Lying for Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A Fireside Chat With johnreed, June 17, 2010 update
Next: PROOF: LHC MORE Energy than Cosmic Ray Collisions
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 02:40 On Jun 21, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:9e6fb557-ea0f-418c-bc55-cac3603ef6aa(a)o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups..com... > > >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric > >> >> >> >> >> > twin > >> >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? > > >> >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly > >> >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you > >> >> >> >> >> do, > >> >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> cannot > >> >> >> >> >> be taken seriously > > >> >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in > >> >> >> >> > response > >> >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. > > >> >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong > > >> >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. > > >> >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. > > >> >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked > >> >> > repeatedly to show the > >> >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you > >> >> > cannot be taken seriously" > > >> >> Yeup. > > >> >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself > >> >> > cannot live up to? > > >> >> I am not making the claims against SR. > > >> > You didn't answer the question. > > >> Yes .. I did. You just dishonestly snipped it from your reply. > > And you just snipped it again No, you are lying again. > > > You lied about posting the math for the turnaround > > I didn't claim to have posted the analysis.. You are lying again. Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com! news2.glorb.com!news-xfer.nntp.sonic.net!news.astraweb.com! border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail From: "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> Newsgroups: nz.general,sci.physics.relativity References: <267c724a-a11c-4cfe-ae6d- b5b9395cf382(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <b2d2e61c-41fc-4c79-90d8- ca26ab2bc308(a)b29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <bd7d4a85- d7b3-40e3-884c-720b9255f608(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com> <4c1aaec0$0$28635$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <e9264a25- c903-41a1-9995-2ab4a781a956(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <4c1b0e98$0$28650$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <ac2dcf58-a9be-491f-8b59- b30fcf0285b7(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <- aidncpMQrhrXIHRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com> <b9e80a0d-039d-449f-8e2e- aacace74acf1(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <4c1dde3a $0$28649$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <73c42da8-03e8-4f07- acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <73c42da8-03e8-4f07- acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: The Symmetric Twin Paradox Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:10:51 +1000 > Using your own > standards, you cannot be taken seriously until you show the math with > backs up your claim. I have
From: eric gisse on 21 Jun 2010 04:15 colp wrote: [...] Yes, arguing on USENET is a more effective means of learning relativity than simply opening a textbook on the subject.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 09:42
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:a69de6d2-24bc-427f-a45c-31a6592e9073(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:9e6fb557-ea0f-418c-bc55-cac3603ef6aa(a)o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the >> >> >> >> >> >> > symmetric >> >> >> >> >> >> > twin >> >> >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked >> >> >> >> >> >> repeatedly >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> do, >> >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> >> cannot >> >> >> >> >> >> be taken seriously >> >> >> >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in >> >> >> >> >> > response >> >> >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. >> >> >> >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong >> >> >> >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. >> >> >> >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. >> >> >> >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been >> >> >> > asked >> >> >> > repeatedly to show the >> >> >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > cannot be taken seriously" >> >> >> >> Yeup. >> >> >> >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself >> >> >> > cannot live up to? >> >> >> >> I am not making the claims against SR. >> >> >> > You didn't answer the question. >> >> >> Yes .. I did. You just dishonestly snipped it from your reply. >> >> And you just snipped it again > > No, you are lying again. I didn't lie. YOU snipped my answer to you >> > You lied about posting the math for the turnaround >> >> I didn't claim to have posted the analysis.. > > You are lying again. > > Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com! > news2.glorb.com!news-xfer.nntp.sonic.net!news.astraweb.com! > border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail > From: "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> > Newsgroups: nz.general,sci.physics.relativity > References: <267c724a-a11c-4cfe-ae6d- > b5b9395cf382(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <b2d2e61c-41fc-4c79-90d8- > ca26ab2bc308(a)b29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <bd7d4a85- > d7b3-40e3-884c-720b9255f608(a)11g2000prv.googlegroups.com> > <4c1aaec0$0$28635$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <e9264a25- > c903-41a1-9995-2ab4a781a956(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com> > <4c1b0e98$0$28650$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <ac2dcf58-a9be-491f-8b59- > b30fcf0285b7(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <- > aidncpMQrhrXIHRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com> <b9e80a0d-039d-449f-8e2e- > aacace74acf1(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <4c1dde3a > $0$28649$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> <73c42da8-03e8-4f07- > acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> > In-Reply-To: <73c42da8-03e8-4f07- > acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: The Symmetric Twin Paradox > Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:10:51 +1000 Is that supposed to be proving something? >> Using your own >> standards, you cannot be taken seriously until you show the math with >> backs up your claim. > > I have Nope. |