On Jul 2, 2:16 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 11:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 12:42 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins? > > > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve > > > this paradox. > > > ? What is nonsensical about the resolution. Oh, that's right, it's > > nonsensical if you say it makes no sense to you, and if it makes sense > > to someone else, then they're simply unable to see that it in fact > > makes no sense. Because it makes no sense to you. > > Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the > Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was > > > the first to propose a turn-around counts as acceleration > > [useless, and babbling nonsense snipped] > > > > thus falls > > > into the domain of GR. Using the principle of equivalence, the > > > nincompoop was able to hand-wave it as a resolution to the twins? > > > paradox. <shrug> > > > Where is your reference that Einstein proposed GR as a resolution to > > the twin paradox? > > PD is really fvcked. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > [quote] > > ?Einstein, Born, and Moller invoked gravitational time dilation to > explain aging based on the effect of acceleration.? > > [unquote] > > [The rest of personal attack snipped]
Wikipedia is messed up: at best it can (even it is only *allowed* to) accurately reproduce the confusions and errors of the existing literature.
