Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:09:51 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 12, 2:51 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Sue has a bold new concept in science here: agreement with a
theory's predictions means rejecting the theory.
No... There is nothing new about it at all.
It is nearly 100 years old:
No idea what you're on about.
That is glaringly obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_paradox
Do you understand why no number of experiments
will prove a bellhop's ability to cause dollars
to vanish even tho there is math to suggest
it is possible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sue...
--
--Bryan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- References:
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: bz
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Sue...
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- From: Bryan Olson
- Re: The real twin paradox.
- Prev by Date: Re: GR1916, available online.
- Next by Date: Re: GR1916, available online.
- Previous by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Next by thread: Re: The real twin paradox.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|