Re: The twin paradox revisited

On Jul 12, 4:15 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<WaiteDavid...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1184201236.359809.281340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Jul 11, 10:55 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:: > <WaiteDavid...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

: >
: >news:1184174464.212057.173020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : On Jul 11, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:: ><WaiteDavid...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

: >
: > : >
: > : >news:1184144393.973439.223090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: > : >
: > : > : Light itself has nothing to do with it. Einstein's second
postulate
: > : > : needn't even reference light. All one needs is to consider the
: > : > : possibility that the Lorentz invariant speed is finite and
: > : > : experimentally determine what that speed it. Though Einstein was
: > : > : considering light, where it comes down to what minimal assumptions
one
: > : > : needs for the postulates of relativity
: > : >
: > : > Einstein's third postulate:
: > : >
: > : > "we establish by definition that the time required by light to
travel
: > from A
: > : > to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A "
: > : >
: > : > Believe that and I have a bridge for sale, fuckhead.
: > :
: > : There is no third postulate moron.
: >
: > Einstein didn't write "we establish by definition that the time required
by
: > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B
to
: > A " and it's
: > not a postulate.
: > Got it, FUCKHEAD.
: >
:
: You're the one saying it was the third postulate

Yes, I did say that because it is Einstein's third postulate upon which
he depends to derive the cuckoo malformations, fuckhead.

Which you claim doesn't exist, you STOOOPID ***!

You keep changing your mind moron, and I don't care whether or not he
originally used it. I am telling you that it can be done without any
such assumption.

.

Quantcast