"harald" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... On Jul 1, 3:50 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:email@example.com... > On Jul 1, 3:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > On Jul 1, 12:47 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jul 1, 4:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > <quote> > > > > > > At best, all you've done is show the > > > > > fallacies or assumptions inherent in COLP's Oversimplified > > > > > Relativity. > > > > What specific fallacies or assumptions? Quotes, please. > > > > Sure. You've used the statement from COLP's Oversimplified Relativity > > > that moving clocks run slow (which you've said is true even for blue- > > > shifted clocks), and you've used the statement that COLP's > > > Oversimplified Relativity makes no provision whatsoever for a > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. This immediately leads > > > to several paradoxes, and this is ample reason to chuck Colp's > > > Oversimplified Relativity. > > > </quote> > > > > The statement that "moving clocks run slow" isn't an > > > oversimplification, it is directly inferred from Einstein's > > > "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". > > > > Also, Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for the > > > compression of time for a clock turning around. > > > Einstein's paper explains that clock rate (as measured with an > > inertial coordinate system) must be the same at the same speed, > > independent of the direction of motion of the clock. Is that what you > > mean? > > =============================================== > > What he means is Einstein's paper makes no provision whatsoever for > > the compression of time for a clock turning around. He does not mean > > "must be the same at the same speed, independent of the direction of > > motion of the clock", you stupid fuck. > > > > The paradoxes which arise from this are ample reason to chuck > > > Einstein's theory. > > > What paradoxes? Different people perceive different paradoxes, but > > they are all easy to explain; and probably the thinking error that you > > fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or > > misunderstood it. > > > Harald > > ============================================== > > It's always someone else that has their stupid head up their arse, never > > you. > > Wrong again, for example: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9781a6cf0a8... > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae2b133e38b... > > And when did YOU admit to making mistakes? > > Harald > =============================================== > On the couple of occasions when I was. > In your case you don't have a clue what a paradox is.
As I suspected - you could not find even ONE single occasion in which you admitted that you were mistaken! ================================================ You find it and if it true then I'll admit it. ================================================
Exactly - and note "apparently". ============================= Whether apparent or actual doesn't matter. =============================
> In the frame of reference (coordinate system) of the Earth, the clock > moves. > In the frame of reference (coordinate system) of the clock, the Earth > moves. > > In the frame of reference (coordinate system) of the Earth, the moving > clock > runs slow. > In the frame of reference (coordinate system) of the clock, the moving > Earth > runs slow.
> When clock and Earth are reunited, each is slower than the other.
That's a paradox, you stupid fuck! Different people perceive different paradoxes, but they are impossible to explain; and probably the thinking error that you fell for was already explained to you, but you either overlooked or misunderstood it because you have your stupid head up your arse and don't want to face it, you babbling cretin.
Here the the paradox is caused by the confusion between inertial systems and non-inertial systems ============================================
So you admit there is a paradox.
, as well as a misunderstanding of the meaning of "in the frame of reference" (a misleading jargon).
============================================= That's why I said "coordinate system", which is not misleading at all. You are clutching at straws, your pathetic religion is paradoxical. ============================================
A misunderstanding of the words "move" and "run" in the context of SRT may also play a role: those only have an operational or "relative" sense. ============================================== The only one that misunderstands "move" is you. What's your definition of "move" in ANY context, shithead? What are you going to do, redefine English to match your deliberately misleading SR jargon, you stupid arsehole of a troll? ==============================================
For you all help is too late, but *perhaps* not for colp; if he reacts I may continue a discussion with him.
Harald ============================================== Still suffering from delusions of pedagogy, worthless shithead? ==============================================