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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <424f41f7-74d3-44b2-bc13-fc0c7204cc92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359276 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:03:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > Even to the pro. C'mon, in fifty or a hundred years the future > will laugh at our ideas. Only question is which idea will they > laugh most at? Off topic, indicative that you have ceded to my (and Tom's) argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac99c6cc-b01f-43a9-892c-00c91ef364fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359280 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:45:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:03:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > Even to the pro. C'mon, in fifty or a hundred years the future > > will laugh at our ideas. Only question is which idea will they > > laugh most at? > > Off topic, indicative that you have ceded to my (and Tom's) argument. It depends how much you understand of your and Tom's argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 20:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <239a4af8-9534-4c01-8471-d88f2ce506ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359280 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:45:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:03:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > Even to the pro. C'mon, in fifty or a hundred years the future > > will laugh at our ideas. Only question is which idea will they > > laugh most at? > > Off topic, indicative that you have ceded to my (and Tom's) argument. I believe that you, I, and Tom are just here now. In a few years there could be a new era of physicists which make us obsolete. That's why I think we should say what we need to get said- before we become worthless and obsolete.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 20:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbf66277-0ae5-4b71-8f1c-e84e4da35356@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359291 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:45:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:03:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > > > > > > > Even to the pro. C'mon, in fifty or a hundred years the future > > > will laugh at our ideas. Only question is which idea will they > > > laugh most at? > > > > Off topic, indicative that you have ceded to my (and Tom's) argument. > > I believe that you, I, and Tom are just here now. In a few years there could be a new era of physicists which make us obsolete. That's why I think we should say what we need to get said- before we become worthless and obsolete. My greatest fear is not of criticism but being ignored and insignificant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 19:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Fresh from getting his ass kicked in a humiliation, Stephane Baune pretends to "teach" |
| Message-ID | <ef68fbc1-83ce-4412-bd7a-e1f7e8197837@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359274 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 7:03:51 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:44:17 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > IMHO, paradoxes are flaws to the applied theory in question. > > Your opinion doesnt change the definitions of words. The word 'paradox' here is defined as Tom said; its a *seemingly* contradiction, NOT a contradiction. > > Even you admitted to that: "I believe paradoxes are an indication of an incomplete understanding of a phenomena". Incomplete understating, meaning that it *seems* contradictory to the lay. Stephane, You need to stop puffing yourself up, you are just a puff of hot air.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 20:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XdednfXwc6jMuCHInZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #359270 |
On 7/31/15 7/31/15 8:40 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 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. >> [#] paradox in the sense of "a seemingly absurd or self- >> contradictory statement that when investigated proves to >> be well founded or true.". > > Careful there Tom, it is almost as if you are disqualifying the very meaning of the word paradox. No. I am merely giving the ACTUAL dictionary definition with which it is used here. > I believe paradoxes are an indication of an incomplete understanding of a phenomena. Yes. LOOK at the definition above -- people who think the "paradox" is a contradiction do indeed have an incomplete understanding. > It does give clues of where to go in the future. Yes. The "twin paradox" has been used as a TEACHING TOOL for many decades. It's just that so many people around here have no interest in learning. How sad for them.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50a9603a-ada1-4265-a743-b2709cfa09ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359270 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 8:40:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 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. > > > > [#] paradox in the sense of "a seemingly absurd or self- > > contradictory statement that when investigated proves to > > be well founded or true.". > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Careful there Tom, it is almost as if you are disqualifying the very meaning of the word paradox. On the contrary, I believe paradoxes are an indication of an incomplete understanding of a phenomena. It does give clues of where to go in the future. Instances of inapplicability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-31 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32561ef7-ff54-4ee0-a507-2f651dafb61a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359102 |
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Let's go back to the asymmetric twin puzzle. > > What does he see on the outward bound trip? Each time he looks out, the > clocks show a time that is further and further behind his own clock on > the ship. Since all those clocks are synched with the earth clock, he's > right to conclude that the earth clock is running slower than his own clock. Yes, this is what SR says. On the other hand, SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown in time of the traveling twin (B). Of course, Odd Bodkin aka PD would like to challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile just for once. Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by 100 hours. <shrug> Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). We have: ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes A's local time to show only 110 hours. Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein dingleberries is valid). We have: ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. <shrug> ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. <shrug> Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both are in inertial frames of reference. We have: ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. <shrug> ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. <shrug> At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. We have: ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B only to have 60 hours. <shrug> ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. <shrug> Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > Now he turns around and heads back to earth. Again he looks out the > window to see how those clocks are running. Sacre bleu! Now all the > clocks outside the window are way AHEAD of his own clock on the ship. > But as he continues to watch the clocks pass, he notices that they are > less ahead than the previous one, which means again that the earth clock > is running more slowly than the ship's clock. But they are still WAY > AHEAD of the ship's clock and they remain that way, even though they are > running more slowly. When the traveling twin arrives back at earth, the > earth clocks are still way ahead of the rocket's clock. Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does Odd Bodkin aka PD bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? <shrug> > If this comes as a shock to Julio, then maybe he'd be wise to pick up > some books on the subject. Koobee Wublee thinks we should recycle these books as toilet papers. <shrug> > It's not surprising that a neophyte like Julio might be confused. Odd Bodkin aka PD and other Einstein dingleberries such as Tom are greatly mystified by bullshit of SR. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 03:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46c45e3c-59cf-49b7-a0b8-d9b275b3cb87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359295 |
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 12:15:35 AM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Let's go back to the asymmetric twin puzzle. > > > > What does he see on the outward bound trip? Each time he looks out, the > > clocks show a time that is further and further behind his own clock on > > the ship. Since all those clocks are synched with the earth clock, he's > > right to conclude that the earth clock is running slower than his own clock. > > Yes, this is what SR says. No, that is NOT what SR says. That is what *someone* says. > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes > Twin B only 10 hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> A and B's clocks indicate zero as they initially coincide (they depart). As B arrives "overthere" his clock indicates 10 and A's clock underneath him indicates 100. > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed Yes. His clock changed from 0 to 10 as he arrives "overthere". > but observes A aging by 100 hours. <shrug> NO. He observes that the clock (belonging to A's frame) underneath him indicates 100. <rest of confusions snipped>. You have a lot of studying to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpns5n$1fp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359295 |
On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Let's go back to the asymmetric twin puzzle. >> >> What does he see on the outward bound trip? Each time he looks out, the >> clocks show a time that is further and further behind his own clock on >> the ship. Since all those clocks are synched with the earth clock, he's >> right to conclude that the earth clock is running slower than his own clock. > > Yes, this is what SR says. On the other hand, SR always says the earth staying > twin (A) also sees the same slowdown in time of the traveling twin (B). Well, if there were a system of clocks strung out behind the traveling twin and traveling inertially relative to the earth and all at rest relative to the traveling twin on the outbound trip, yes. (Notice however, that these clocks keep going when the traveling twin turns around.) > Of course, > Odd Bodkin aka PD would like to challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile > just for once. Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but > only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 hours have > elapsed locally to B. <shrug> Twin A can't notice anything locally to B. All twin A can do is to look at the string of clocks passing by the earth. See above. Do you not know ANYTHING about relativity at all? Rest ignored. Try again. > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by 100 hours. > <shrug> > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and vice versa. > At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of reference, no? Thus, > mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. Says each twin observes the other > for another 100 hours (local time). We have: > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's time only > shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes A's local > time to show only 110 hours. > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg out but twice > as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but 200 hours in A's time (assuming > the BS perpetrated by the Einstein dingleberries is valid). We have: > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. <shrug> > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. <shrug> > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both are in inertial > frames of reference. We have: > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. <shrug> > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. <shrug> > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. We have: > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B only to have > 60 hours. <shrug> > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. <shrug> > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction to SR. However, > say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile manages to claim at the > exact turn around these numbers would miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving > and more bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> Well, it's not hand-waving if it's rigorous, is it? It's called mathematics. It's over your head, so you call it mathemaGic. And whenever anyone says anything over your head, I gather you call it bullying and bullshit. > >> Now he turns around and heads back to earth. Again he looks out the >> window to see how those clocks are running. Sacre bleu! Now all the >> clocks outside the window are way AHEAD of his own clock on the ship. >> But as he continues to watch the clocks pass, he notices that they are >> less ahead than the previous one, which means again that the earth clock >> is running more slowly than the ship's clock. But they are still WAY >> AHEAD of the ship's clock and they remain that way, even though they are >> running more slowly. When the traveling twin arrives back at earth, the >> earth clocks are still way ahead of the rocket's clock. > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial frames of reference > 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of journey but with the exact same acceleration > profiles. How does Odd Bodkin aka PD bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match > correctly? <shrug> I already told you. The amount the clocks out the window jump ahead is not based on the acceleration profile. It is dependent on HOW FAR AWAY the earth is at this point. So the further away it is, then the larger the jump, even if the acceleration profile is the same. I showed you this using the Lorentz transform and limits. You didn't understand the very simple mathematics and called