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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38e66f42-cdfb-4a71-baa8-77f1275f802f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359430 |
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > 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... No, it's not any "genius", it's a simple question of having studied something vs. not having studied something. > 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! :) A cool saying :-) Unfortunately it doesn't apply to this NG. > So, then tell me - you, the great genius in the noe-science: I'm not any "genius", I simply studied something in great detail that you did not. I'm sure there are things you have studied that I did not, there is nothing particularly sinister about it. > 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? In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One then has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz transformation". There is no universal convention of choosing "best" coordinate system for an accelerating observer, this has been already true in Newtonian mechanics. In the travelling twin case one choice of such system is the momentarily co-moving inertial frames integrated along the trajectory. This is quite artificial from the experimental POV but it does yield the stationary twin's clock rate as observed by the travelling twin. One can then easily calculate, for example, that the stationary twin's clock is measured as time contracted (not dilated) by the factor of gamma. In other contexts people may prefer different coordinates. In the end they all are man-made constructs (information-gathering devices). Physically we have different total elapsed times due to the geometry. Please don't start the question whether geometry can be used as a model in physics, this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one (nothing wrong with that question, it simply concerns a different domain of knowledge). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 23:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpomts$o52$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359546 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:38e66f42-cdfb-4a71-baa8-77f1275f802f@googlegroups.com... |In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One then |has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. |In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding |transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz |transformation". Remember though, that you're not describing real observers and real coordinate systems. You describe "certain abstract (mostly mathematical) models of what you consider phenomenal reality". And, unfortunately, what you consider phenomenal raeality is notging, but your moronic imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 15:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9d18662-7cec-4d69-b073-3642d1bd3554@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359568 |
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:38e66f42-cdfb-4a71-baa8-77f1275f802f@googlegroups.com... > > |In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One then > |has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. > |In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding > |transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz > |transformation". > > Remember though, that you're not describing real observers > and real coordinate systems. You describe "certain abstract > (mostly mathematical) models of what you consider phenomenal > reality". Nevertheless, this is how physics has always been done, beginning with Newton and e.g. his "point mass" which is likewise "certain abstract (mostly mathematical) model". This sort of thing is not considered a defect in natural sciences. If you have a different philosophical concept of science than everyone else that's perfectly fine with me, just say so at the beginning so everyone knows that you operate under very different set of assumptions. > And, unfortunately, what you consider phenomenal raeality is > notging, but your moronic imagination. Calling people names will not endear anyone to your philosophy, even if it was one worth considering (I honestly cannot tell what your philosophy is because you never posted anything but screams). I'll say it again, publish a paper on the relevance of your theory of models to physics. This would be an interesting contribution. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 16:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpqipj$h7q$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359574 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b9d18662-7cec-4d69-b073-3642d1bd3554@googlegroups.com... > |In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One then > |has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. > |In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding > |transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz > |transformation". > > Remember though, that you're not describing real observers > and real coordinate systems. You describe "certain abstract > (mostly mathematical) models of what you consider phenomenal > reality". |Nevertheless, this is how physics has always been done, beginning |with Newton and e.g. his "point mass" which is likewise "certain |abstract (mostly mathematical) model". This sort of thing is not |considered a defect in natural sciences. This sort of things is obvious in building models. But, unfortunately, to work it requires a lot of common sense. When used without common sense, it results with a useless shit. Such as your moronic standard of clocks, for instance. Or your moronic interval you don't even know, how to measure. Or other your singularities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <537af927-6d20-4fbe-9c4f-2d7551fe1633@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359616 |
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b9d18662-7cec-4d69-b073-3642d1bd3554@googlegroups.com... > > > |In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One then > > |has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. > > |In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding > > |transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz > > |transformation". > > > > Remember though, that you're not describing real observers > > and real coordinate systems. You describe "certain abstract > > (mostly mathematical) models of what you consider phenomenal > > reality". > > |Nevertheless, this is how physics has always been done, beginning > |with Newton and e.g. his "point mass" which is likewise "certain > |abstract (mostly mathematical) model". This sort of thing is not > |considered a defect in natural sciences. > > This sort of things is obvious in building models. But, unfortunately, > to work it requires a lot of common sense. When used without > common sense, it results with a useless shit. Define "common sense". > Such as your moronic > standard of clocks, for instance. Or your moronic interval you > don't even know, how to measure. Or other your singularities. Well, if that's the totality of your argument then I'd say you are wasting time on a Fata Morgana. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 21:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpr59a$4tm$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359634 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:537af927-6d20-4fbe-9c4f-2d7551fe1633@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:b9d18662-7cec-4d69-b073-3642d1bd3554@googlegroups.com... > > > |In any situation any observer can choose any coordinate system. One > > then > > |has to calculate the transformation corresponding to the given systems. > > |In the special case of both systems being inertial, the corresponding > > |transformation is always of a certain fixed type called "Lorentz > > |transformation". > > > > Remember though, that you're not describing real observers > > and real coordinate systems. You describe "certain abstract > > (mostly mathematical) models of what you consider phenomenal > > reality". > > |Nevertheless, this is how physics has always been done, beginning > |with Newton and e.g. his "point mass" which is likewise "certain > |abstract (mostly mathematical) model". This sort of thing is not > |considered a defect in natural sciences. > > This sort of things is obvious in building models. But, unfortunately, > to work it requires a lot of common sense. When used without > common sense, it results with a useless shit. |Define "common sense". Gladly, after you define "define". > Such as your moronic > standard of clocks, for instance. Or your moronic interval you > don't even know, how to measure. Or other your singularities. |Well, if that's the totality of your argument then I'd say you |are wasting time on a Fata Morgana. Of course you would say. You a re a poor, brainwashed idiot, able only to shout "those who not applaud our Ingenious Shit, are STUPID!!!!!" Exactly as expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359638 |
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:54:20 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:537af927-6d20-4fbe-9c4f-2d7551fe1633@googlegroups.com... > > > > > This sort of things is obvious in building models. But, unfortunately, > > > to work it requires a lot of common sense. When used without > > > common sense, it results with a useless shit. > > > > Define "common sense". > > Gladly, after you define "define". Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. Best definition of "common sense": “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” -- Albert Einstein > Of course you would say. You a re a poor, brainwashed idiot, > able only to shout "those who not applaud our Ingenious Shit, > are STUPID!!!!!" > Exactly as expected from a relativistic moron. Wiped-out Wozniak intentionally describes himself. Well, actually, there is nothing "relativistic" about his being a moron :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpt6hp$39g$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359658 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. Best |definition of "common sense": |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” | -- Albert Einstein Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that "lack of common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two different names of the same thing. He was never good at common language and its rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61b6dba6-f76e-40f9-9be4-8b3a2f9ed756@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359701 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... > > |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. Best > |definition of "common sense": > |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” > | -- Albert Einstein > > Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that > "lack of common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two > different names of the same thing. > He was never good at common language and its rules. Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist and as a scientist he used the language of science, which you poor ignorant moron troll totally are unable to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpt916$ae5$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359704 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:61b6dba6-f76e-40f9-9be4-8b3a2f9ed756@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... > > |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. > Best > |definition of "common sense": > |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen” > | -- Albert Einstein > > Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that > "lack of common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two > different names of the same thing. > He was never good at common language and its rules. |Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist | and as a scientist he used the language of science Thus, he became an incredible idiot, putting his idiocy on his banner and being proud of it. But, why to worry? There is no such term in the brilliant language of science, so his fellow idiots simply can't notice he was one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mptbe9$7jd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359704 |
paparios wrote: > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... >> >> |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. >> Best |definition of "common sense": >> |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age >> eighteen” >> | -- Albert Einstein >> >> Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that "lack of >> common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two different names of the >> same thing. >> He was never good at common language and its rules. > > Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist > and as a scientist he used the language of science, which you poor > ignorant moron troll totally are unable to use. What makes a scientist a scientist? What exactly tells you that he was a scientist? Are you a scientist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <802d84c1-2996-48e7-adbb-7bad2338e372@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359713 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:51:41 AM UTC-7, Bohuš Matuška wrote: > paparios wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... > >> > >> |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. > >> Best |definition of "common sense": > >> |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age > >> eighteen” > >> | -- Albert Einstein > >> > >> Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that "lack of > >> common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two different names of the > >> same thing. > >> He was never good at common language and its rules. > > > > Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist > > and as a scientist he used the language of science, which you poor > > ignorant moron troll totally are unable to use. > > What makes a scientist a scientist? If he can be falsified, he is a scientist :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 18:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mptctt$9cj$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359719 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:802d84c1-2996-48e7-adbb-7bad2338e372@googlegroups.com... > What makes a scientist a scientist? |If he can be falsified, he is a scientist :-) Don't listen to this idiot. He knows some (not much) about differential geometry (quite unfalsifiable BTW), but he knows nothing about science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bohuš Matuška <bohu@paranetnet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mptd83$aij$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #359719 |
JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:51:41 AM UTC-7, Bohuš Matuška wrote: >> paparios wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak >> > wrote: >> >> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup >> >> dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless >> >> loser. >> >> Best |definition of "common sense": >> >> |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age >> >> eighteen” >> >> | -- Albert Einstein >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that "lack of >> >> common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two different names of the >> >> same thing. >> >> He was never good at common language and its rules. >> > >> > Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist >> > and as a scientist he used the language of science, which you poor >> > ignorant moron troll totally are unable to use. >> >> What makes a scientist a scientist? > > If he can be falsified, he is a scientist :-) We agree, but I was merely alluding to the necessary prerequisites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359713 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:51:41 PM UTC-3, Bohuš Matuška wrote: > paparios wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:28:12 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > >> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:90f0f71b-f3c7-4ccb-9d3b-f6d1f25ba803@googlegroups.com... > >> > >> |Wanker Wozniak passes the buck again because he is a clueless loser. > >> Best |definition of "common sense": > >> |“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age > >> eighteen” > >> | -- Albert Einstein > >> > >> Unfortunately, your poor idiot guru didn't noticed, that "lack of > >> common sense" and "stupidity" - are just two different names of the > >> same thing. > >> He was never good at common language and its rules. > > > > Nor he needed to be good at common language, since he was a scientist > > and as a scientist he used the language of science, which you poor > > ignorant moron troll totally are unable to use. > > What makes a scientist a scientist? What exactly tells you that he was a > scientist? Are you a scientist? For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect example of an obnoxious troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 19:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mptg8q$com$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359735 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com... |For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect example of an obnoxious troll. For sure, a troll is made a troll by not applauding The Ingenious Shit of a relativistic moron. Everybody knows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4479627e-aea4-40d3-bf84-d1037216cbf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359738 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com... > > |For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect example of > an obnoxious troll. > > For sure, a troll is made a troll by not applauding The Ingenious Shit > of a relativistic moron. > Everybody knows. You are really way below that obnoxious measure. You have never ever written a single physics argument, less ever related to relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 19:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpth58$dmp$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359739 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:4479627e-aea4-40d3-bf84-d1037216cbf8@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com... > > |For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect example > of > an obnoxious troll. > > For sure, a troll is made a troll by not applauding The Ingenious Shit > of a relativistic moron. > Everybody knows. |You are really way below that obnoxious measure. You have never ever written a single physics argument, less ever related to relativity. I don't like to descend to the level of your moronic shit, but never - is surely an exagerration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e3fd12e-7452-4e7e-8298-caecad8da16e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #359740 |
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:29:13 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4479627e-aea4-40d3-bf84-d1037216cbf8@googlegroups.com... > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com... > > > > |For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect example > > of > > an obnoxious troll. > > > > For sure, a troll is made a troll by not applauding The Ingenious Shit > > of a relativistic moron. > > Everybody knows. > > |You are really way below that obnoxious measure. You have never ever > written a single physics argument, less ever related to relativity. > > I don't like to descend to the level of your moronic shit, but never - > is surely an exagerration. You know nothing about anything related to science, so you can not descend below your actual moronic state. For a simple start study what a metric is in science, then identify what part of that is related to relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 19:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mptifl$eui$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #359742 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5e3fd12e-7452-4e7e-8298-caecad8da16e@googlegroups.com... On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:29:13 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4479627e-aea4-40d3-bf84-d1037216cbf8@googlegroups.com... > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:14:03 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:ef24861a-dcc2-4fde-98d3-bd270a451d91@googlegroups.com... > > > > |For sure , we know what makes a troll a troll. You are a perfect > > example > > of > > an obnoxious troll. > > > > For sure, a troll is made a troll by not applauding The Ingenious Shit > > of a relativistic moron. > > Everybody knows. > > |You are really way below that obnoxious measure. You have never ever > written a single physics argument, less ever related to relativity. > > I don't like to descend to the level of your moronic shit, but never - > is surely an exagerration. |You know nothing about anything related to science, so you can |not descend below your actual moronic state. For a simple start |study what a metric is in science, then identify what part of that |is related to relativity. I've done it many years ago. So?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web