Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp <colp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:14:44 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 26, 12:28 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"colp" <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:a1a62fff-f7c6-4b8c-8e57-ac05b3f817d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 25, 5:50 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
colp says...
On Nov 25, 3:57 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
If the theory of relativity is wrong, then
there are two simple ways to demonstrate that
it is wrong: (1) Show that it makes predictions
that are contradictory, or (2) Show that it makes
predictions that are proved false by experiment.
In this thread I have pursued the first option.
No, you haven't. As I said, you have to look at
what relativity *actually* predicts, not your
own distorted version of relativity.
What do you think the difference is between my version of relativity
and your version of relativity?
The problem is that you are a retard, and, by definition,
nobody can help a retard understand his own condition.
You are unable to show how my version of relativity misinterprets the
standard theory.
I'd say that someone who has been outed for misdirection but refuses
to admit defeat is a retard.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- References:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: colp
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: is the truth of physics hidden in black holes?
- Next by Date: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|