it mathemaGic, and therefore bullying and bullshit. > >> If this comes as a shock to Julio, then maybe he'd be wise to pick up >> some books on the subject. > > Koobee Wublee thinks we should recycle these books as toilet papers. <shrug> > >> It's not surprising that a neophyte like Julio might be confused. > > Odd Bodkin aka PD and other Einstein dingleberries such as Tom are greatly mystified > by bullshit of SR. <shrug> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e091b999-6775-4049-aa49-07464c9de90b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359502 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:00:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown > > in time of the traveling twin (B). > > Well, if there were a system of clocks strung out behind the traveling > twin and traveling inertially relative to the earth and all at rest > relative to the traveling twin on the outbound trip, yes. (Notice > however, that these clocks keep going when the traveling twin turns around.) What PD has shown is true for any other transforms, and you have not shown a situation that is unique to SR. So, PD has basically shown nothing of value. <shrug> > > Of course, PD would like to challenge that. OK, let's give it to the > > imbecile just for once. Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the > > earth staying twin, but only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. > > So, we have: > > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 > > hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by > > 100 hours. <shrug> > > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and > > vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of > > reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. > > Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). > > We have: > > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's > > time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes > > A's local time to show only 110 hours. > > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg > > out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but > > 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein > > dingleberries is valid). We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both > > are in inertial frames of reference. We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. > > <shrug> > > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. > > We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B > > only to have 60 hours. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction > > to SR. > > Twin A can't notice anything locally to B. Any transform including the Galilean, the Lorentz, and Voigt's transform is about how the relationship between how two observers observing the same mutually observed. So, PD is denying the Lorentz transform in order to resolve the Twin paradox. Is this the best bullshit coming out of the brainstorming sessions over the weekend? Idiots! <shrug> > [whining crap snipped] > > However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile > > manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would > > miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more > > bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial > > frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of > > journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does PD > > bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? > > <shrug> > > [more bullshit snipped] > > > PD and other Einstein dingleberries such as Tom are greatly mystified by > > the bullshit of SR. <shrug> It is over 100 years, and the Einstein dingleberries still cannot offer any mathematics to resolve the Twin paradox but with more handwaving and throwing more bullshit around. <shrug> PD is taking another step further by denouncing the Lorentz transform. SR is going mathless. SR is getting more spiritual. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpof41$eh5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359534 |
On 8/3/2015 12:48 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > It is over 100 years, and the Einstein dingleberries still cannot offer any > mathematics to resolve the Twin paradox but with more handwaving and throwing > more bullshit around. <shrug> I guess all the mathematics that resolves the twin paradox is all mathemaGics to you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fdbef00-6d89-42cd-b597-261ad74ecb10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359549 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown > > in time of the traveling twin (B). Of course, PD would like to > > challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile just for once. > > Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but > > only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: > > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 > > hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by > > 100 hours. <shrug> > > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and > > vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of > > reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. > > Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). > > We have: > > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's > > time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes > > A's local time to show only 110 hours. > > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg > > out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but > > 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein > > dingleberries is valid). We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both > > are in inertial frames of reference. We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. > > <shrug> > > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. > > We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B > > only to have 60 hours. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction > > to SR. > > > However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile > > manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would > > miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more > > bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial > > frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of > > journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does PD > > bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? > > <shrug> > > I guess all the mathematics that resolves the twin paradox is all > mathemaGics to you. First of all, there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution to the Twin paradox. Secondly, no Einstein dingleberries in their textbooks (bibles) have ever allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with no acceleration which means both are in inertial frames of reference that allow mutual time dilations to build up. The reality is that the Twin paradox spells out a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> <CHECKMATE>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c67423d-1dcd-41da-ba8c-2935fe21da41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359553 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:10:19 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 12:23:50 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown > > > in time of the traveling twin (B). Of course, PD would like to > > > challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile just for once. > > > Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but > > > only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: > > > > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 > > > hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by > > > 100 hours. <shrug> > > > > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and > > > vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of > > > reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. > > > Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). > > > We have: > > > > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's > > > time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes > > > A's local time to show only 110 hours. > > > > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg > > > out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but > > > 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein > > > dingleberries is valid). We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both > > > are in inertial frames of reference. We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. > > > We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B > > > only to have 60 hours. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction > > > to SR. > > > > > However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile > > > manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would > > > miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more > > > bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > > > > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial > > > frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of > > > journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does PD > > > bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? > > > <shrug> > > > > I guess all the mathematics that resolves the twin paradox is all > > mathemaGics to you. > > First of all, there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution to the Twin paradox. There is, it's called calculus in 4D linear space. > Secondly, no Einstein dingleberries Keep wishing a silly choice of words would change anything. > in their textbooks (bibles) Keep wishing a silly choice of words would change anything. > have ever allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with no acceleration which means both are in inertial frames of reference that allow mutual time dilations to build up. What did you just say? "No [...] textbooks [...] have ever allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with no acceleration"? What have you been smoking? The LA smog? > The reality is that the Twin paradox spells out a fatal contradiction to SR. <shrug> Yeah, sure. Like nobody would have noticed such thing in December 1905. > <CHECKMATE> <STUPIDITY> <ARROGANCE> <INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS AND DISHONESTY> -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e3455e5-9672-4240-8622-5d9b9590ceec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359556 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown > > in time of the traveling twin (B). Of course, PD would like to > > challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile just for once. > > Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but > > only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: > > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 > > hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by > > 100 hours. <shrug> > > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and > > vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of > > reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. > > Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). > > We have: > > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's > > time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes > > A's local time to show only 110 hours. > > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg > > out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but > > 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein > > dingleberries is valid). We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both > > are in inertial frames of reference. We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. > > <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. > > <shrug> > > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. > > We have: > > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B > > only to have 60 hours. <shrug> > > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. > > <shrug> > > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction > > to SR. > > > However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile > > manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would > > miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more > > bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial > > frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of > > journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does PD > > bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? > > <shrug> > > > there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution to the Twin > > paradox. > > There is, it's called calculus in 4D linear space. That is a total lie. Name such a book. <shrug> > > no Einstein dingleberries in their textbooks (bibles) have ever > > allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with no > > acceleration which means both are in inertial frames of reference > > that allow mutual time dilations to build up. > > [infantile remarks snipped] The relativistic morons still cannot identify such a book that attempts to resolve this scenario. The Einstein dingleberries are not man enough to do so but keep whining about bullshit. <shrug> > > The reality is that the Twin paradox spells out a fatal > > contradiction to SR. <shrug> > > Yeah, sure. Like nobody would have noticed such thing in December 1905. There is no evidence as so. <shrug> > > <CHECKMATE> > > <STUPIDITY> <ARROGANCE> <INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS AND DISHONESTY> Jan the relativistic moron is admitting stupidity, arrogance, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty. There is nothing but lies, deceits, and bullshit coming out of Jan the relativistic moron. <shrug> > <CHECKMATE> Still a checkmate. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 18:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <719c8148-fe9f-4895-acc7-3686e3506c0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359577 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:55:00 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The relativistic morons still cannot identify such a book that attempts to > resolve this scenario. David Mermin, "It's About Time," pp. 119-123, 177-178. See also: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html > The Einstein dingleberries are not man enough to do so but keep whining > about bullshit. <shrug> You are a liar and a dishonest yammerhead. > > > The reality is that the Twin paradox spells out a fatal > > > contradiction to SR. <shrug> > > > > Yeah, sure. Like nobody would have noticed such thing in December 1905. > > There is no evidence as so. <shrug> More proof that you have no integrity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f734ea9-18e5-4a25-abc0-7052ab116a93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359577 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:30:03 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: > > On 7/31/2015 11:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > SR always says the earth staying twin (A) also sees the same slowdown > > > in time of the traveling twin (B). Of course, PD would like to > > > challenge that. OK, let's give it to the imbecile just for once. > > > Say 100 hours have passed as observed by the earth staying twin, but > > > only 10 hours have passed on the traveling twin. So, we have: > > > > > ** Twin A notices 100 hours have elapsed but observes Twin B only 10 > > > hours have elapsed locally to B. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B notices only 10 hours have passed but observes A aging by > > > 100 hours. <shrug> > > > > > Then, B stops its acceleration but with high speed relative to A and > > > vice versa. At this moment on, both twins are in inertial frames of > > > reference, no? Thus, mutual time dilation demanded by SR must apply. > > > Says each twin observes the other for another 100 hours (local time). > > > We have: > > > > > ** Twin A notices 200 hours have passed since B left but observes B's > > > time only shows 20 hours have passed. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B notices 110 hours have passed since leaving A but observes > > > A's local time to show only 110 hours. > > > > > Now, B turn around executing the same acceleration profile as the leg > > > out but twice as long in duration which is 20 hours in B's time but > > > 200 hours in A's time (assuming the BS perpetrated by the Einstein > > > dingleberries is valid). We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 400 hours but observes B to have only 40 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 130 hours but observes A to have 310 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Then, the same coasting profile applies to B for 100 hours where both > > > are in inertial frames of reference. We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 500 hours but observes B to have only 50 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 230 hours but observes A to have 320 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > At last, B executes the same acceleration profile to be reunited with A. > > > We have: > > > > > ** Twin A registers 600 hours at the time B comes back but observes B > > > only to have 60 hours. <shrug> > > > > > ** Twin B registers 240 hours but observes A to have 420 hours. > > > <shrug> > > > > > Since A and B don't agree, the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction > > > to SR. > > > > > However, say Odd Bodkin aka PD still is not convinced. The imbecile > > > manages to claim at the exact turn around these numbers would > > > miraculously come up all right through rigorous hand waving and more > > > bullshit as well as bullying. <shrug> > > > > > Let's make the coasting time of B where both A and B are in inertial > > > frames of reference 1000 hours instead of only 100 hours per leg of > > > journey but with the exact same acceleration profiles. How does PD > > > bullshit or bully its way to have all the number match correctly? > > > <shrug> > > > > > there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution to the Twin > > > paradox. > > > > There is, it's called calculus in 4D linear space. > > That is a total lie. Name such a book. <shrug> Any book on special relativity that's at a good enough level to discuss vector calculus will have it since this is imply a question of calculating curve lengths. For example Wolfgang Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity", let alone any decent GR book like Wald or MTW. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <001c48fd-439e-430e-b7e5-ec82be43b07e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359553 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 4:10:19 PM UTC-4, Koobee Wublee wrote: > First of all, there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution > to the Twin paradox. Yes there are. It is just you that doesnt want to see them. > Secondly, no Einstein dingleberries in their textbooks (bibles) > have ever allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with > no acceleration Another of your lies and delusions. Many texts treat a TP scenario that is devoid of any accelerations. You once more just choose to deny the facts. You are a reality denier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mpold0$tkm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359553 |
On 8/3/2015 3:10 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> I guess all the mathematics that resolves the twin paradox is all >> >mathemaGics to you. > > First of all, there is no quality mathematics showing any resolution to the > Twin paradox. I'm guessing what this means is that any mathematics that goes over your head is not quality mathematics. > Secondly, no Einstein dingleberries in their textbooks (bibles) > have ever allowed a period where the twins are moving apart with no acceleration > which means both are in inertial frames of reference that allow mutual time dilations > to build up. The reality is that the Twin paradox spells out a fatal contradiction > to SR. <shrug> Don't be silly. Robert Geroch's book on General Relativity from A to B and Roger Penrose's book on The Road to Reality both deal with twins moving apart with no acceleration. Penrose's book is especially strong on the mathematics. > > <CHECKMATE> But you've only moved one pawn. Bold claim of checkmate there, bro. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 19:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d26b68d9-6678-43cc-99c9-5c184a920d74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359102 |
On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 1:36:10 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 31 lipca 2015 22:10:02 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał: > > > > It's given explicitly in the Lorentz transform, idiot: > > > t' = f(t,x); and simultaneously, > > > due to the imbecilic relativity principle: t = f(t',x'); > > > > And whats wrong with the above? > > > > t' = f(t,x) , x' = g(t,x). Such maps can be invertible to get > > t = F(t',x'), x = G(t',x'). You never learned about maps or > > system of linear equations in school? Start with > > wrong! > > There should be f and g only - in the both versions... Not necessarily... > it's just a direct consequence of the relativity principle. Yes, SR's linear map is "symmetric". Hence t <> t' ; t' = (t-xv/c2)g. > Simply: you must use the t only, never any t', > because your time is t, not any t'. So says you. The math says otherwise. Experiments says otherwise. > And because exactly the same reasoning must be applied in any frame > of reference, therefore is unavoidable: t = t' = t'' = t''' = ... = inv. The transformation eqs t' = (t-xv/c2)g correctly predicts the values on clocks. t' = t doesnt. Are you saying that you are a reality denier ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web