An Inconsistency Between the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation and the Twin Paradox

116 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Fontenot

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 10:09:15 AMSep 26
to

I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A
possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation
being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,
and I've put it on the viXra repository:

http://viXra.org/abs/2109.0076?ref=12745236

Here is the title and abstract:

"An Inconsistency Between the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation and
the Twin Paradox"

Abstract:

It is shown in this monograph that the Gravitational Time Dilation
Equation, together with the well-known Equivalence Principle relating
gravitation and acceleration, produce results that contradict the
required outcome at the reunion of the twins in the famous twin
‘paradox’. The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time
Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say
that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,
in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her), that he will
conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE. It is well known
that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be older than him,
but both of their ages will be FINITE. The twins clearly MUST be in
agreement about their respective ages at the reunion, because they are
co-located there.


I've also published it on Amazon under the same title. It can be found
most easily on Amazon by searching on my full name:

"Michael Leon Fontenot" .

When my manuscript comes up, you can click on "Look Inside", and on the
back cover, there is a small photo of yours truly, impersonating an old
codger.

The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the
gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for
arguments of the exponential function that are large enough to test the
non-linear portion of the exponential curve?" I.e., is it possible that
the "modified linearized Gravitational Time Dilation equation (the MLGTD
equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is the correct GDT equation, and
that the exponential version is incorrect?


Dono.

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 10:15:41 AMSep 26
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:09:15 AM UTC-7, crank Mike_Fontenot cranked himself:
> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A
> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation
> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,
> and I've put it on the viXra crank repository:
>
>snip link to utter rubbish<

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 6:55:21 PMSep 26
to
"Infinite" is a great number, whenever "arbitrarily large finite" is needed,
"infinite" will do, it's sometimes the clearest mathematical value (or,
you know, lack thereof) that in almost all senses of the word is "> 0 and > 1".

Whatever's infinite through it's usually expected to normalize out, in terms
of what is the tractable, that one figures that for example the crossing twins
meeting would see each other the same age.

That there are always virtual crossing twins....

It's expected if they're twins that they're born together.

Then, basically into the black hole, it's either time stops in
the black hole or there otherwise usually the light cone is
outside the black hole.

I think it's fair that after Bell's paradox are both intepretations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

"... in addition, the expression for the distance
increase between two observers having the same
proper acceleration becomes also more complicated
in the momentary frame."

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 26, 2021, 11:05:48 PMSep 26
to
On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,

That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything
sensible that way.

Hint: infinities do not obey the rules of arithmetic.

You MUST use a finite acceleration applied for some nonzero duration to
perform the calculation. Then, if you wish, you can take the limit as
the acceleration increases without bound while keeping the
acceleration*duration constant (so there is a constant delta v). You
must, of course, use a single inertial frame to reference all those
quantities (most likely that of the stay-at-home twin).

I believe Einstein did precisely that in one of his papers (I have no
reference; probably 1907-1911 or so).

Tom Roberts

Julio Di Egidio

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 1:49:19 AMSep 27
to
On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 05:05:48 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,
>
> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything
> sensible that way.

Is that the problem?? The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged...

You are a fucking disgrace, Tom Roberts...

*Plonk*

Julio

JanPB

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 2:50:00 AMSep 27
to
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 7:09:15 AM UTC-7, Mike_Fontenot wrote:
This cannot be correct because both follow from a single principle which
says that the length of a timelike geodesic is equal to the elapse proper time.

So there can be no contradiction (unless you claim that you've found a
contradiction in Riemannian geometry itself).

--
Jan

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 4:20:40 AMSep 27
to
It says, indeed; in the meantime in the real world, however,
the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.


> So there can be no contradiction (unless you claim that you've found a
> contradiction in Riemannian geometry itself).

Or, at least, poor idiot Jan is asserting there can be no
contradiction.

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 10:31:40 AMSep 27
to
There's something to be said for equipartitioning.

The twins were at some point together for them to meet again.

If we might all improve our rhetoric then what's interesting
in various physical interpretations of theories would be something
more to enjoy than plain contrast.

It is so that in various theories that "gravity's speed is infinite", while
here of course "sci.physics.relativity", it's fair to say that otherwise
unqualifiedly the usual theories are one or the other or both of SR, GR.
(That qualifiedly there are other theories what happen to interpret them.)



Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 5:02:43 PMSep 27
to
On 9/27/21 12:49 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 27 September 2021 at 05:05:48 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/26/21 9:09 AM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
>>> [...] when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,
>>
>> That, of course, is NONSENSE. You cannot possibly hope to get anything
>> sensible that way.
>
> Is that the problem??

