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:18 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 19:29 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 19:51 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 20:07 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 23:22 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 14:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 16:41 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 20:25 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:06 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:26 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:47 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 15:27 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 13:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 23:05 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 17:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 18:21 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-06 18:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 00:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-07 16:32 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 11:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-07 21:49 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:05 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-08 19:31 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-08 19:52 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 11:40 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-08 22:05 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-08 06:09 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-06 12:20 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:35 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:43 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-06 21:48 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 20:12 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-05 08:44 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 15:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 16:31 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 09:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-05 18:14 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-03 09:21 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 15:22 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 10:28 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 18:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 18:40 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 18:44 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 19:03 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:42 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 19:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:57 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 19:58 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:03 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:16 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 19:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 20:39 -0700
Fresh from getting his ass kicked in a humiliation, Stephane Baune pretends to "teach" "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-07-31 19:55 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-31 20:48 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-31 18:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 21:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 03:49 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:00 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 10:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:23 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 15:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-03 18:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 22:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 16:10 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 19:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-02 10:14 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 17:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-04 12:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 15:39 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-04 17:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 18:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-04 19:09 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 20:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-04 19:52 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-08 11:37 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 11:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-08 13:28 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-08 23:14 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 15:20 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-09 08:58 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 17:55 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 12:26 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 14:31 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-10 15:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:33 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 13:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-14 10:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:50 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-14 12:50 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 12:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-15 16:02 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-08 23:13 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2015-08-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-02 18:47 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-03 09:08 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-03 15:28 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-03 10:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:55 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-03 20:26 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:38 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-04 05:07 -0400
