Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #508878 > unrolled thread

Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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.

Contents

  Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-07-23 14:49 +0100
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-07-24 11:44 +1000
    Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-23 22:00 -0500

#508878 — Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message 
news:d1bglqF50fuU1@mid.individual.net...

> The OP seems to have abandoned this thread. It's probably too much to hope 
> that this is because he's finally grasped the truth, being that there's no 
> paradox.

You wish.  This discussion has rather confirmed that there is a problem with 
relativity rooted into special relativity already.  But I keep monitoring 
the thread, just nothing new is coming up: e.g. that you are only 
contributing fallacies has been pointed out already (you incompetent troll).

BTW, my idea so far is not that relativity is inconsistent, in fact I still 
have found no evidence for that, but relativity, at least the common picture 
we are given of it, is certainly incomplete: the paradoxes rather call for 
something more fundamental than space-time, and that is or has to do with 
conscience and causality.  Well, that is the line of research anyway...

No worries, I'll keep you posted.

Julio
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#509065

On 23/07/2015 11:49 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:d1bglqF50fuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> The OP seems to have abandoned this thread. It's probably too much to
>> hope that this is because he's finally grasped the truth, being that
>> there's no paradox.
>
> You wish.  This discussion has rather confirmed that there is a problem
> with relativity rooted into special relativity already.  But I keep
> monitoring the thread, just nothing new is coming up: e.g. that you are
> only contributing fallacies has been pointed out already (you
> incompetent troll).
>
> BTW, my idea so far is not that relativity is inconsistent, in fact I
> still have found no evidence for that, but relativity, at least the
> common picture we are given of it, is certainly incomplete: the
> paradoxes rather call for something more fundamental than space-time,
> and that is or has to do with conscience and causality.  Well, that is
> the line of research anyway...
>
> No worries, I'll keep you posted.
>
> Julio
>
>

We're still waiting for your math.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509098

On 7/23/15 7/23/15   8:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> This discussion has rather confirmed that there is a problem with
> relativity rooted into special relativity already.

No, you just fantasize that. No post here (or in any other thread) has displayed 
any problem, inconsistency, or internal contradiction in SR.


> BTW, my idea so far is not that relativity is inconsistent, in fact I still have
> found no evidence for that,

Yes, Because the math underlying SR has been PROVEN to be as self-consistent as 
is Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. That means you aren't going to 
find any such evidence unless you have found evidence to overthrow essentially 
all of mathematics as we know it.


> but relativity, at least the common picture we are
> given of it, is certainly incomplete:

Yes, of course. PHYSICISTS know that SR is incomplete -- it does not include 
gravitation. PHYSICISTS also know that GR is incomplete -- it does not include 
quantum phenomena.

But your prattling here has not demonstrated any "incompleteness", you have 
merely demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding of SR. That's YOUR problem, 
not SR's or anybody else's.


> the paradoxes rather call for something
> more fundamental than space-time,

Yes. They call for UNDERSTANDING ON YOUR PART. That is fundamental FOR YOU.

	I repeat: these "paradoxes" use that word in the sense of a
	seemingly contradictory or incorrect statement that upon
	detailed analysis is found to be true.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web