Yes, it is. He is attempting to use the continuous mathematics of
"gravitational time dilation" within a discontinuity. It OUGHT to be
obvious that this is hopeless (and is, to anyone who understands basic
math).

Tom Roberts

Mike Fontenot

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 7:12:54 PMSep 27
to
On 9/27/21 3:02 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> He is attempting to use the continuous mathematics of
> "gravitational time dilation" within a discontinuity.
>

If you look at the table in Section 3, you'll see that I start with a
acceleration duration tau of 1.0 second. Theta is 1.317, so the
acceleration "A" is

A = theta / tau = 1.317 / 1.0 = 1.317 ls/s/s.

So the acceleration is finite and the duration is positive.

Then, going down in the table, on each line I reduce the duration and
increase the acceleration, keeping the product constant (and keeping the
acceleration finite and the duration positive). I continue doing that
until my calculator overflows. But it's clear that as tau approaches
zero (and "A" approaches infinity, while keeping their product
constant), the change in the age of the HF ISN'T approaching a finite
limit ... it's CLEARLY heading to infinity, as I claimed.


Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 8:00:21 PMSep 27
to
Mike Fontenot wrote:

> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A
> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation
> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,
> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

Also known as “Crackpot’s Heaven”.

> […]
> The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time
> Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say
> that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,
> in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her),

This is physically impossible and not required for the explanation of the
twin paradox. Neither is general relativity required:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>

> that he will conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE.

Of course not. But if his velocity would actually reverse instantaneously,
he would observe (if he could; he cannot) her aging instantaneously, i.e.
faster than usual (e.g. for him she could be 4 years older than when he
started just before he turned around, but 6 years older just after he turned
around.

The spacetime diagram would be

t
^
:
:\
: \
:_ \
:_'-\
:_'-.\
: '-._\
:_.-' /
:_.-'/
:_.-/
:_./
: /
:/
'------> x

where I have drawn the lines of simultaneity. One can see that at the
turning point there are no lines of simultaneity intersecting the "middle
age" of the home twin. This means that in the extreme (and unphysical) case
of infinite acceleration, these ages of the home twin simply do not belong
to the traveling twin’s reality.

As his velocity cannot reverse instantaneously (that would require infinite
acceleration which is as unphysical as it would be deadly for him), he would
(if he could; again, he cannot) observe her aging in an accelerated way
until his velocity had reversed from v⃗ to −v⃗, provided that all his motion
is along one axis (typically, her x-axis).

> It is well known that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be
> older than him, but both of their ages will be FINITE.

An age is always finite. That it would not be is merely your fantasy.

> The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the
> reunion, because they are co-located there.

And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less
proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (here)
"rest" frame.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

> The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the
> gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for
> arguments of the exponential function

The exponential function has nothing to do with this.

> that are large enough to test the non-linear portion of the exponential
> curve?"

There is no “exponential curve” except in your fantasies.

> I.e., is it possible that the "modified linearized Gravitational Time
> Dilation equation (the MLGTD equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is
> the correct GDT equation, and that the exponential version is incorrect?

Possible, but unlikely: Ex falso quodlibet.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 11:57:27 PMSep 27
to
Mike Fontenot wrote:

> I've pulled together the material I've posted recently on the "A
> possible proof" thread about the gravitational time dilation equation
> being inconsistent with the outcome at the reunion of the twin paradox,
> and I've put it on the viXra repository:

Also known as “Crackpot’s Heaven”.

> […]
> The Equivalence Principle Version of the Gravitational Time
> Dilation Equation (the “EPVGTD” equation) produces results that say
> that, when the traveling twin (he) instantaneously changes his velocity,
> in the direction TOWARD the distant home twin (her),

This is physically impossible and not required for the explanation of the
twin paradox. Neither is general relativity required:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>

> that he will conclude that her age instantaneously becomes INFINITE.

> It is well known that, according to her, at their reunion, she will be
> older than him, but both of their ages will be FINITE.

An age is always finite. That it would not be is merely your fantasy.

> The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the
> reunion, because they are co-located there.

And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less
proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)
"rest" frame.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

> The remaining question that I'd like the answer to, is "Has the
> gravitational time dilation equation been experimentally confirmed for
> arguments of the exponential function

The exponential function has nothing to do with this.

> that are large enough to test the non-linear portion of the exponential
> curve?"

There is no “exponential curve” except in your fantasies.

> I.e., is it possible that the "modified linearized Gravitational Time
> Dilation equation (the MLGTD equation, in Section 7 of my monograph) is
> the correct GDT equation, and that the exponential version is incorrect?

Julio Di Egidio

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 1:40:33 AMSep 28
to
As usual, you snip and repeat, your bestiality. So here it is again:

** The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged. **

You fucking agent of the enemy...