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:31 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-04 06:19 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:50 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 09:09 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-04 07:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 07:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 09:48 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 09:57 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-05 06:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 06:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-05 08:49 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 10:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-05 12:19 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 14:24 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-05 17:59 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 18:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-05 19:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-05 21:14 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 12:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-05 17:49 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-06 14:18 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-07 12:20 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-08 06:52 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 09:46 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-09 07:27 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-09 21:07 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:20 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-10 13:37 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 13:15 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-11 06:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-11 22:36 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 07:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 09:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-12 18:42 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-08-12 14:55 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 19:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> - 2015-08-04 15:56 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 09:06 -0700
Stephane baune continues to puff himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-04 11:04 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-29 20:16 -0700
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 20:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox |
| Message-ID | <boidnaidyMPhtCXInZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
On 7/27/15 7/27/15 3:27 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:09:02 PM UTC+1, wugi wrote: >> Once back in a common frame, the clocks would tick together again of >> course. > > Of course: the point is that they must be off relative to each other... No. The point is: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR. Your "point" is just plain wrong. > Bottom line: yet another idiot who thinks he is a genius Yes. You describe yourself rather well. If you were not "yet another idiot" you would STUDY THE PHYSICS rather than trying to write about a subject you CLEARLY do not understand. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fde6ebc8-75d1-441a-8a3e-db85a754c756@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358961 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:16:45 AM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/27/15 7/27/15 3:27 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 9:09:02 PM UTC+1, wugi wrote: > >> Once back in a common frame, the clocks would tick together again of > >> course. > > > > Of course: the point is that they must be off relative to each other... > > No. The point is: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR. Your "point" is just plain wrong. Go on, prove me wrong. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <024e10f6-71e0-48d8-9b9f-405dae3cdfa6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358970 |
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > Go on, prove me wrong. > The classical crackpot , LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <443eab3f-931e-496f-a6f6-16189e8269fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358971 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:20:18 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > > Go on, prove me wrong. > > > The classical crackpot , LOL. The classical troll: welcome to my kill-file. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 20:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f22f98c1-996b-4db5-8d4d-19e4bcc8123a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358972 |
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:23:53 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:20:18 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 7:16:03 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > > > > Go on, prove me wrong. > > > > > The classical crackpot , LOL. > > The classical troll: welcome to my kill-file. > > Julio Do the people employing you know that you are an autistic imbecile and that you advertise your imbecility on the world wide web?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c4af7a2-d11b-4967-9c38-54370782ca81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358972 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 12:05:50 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:07:10 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The math does not show both have aged (2 T / gv). It rather shows > > the observed twin has aged (2 T / gv) while the twin (doing the > > observation) has aged (2 T). The same also goes for the other twin. > > This is where the fatal contradiction of the twin paradox occur. > > Hahaha! Gawd, after all these - how many decades - it's back to the > basic confusions ca. 1906. What is Jan the relativistic moron ranting about? The scenario of both traveling twins has never been addressed in any textbook because it glaringly shows the contradiction to the Twin paradox. You can also add a period where the twins are back in inertial frames of reference but with the twins flying apart. Observed mutual time dilations should be building up due to the Lorentz transform. There is no fvcking hope that any turn around by either twin would miraculously cancel out the buildup in mutual time dilation. <shrug> Why so? Think Orwellian philosophy practiced by Einstein dingleberries. <shrug> ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NOISE IS COHERENCY ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS REALITY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c6c8510-59e4-4245-bdfd-a68398aa0c90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359046 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 4:59:19 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote: > The scenario of both traveling twins has never been addressed in > any textbook A lie or true ignorance. That particular scenario is addressed many times in the literature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 00:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43c89987-16bb-4359-8c19-10d5f376debd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359046 |
Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The math does not show both have aged (2 T / gv). It rather shows > > the observed twin has aged (2 T / gv) while the twin (doing the > > observation) has aged (2 T). The same also goes for the other twin. > > This is where the fatal contradiction of the twin paradox occur. > > > The scenario of both traveling twins has never been addressed in any > > textbook because it glaringly shows the contradiction to the Twin > > paradox. You can also add a period where the twins are back in > > inertial frames of reference but with the twins flying apart. > > Observed mutual time dilations should be building up due to the > > Lorentz transform. > > OK > > > There is no fvcking hope that any turn around by either twin would > > miraculously cancel out the buildup in mutual time dilation. > > <shrug> > > Oh, but it does, in the math that I showed you! What math? MathemaGics is not math. <shrug> > [disorderly rants snipped] The prostitutes of SR are willing to turn sound mathematics upside down in order to proliferate their leeching sustenance. After all, it is a big business behind SR and GR shit. <shrug> Examples are: 1. When 1 and 2 synchronize previously and compare later on their watches, PD is unable to tell if one's watch ticks slower than the other one. Stupid ass! <shrug> 2. When one twin's watch is observed to tick slower by the other twin in the same amount as the other twin is observed to tick slower, PD the scatter wit and moortel the sperm lover would proclaim both twins tick at the same rate. Scandalous shit! <shrug> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2aEfbEi7s The next generations are dumbed down further more with PD writing a new version of textbooks for them. The Orwellian indoctrination is just too obvious for the sake of leeching more money into their evil scam: ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** NOISE IS COHERENCY ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS REALITY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpdc9k$j53$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359085 |
On 7/30/2015 2:53 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Odd Bodkin aka PD wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >>> The math does not show both have aged (2 T / gv). It rather shows >>> the observed twin has aged (2 T / gv) while the twin (doing the >>> observation) has aged (2 T). The same also goes for the other twin. >>> This is where the fatal contradiction of the twin paradox occur. >> >>> The scenario of both traveling twins has never been addressed in any >>> textbook because it glaringly shows the contradiction to the Twin >>> paradox. You can also add a period where the twins are back in >>> inertial frames of reference but with the twins flying apart. >>> Observed mutual time dilations should be building up due to the >>> Lorentz transform. >> >> OK >> >>> There is no fvcking hope that any turn around by either twin would >>> miraculously cancel out the buildup in mutual time dilation. >>> <shrug> >> >> Oh, but it does, in the math that I showed you! > > What math? MathemaGics is not math. <shrug> Any mathematics that is over your head you call MathemaGics. And what's really funny about that is that the math I used was pretty elementary. Just Lorentz transforms and a couple of limits. > >> [disorderly rants snipped] > > The prostitutes of SR are willing to turn sound mathematics upside down in > order to proliferate their leeching sustenance. After all, it is a big business behind > SR and GR shit. <shrug> > > Examples are: > > 1. When 1 and 2 synchronize previously and compare later on their watches, PD is unable > to tell if one's watch ticks slower than the other one. Stupid ass! <shrug> > > 2. When one twin's watch is observed to tick slower by the other twin in the same amount > as the other twin is observed to tick slower, PD the scatter wit and moortel the sperm lover > would proclaim both twins tick at the same rate. Scandalous shit! <shrug> Yup. I see that you don't understand even the BASICS of relativity. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS2aEfbEi7s > > The next generations are dumbed down further more with PD writing a new version of textbooks You think PD is writing textbooks? I'm certainly not. > for them. The Orwellian indoctrination is just too obvious for the sake of leeching more > money into their evil scam: > > ** FAITH IS LOGIC > ** LYING IS TEACHING > ** NOISE IS COHERENCY > ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION > ** NITWIT IS GENIUS > ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE > ** FICTION IS REALITY > ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION > ** PARADOX IS KOSHER > ** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH > ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE > ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING > ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE > ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM > ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM > ** CONJECTURE IS THEORY > ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING > ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY > ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE > ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT > ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS > ** WORSHIPPING IS STUDYING > ** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL > ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY > ** MYSTIFICATION IS EDUCATION > ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION > ** DEMYSTIFICATION IS CONSPIRACY > > <shrug> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bf7634f-ecf3-42f7-be4c-c0778c385fe1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359046 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:59:19 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > What is Jan the relativistic moron ranting about? The scenario of > > both traveling twins has never been addressed in any textbook > > False. Be a man and just name a textbook now that addresses the both traveling twins knowing PD is working on one to dumb down the next generations. <shrug> > > because it glaringly shows the contradiction to the Twin paradox. > > False. The contradiction is so obvious in the scenario of both traveling twins. Jan the relativistic moron is cornered and the prostitute is resorting to the game of knock knock who's there. <shrug> > > You can also add a period where the twins are back in inertial > > frames of reference but with the twins flying apart. Observed > > mutual time dilations should be building up due to the Lorentz > > transform. There is no fvcking hope that any turn around by > > either twin would miraculously cancel out the buildup in mutual > > time dilation. <shrug> > > [disorderly ranting nonsense snipped] The prostitute also known as Jan the relativistic moron is not fvcking man enough to address the mathematics but only can resort to bullshit. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 08:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpcfm2$fgg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #358972 |
Julio Di Egidio schreef op 29-jul-2015 om 17:19: > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:48:08 AM UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel > wrote: > >> Ha, Julio, you're still here. Here's a little calculation that >> might help you. >> >> Referring to your >> http://seprogrammo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/symmetric-twins-paradox.html >> >> >> 1) Inertial system in which twins depart and reunite uses >> coordinates (x, t). > <snip> > > I'm still here, and that's still wrong: you are asked what R's clock > looks to L and what L's clock looks to R, The clocks show the same reading BY YOUR OWN DESIGN. You say it in your own text. READ IT. Good grief, you are almost frighteningly stupid. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f74e62e1-798b-41d9-98e2-87151351856c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358970 |
