Talk:Twin paradox/Archive 7

message: Let' produce a piece of peace! Calm down. If you understand, why I cannot follow your arguments, that is, why YOU are not understandable, you can express yourself more simple, so that even the biggest dummy can learn from You, and You are the most profound teacher! But have have to begin from the very beginning!
: Sorry, ErNa. Your words are rough enough so I am ABSOLUTELY NOT interested in such discussion. I beg your pardon for being not understandable. Happy New Year. JM3
:: Sorry, JM3. Everything is relative. So I understand: you are not interested in discussions, where every side fixes his point of view step by step more precise, but You are interested to take part in  discussions, that turn round and round and round, endlessly. Good luck, but You're welcome.
::: I am not interested in discussions where people are humiliating each other, ErNa. You are treating me as if I were a foolish kid. Anyway, thanks for the welcome and good luck to you too. JM3
Object exist and they pass time and they are not united and they communicate by light and they have size. Is this ok? ErNa 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the basics, we undoubtedly agree upon? 

message: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"In 1908, Max Plank endorsed Einstein's theory and named it "relativity". In that same year, Minkowski gave a famous speech on Space and Time in which he showed that relativity is self-consistent and further developed the theory."
green 12.30.216.138 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; But sorry, I have no clue why you bring this up. Which paragraph is concerned? Harald88 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Earlier on this page you expressed an interest in Einstein's displeasure with the name given to his theory, and I told you that he preferred "Theory of Invariances". I then stated that I thought Minkowski gave the name, but it was Planck. green 12.30.216.138 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for Harald 

message: I just read the revised version of this section and I think it should be clearly specified what problem is being solved! When the article refers to "the Earth", should we take this to mean a gravitating body, or are we in fact considering two observers floating in inertial space, separating and returning due to the acceleration of one only? When this is clarified, I will have additional comments, but as a preview I get the feeling that it is important to comment in the article on the consensus view of Einstein's 1918 solution. If the twins are in inertial space, there is something awry with this application of GR; without mass-energy, there can be no spacetime curvature, hence no "gravity", hence no gravitational dilation (used to solve the problem). green 12.30.216.138 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying that firing ones engines does make this a GR solution, I agree with you 100%.  Maybe the section should be retitled.  Maybe I should just drop it again.  However, the gravitational time dilation does exist, but the cause of it is not GR's spacetime curvature at all.  --EMS | Talk 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Discussion: "Resolution of the Paradox in General Relativity" 

message: As of now, I am removing new content by "green" added to this talk page.  This silliness on his part needs to stop.  We must discuss that article, not the theory, and most certainly not green's research. --EMS | Talk 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is shameful. I answered a question you (defacto) asked me wrt the GR section and the solution you wrote up. The value of thinking through these issues, aka, "research", would be to suggest that valid contentions exist in the literature that should be cited, since I don't think I am unique in raising them. But you knew that already. green 12.30.216.138 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The discussion goes forth and back and green gives clear statements. But I am disappointed. Nobody here is ready to give a clear statement, what the basis of his thinking is. My question above is not answered. The twin paradox has so many weak points. For example, the relevance of GR. If we do not focus on the core, we will discuss for ever and I will have much more opportunity to improve my english ;-> ErNa 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What EMS deleted, was a summary of conclusions I reached, and why, in my discussion with Moroder, and its relevance to the GR section. I learned a lot in the process. green 12.30.216.138 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: EMS, If you had more integrity, you would simply cross out what I wrote and let others decide whether it has value, for the article and inherently. green 12.30.216.138 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Green - It would be irresponsible of me to let you continue to persue your personal research here.  Wikipedia is not a debating society.  You are claiming that the SR twin paradox result is "inexact" for reasons that appear nowhere in the literature.  I have tried to tell you why that is the case, and you have refused to listen.  BTW - Do note that I added this message so that others would be aware of my actions, and not believe that you had not tried to respond to my last posting. --EMS | Talk 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, he is not claiming this! He just says: there is no twin paradox. As Einstein did! The simple truth is: there is no absolute time, that can be measured, for time is measured by clock and clocks tick in dependance of their state of movement. You can not convince him, so answer simple questions of simple people. There is a spectrum of colours. ErNa 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Removed more inappropriate content.  This is not Wikipedia U.] --EMS | Talk 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content