*Plonk*

Julio

Julio Di Egidio

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 1:45:59 AMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 05:57:27 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mike Fontenot wrote:

> > The twins clearly MUST be in agreement about their respective ages at the
> > reunion, because they are co-located there.
>
> And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less
> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)
> "rest" frame.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Resolution_of_the_paradox_in_special_relativity>

That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little tale of clocks slowing down...

Rather, one twin gets there BEFORE THE OTHER, and viceversa. As I have been explaining for months now.

You fucking illogical idiots and the extension of life and intelligence on this planet...

*Plonk*

Julio

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:57:28 AMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 05:57:27 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> And they are. According to special relativity already. As simply less
> proper time has elapsed in the (his) "moving" frame than in the (her)
> "rest" frame.

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep elapsing
improper time. Sadly, people measuring for real instead for gedanken
don't share your opinion of what is proper and what is not.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 3:58:36 AMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 07:40:33 UTC+2, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

> ** The utter nonsense is all yours: of course he can, it's just two segments on a diagram, plus it can even be done, just use two "travelling twins" properly arranged. **
>
> You fucking agent of the enemy...

And who is the enemy, Julio? Just curious.


JanPB

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 4:33:32 AMSep 28
to
I agree it's a question of dealing with discontinuities in the context of
integrals. There is probably a missing delta function term hiding somewhere,
this sort of thing is quite common and can be tricky. At the end of the
day there is probably a hidden passing the limit under the integral sign
being performed when it is illegal to do so (the integrand not satisfying
the Lebesgue dominated convergence criteria or something similar).

In the pre-distribution theory days people dealt with it by carefully
setting up Stieltjes integrals to take care of discontinuities in
a mathematically legal way.

--
Jan

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 10:51:08 AMSep 28
to
On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little
> tale of clocks slowing down...

You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it. The standard explanation of the twin paradox in SR does
not involve any "clocks slowing down". Rather, it involves different
timelike path lengths for the two twins.

Hint: clocks never "slow down", they always tick at
their usual rate. This is what SR and GR predict, and
what experiments confirm, regardless of some
popularizations claiming otherwise.

> Rather, one twin gets there BEFORE THE OTHER, and viceversa.

Nonsense! -- that simply does not happen, because the reunion of the
twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they
necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system
whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed
proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal
clocks).

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 12:28:23 PMSep 28
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little
> > tale of clocks slowing down...
> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
> write about it.

First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

> Nonsense! -- that simply does not happen, because the reunion of the
> twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they
> necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system
> whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed
> proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal
> clocks).

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
Whatever FORCES poor idiot Tom - GPS engineers were
resistant to it.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 7:30:17 PMSep 28
to
Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/28/21 12:45 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> > That's all and simply *completely wrong*, the whole standard little
>> > tale of clocks slowing down...
>> You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
>> write about it.
>
> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain
her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to
use that knowledge in various ways.

[For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity will
fall down instead of reaching outer space. And a rocket that is
designed based on the wrong model that the gravitational acceleration
would be constant with altitude will waste fuel and can carry less
payload that it otherwise would have been able to.]

Therefore, it is necessary to describe Nature how she presents herself to
us, putting aside all (your) fantasies of something simpler (just because
you are/one is lacking the skill or willpower to understand her
complexities).

>> Nonsense! -- that simply does not happen, because the reunion of the
>> twins happens at a single event (point in spacetime). So they
>> necessarily arrive at the same time, using any coordinate system
>> whatsoever. Of course they arrive with different values of elapsed
>> proper time (and therefore different values displayed on their personal
>> clocks).
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks keep
> indicating t'=t,

There is no such single thing as a “GPS clock” to begin with.

The Global Positioning System (GPS), like all satellite-based systems,
consists of a ground segment, a space segment, and a control segment. The
control segment includes atomic clocks (they are on the ground, e.g. at the
USNO¹), and so does the space segment (the clocks are aboard the GPS
satellites). [The ground segment are users of GPS: Organizations and
private individuals, and their GPS receivers.]

Put simply, the clocks aboard the satellites have been TUNED ACCORDING TO
GENERAL RELATIVITY so that they KEEP being in sync with the ground clocks.
(In actuality, not the satellite clocks, but the signal frequency has been
tuned to compensate for the MEASURED relativistic effects.)

_________
¹ <https://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/time/display-clocks/simpletime>

> just like all serious clocks always did.

You are continuing to babble “t'=t” like an old fart, without ever
explaining what that is even supposed to mean.