On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 8:16:03 PM UTC-6, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > Go on, prove me wrong. > > Julio I already did it. Your analysis is incorrect as it pretends that nothing happens during the turn-around phase. Your argument that you can make the acceleration as small as you want, but you ignore the distance over which you must apply that acceleration to achieve turn-around: the lower the acceleration, the longer the distance under acceleration. The LT can tell you what appears to happen to a clock "back home" when you do that, and what happens makes everything completely consistent with the other traveling twin. That is, there is no "each one is younger than the other" nonsense. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpbg2a$8ta$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #358961 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:20cdf506-9e82-4af6-9c1d-39a6947e7be3@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:13:35 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:25qdnZPRVpadTiXInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |Note also that I have given colloquia on the experimental basis of SR at > |Fermilab and several universities, and am co-author on dozens of > scientific > |papers. I have a Ph.D. in Physics, am on the faculty of a U.S. > university, > and > |have an office at Fermilab, the premier high-energy physics lab in the > U.S.A. > > Wave your papers as much, as you want to. You know nothing > about building models of reality, samely, as your moronic > physics. |If what you (extremely vaguely) allude to is truly some "building |models" theory, then it's simply NOT applicable to physics. As I've told you many times, you know exactly nothing about the subject. That's all. > So you don't even try to argue, you just yell I KNOW!!!! > I'M AN EXPERT!!!! |Yes, he is. There are people more knowledgeable than you. Get over it. No, he isn't. There are people more knowledgeable than you and your fellow idiots. But you'll never get over it. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 01:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a2bbf1c-2734-4e3c-b60b-7d69b87c660b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359050 |
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 3:27:28 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:20:11 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > As I've told you many times, you know exactly nothing about the > > subject. That's all. > > Again, this is not relevant. [disorderly ranting nonsense snipped] Oh yes, this is very relevant. Jan the relativistic moron was recruited as a prostitute to twist the logic around in order for the religions of SR and GR to proliferate. The foundation that worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar must be really powerful and wealthy. Yes, they are very wealthy. Just look at the crap called Little Einstein. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpdce0$j53$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359087 |
On 7/30/2015 3:07 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Oh yes, this is very relevant. Jan the relativistic moron was recruited as a prostitute > to twist the logic around in order for the religions of SR and GR to proliferate. The > foundation that worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar must be really > powerful and wealthy. Yes, they are very wealthy. Just look at the crap called Little > Einstein. <shrug> Koobee's psychological descent continues. Now there's a cabal of wealthy, powerful foundation that probably have black helicopters and that are -- as we write -- no doubt circling over KW's vicinity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpdcbf$no5$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359050 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:a93b7b45-3d0f-488b-adaa-d129ce9f2b57@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:20:11 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:20cdf506-9e82-4af6-9c1d-39a6947e7be3@googlegroups.com... > > On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:13:35 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:25qdnZPRVpadTiXInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > |Note also that I have given colloquia on the experimental basis of SR > > at > > |Fermilab and several universities, and am co-author on dozens of > > scientific > > |papers. I have a Ph.D. in Physics, am on the faculty of a U.S. > > university, > > and > > |have an office at Fermilab, the premier high-energy physics lab in the > > U.S.A. > > > > Wave your papers as much, as you want to. You know nothing > > about building models of reality, samely, as your moronic > > physics. > > |If what you (extremely vaguely) allude to is truly some "building > |models" theory, then it's simply NOT applicable to physics. > > As I've told you many times, you know exactly nothing > about the subject. > That's all. |Again, this is not relevant. Yes, it is. When we re talking about applicability, my experience with applicability is more relevent, than your (not astonishing, BTW) knowledge of differential mathematics. Too bad for you. |Look, no sane person cares one iota about ANY "theory" which states |that physics is completely wrong and all physicists in the world are |idiots. Look, no sane person cares about your yells, that proper and standard clocks are unsynchronized clocks. More, you don't care too. |You will never get anywhere with this, trust me. Fuck off, moron. > No, he isn't. |Yes he is, this is very obvious. Everyone building real, usable models would laugh at his pathetic mumble. And THIS is very obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 19:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i-GdnRt3P5l1iyHInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #359102 |
On 7/31/15 7/31/15 8:44 AM, wobbly wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 7/31/15 7/31/15 6:54 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 1:35:23 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>> ** Have not understood the fatal contradiction in the Twin paradox.
>>>> <shrug>
>>>
>>> There is no paradox.
>>
>> Minor mis-speak: there is a paradox [#], but no contradiction.
>
> This is a contradiction, each and every paradox is described by one.
No contradiction, either in my statement or the original post to which I
responded. You merely display your personal ignorance, and omitted the relevant
portion of my post (the footnote [#]):
[#] paradox in the sense of "a seemingly absurd or self-
contradictory statement that when investigated proves to
be well founded or true.".
In addition to your colossal ignorance it seems you are being
deliberately provocative, so I probably won't respond any further.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IZednUTnIfvRhSHInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #359102 |
On 7/31/15 7/31/15 2:31 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 31 lipca 2015 20:19:56 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: >> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:24:57 AM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >>> Of course there is [a paradox]..., a paradox of causality: it is >>> an immediate consequence of the symmetry of time dilation... >> >> Show the math that supports your claim. > > It's given explicitly in the Lorentz transform: > t' = f(t,x); and simultaneously, > due to the imbecilic relativity principle: t = f(t',x'); That is true IN INERTIAL FRAMES. But these twins are NOT inertial, and you CANNOT simply apply the Lorentz transform. In addition you MUST examine what happens during their turnarounds (i.e. the periods when they are not moving inertially). Do that properly and you find that everything is self-consistent, different observers in different frames all come to IDENTICAL conclusions -- in this case the twins' clocks show the same elapsed proper time after they rejoin, and ALL observers agree on that. > [... much nonsense that is just plain wrong] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1586348e-917f-4b7c-9e61-124d8b6e1099@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359268 |
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 1 sierpnia 2015 02:52:30 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > On 7/31/15 7/31/15 2:31 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 31 lipca 2015 20:19:56 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > >> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:24:57 AM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > >>> Of course there is [a paradox]..., a paradox of causality: it is > > >>> an immediate consequence of the symmetry of time dilation... > > >> > > >> Show the math that supports your claim. > > > > > > It's given explicitly in the Lorentz transform: > > > t' = f(t,x); and simultaneously, > > > due to the imbecilic relativity principle: t = f(t',x'); > > > > That is true IN INERTIAL FRAMES. But these twins are NOT inertial, and you > > CANNOT simply apply the Lorentz transform. In addition you MUST examine what > > happens during their turnarounds (i.e. the periods when they are not moving > > inertially). Do that properly and you find that everything is self-consistent, > > different observers in different frames all come to IDENTICAL conclusions -- in > > this case the twins' clocks show the same elapsed proper time after they rejoin, > > and ALL observers agree on that. > > Do not improvise so much... it's high over your abilities! HAHAHAHA! The sheer _ease_ with which these guys say such things is hilarious! -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f54c6b7d-6771-4746-9285-819ed8d79f9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359376 |
W dniu niedziela, 2 sierpnia 2015 03:02:57 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 1 sierpnia 2015 02:52:30 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > On 7/31/15 7/31/15 2:31 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 31 lipca 2015 20:19:56 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > > >> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:24:57 AM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > > > >>> Of course there is [a paradox]..., a paradox of causality: it is > > > >>> an immediate consequence of the symmetry of time dilation... > > > >> > > > >> Show the math that supports your claim. > > > > > > > > It's given explicitly in the Lorentz transform: > > > > t' = f(t,x); and simultaneously, > > > > due to the imbecilic relativity principle: t = f(t',x'); > > > > > > That is true IN INERTIAL FRAMES. But these twins are NOT inertial, and you > > > CANNOT simply apply the Lorentz transform. In addition you MUST examine what > > > happens during their turnarounds (i.e. the periods when they are not moving > > > inertially). Do that properly and you find that everything is self-consistent, > > > different observers in different frames all come to IDENTICAL conclusions -- in > > > this case the twins' clocks show the same elapsed proper time after they rejoin, > > > and ALL observers agree on that. > > > > Do not improvise so much... it's high over your abilities! > > HAHAHAHA! The sheer _ease_ with which these guys say such things is hilarious! > > -- > Jan Oh! Another genius revealed... btw. my grandmother has a great insight in this matter: she frequently repeat the sentence: it's very fortunate to us the idiots don't gather together in one place! :) So, then tell me - you, the great genius in the noe-science: what type of transformation do you use in the case, the imbecile 137 mentioned, ie. what do you do, when your genuine Lorentz transform fails... due to the extraordinarily unexpected acceleration, or in any other case?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web