🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message 
news:VvxXl.138106$DP1.84470@attbi_s22...
> G. L. Bradford wrote:
>>
>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message 
>> news:lauXl.137889$DP1.94187@attbi_s22...
>>> Dennis Sue... wrote:
>>>> On Jun 9, 2:57 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No .. the correct answer is d) that SR and GR do both explain it.  And 
>>>>> get
>>>>> identical results.
>>>>
>>>> The results are neither rational nor identical.
>>>> They are refuted in rigorous analysis.
>>>
>>>   Dennis Sue would do well to pick one frame and stick with it.
>>>   Relativity theory and observation agree with each other beautifully.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Einstein's resolution of the twin clock paradox.
>>>> --C. S. Unnikrishnan.
>>>> Gravitation Group,
>>>> Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
>>>> http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>>>>
>>>> How much of the "Kool-aid" did you drink?  ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>   Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox
>>>
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
>>>
>>
>> ========================
>>
>>  That's really some telescope since it's made quite clear it wasn't years 
>> later -- than NOW! -- that they [observe] each other at a distance! They 
>> are observing each other INSTANTANEOUSLY AT ALL DISTANCES AT ALL TIMES AS 
>> IF THERE WERE REALLY NO DISTANCES BETWEEN THEM AT ANY TIME!
>
>   Observing instantaneously is not a property of this universe!
>
>   GLB would do well to pick one frame and stick with it.
>   Relativity theory and observation agree with each other beautifully.
>

================================

  You're really very slow, and utterly one-dimensional, Sam. You, and Baez, 
keep on taking the time delayed speed of light brought information to be the 
reality RIGHT NOW on the spot at a distance! You FORCE the observation from 
a distance away, and the immediate reality at a distance, to merge to become 
one and the same. The map and the territory are in no way one and the same 
(the 'PHOTO'(past) and the REAL(now) are in no way one and the same)! 
Stella's PHOTO(past) is a younger Stella than the REAL(now) Stella. So is 
what Stella would observe of Terrance at a distance be a younger Terrance.

  BUT YOU DON'T -- BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY CAN'T -- DIVIDE STELLA (photo-past 
younger!) AND STELLA (real-now! older!), AND TERRANCE (photo-past younger!) 
AND TERRANCE (real-now older!). You are consistently proving yourself 
incapable of perceiving ALL AT ONCE multi-dimensional spacetime.

GLB

===============================