[It is only from your other statements that one is forced to conclude that
you think that GPS would work (especially its time service) even if the
satellite clocks had not be tuned in some way, and that that would be so
because you believe that the theories of relativity as a whole would be
wrong.]

> Whatever FORCES poor idiot Tom - GPS engineers were resistant to it.

Oh for crying out loud. For the umpteenth time:

The inventors of, and the engineers involved in, the development and
construction of GPS *specifically* included the possibility for the sending
frequency to be adjustable in the likely case that the aforementioned
correction would be necessary.

Then they TESTED whether there would be a measurable difference in elapsed
proper time on the satellites as compared to measurement by ground clocks
(which they could do because the satellites are SENDING the satellite time
IN THE SIGNAL). And lo and behold, the difference was ALMOST PRECISELY as
general relativity predicted.

As a result, the SENDING FREQUENCY was adjusted to COMPENSATE for the THUS
MEASURED general-relativistic effect.

It is all described very clearly IN THEIR OWN TECHNICAL REPORT (of 1977).
A digitized version has been PUBLICLY available for YEARS:

<https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA058591>

Quote (AGAIN) from page 11 of the report:

| […] Inclusion of the Panama frequency offset of +0.6 pp 10¹² produces an
| NTS measured value of +443.1 pp 10¹². Comparison of this value
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| to the predicted value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp 10¹² gives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| a difference of −1.9 pp 10¹². On day 215, 1977, the NTS-2 PRO-S output
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
| signal was offset (Fig. 16) through the use of a frequency synthesizer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| [4].

[“pp 10¹²” means “parts per trillion (short scale)”.
+445/10¹² · 86'400 s ≈ +38.448 μs/d. Compare
<http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html> p.]

And it is the same problem and solution for all other navigation satellite
systems (NSS); in particular the fully operational GNSSs (global …): GLONASS
(USSR/Russian Federation), BeiDou (People’s Republic of China), and Galileo
(European Union).

You simply have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too self-
absorbed, attention-seeking, or simply SENILE to (be able to) even consider
that possibility (let alone have yourself be educated by rebuttals or even
to educate yourself by doing some ACTUAL research on the matter). How sad.

[This is just yet another correction of your false claims. I will
not react to your foreseeable irrational response as those are facts
which are not debatable. (You are entitled to your own opinion, but
not to your own facts.) So you should save the bandwidth for future
generations as they will certainly need it.]


PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 1:38:45 AMSep 29
to
On Wednesday, 29 September 2021 at 01:30:17 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Put simply, the clocks aboard the satellites have been TUNED ACCORDING TO
> GENERAL RELATIVITY

Will you show me, precisely, the point where your idiot guru
says JUST ANYTHING about tuning any clocks?

It takes just a little bit of common sense to understand, that
when clocks desynchronize we should tune them to keep
indicating t'=t. Just a litle bit of common sense is enough.
And that's why your idiot guru had to announce common
sense "a collection of prejudices". There is NO clock
tuniung in your Shit and you're enchanting the reality.


Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 6:53:17 AMSep 29
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
>
> The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain
> her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to
> use that knowledge in various ways.
>
> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity
> will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]

This should have been:

„For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall
down instead of reaching outer space.“


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 7:11:15 AMSep 29
to
On Wednesday, 29 September 2021 at 12:53:17 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> First, you should learn that you're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
> >
> > The best way to describe Nature is obviously one that allows us to explain
> > her past behavior and predict correctly her future behavior, to be able to
> > use that knowledge in various ways.
> >
> > [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity
> > will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]
>
> This should have been:
>
> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will fall
> down instead of reaching outer space.“

For another example - GPS applying "proper clocks" matching
the ISO standard and elapsing "proper time" - all of that being
a part of Tom's BEST WAY - would never work

Julio Di Egidio

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 7:45:03 AMSep 29
to
On Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 16:51:08 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
And you just don't see that you are contradicting yourself...

I'll leave it at that, discussing around here is a complete waste of time.

EOD.

Julio

Ho Im

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 11:08:48 AMSep 29
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>> [For example, a rocket that does not correctly sufficiently gravity
>> will fall down instead of reaching outer space. […]]
>
> This should have been:
>
> „For example, a rocket that does not sufficiently consider gravity will
> fall down instead of reaching outer space.“

you are insane.

rotchm

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 2:28:19 PMSep 29
to
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Ho Im wrote:
<spam snipped>

Spam reported.
I incite others to do the same.

Ho Im

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 2:42:59 PMSep 29
to
Where's the spam you fucking stupid?? You dont undrestand scientific
articles? You fucking idiot.

Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Message-ID: <0a24d7ad-aa42-4311...@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
posting-host=184.160.32.227;
posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages