This is my reply to Roberts: apparently too much of a lèse-majesté,
you fucking agents of the enemy... So here it is with just a couple of
additions there really belonged in there:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, 25 July 2023 at 09:25:04 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/24/23 10:22 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Monday, 24 July 2023 at 09:06:24 UTC+2, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >> The length of each of these world lines, measured in the metric of
> >> spacetime, gives the the time that has passed for each of them.
> >
> > No, [...]
>
> Yes. That path length is the elapsed proper time of each twin, because
> these are timelike paths through spacetime.
>
> > it gives the time *it takes* to each of them,
>
> That's just another way of saying the same thing.

No, what I am saying and what Ram and the received view are saying
is *substantially different*, and I have explained exactly how: and your
objections as usual boil down to 1) mangling quotes, 2) calling me
confused, 3) repeat the very lies and nonsense I am denouncing.

[ADD: You are simply our number one demented resident agent of the
enemy and lying piece of shit.]

> The elapsed proper
> time along a path is indeed the time it takes along that path.
> > whence they do not in fact get to the "rendez-vous" point at the same
> > time,
> PUN ALERT -- you did not specify what you mean by "time". This is
> apparently the source of your confusion.

The pun as well as the systematic mangling of whatever I write is all ours.
Of course I am referring to an *event* in spacetime and as for "getting there
at the same time", not only that was just perfectly understandable in
context, I have actually explained *exactly* what I meant and how that goes,
a post about just that.

[ADD: Tom Roberts, you fucking fraud and resident representative of the
enemy for decades: you, your pals and your employers, up up to the nazi-
retarded blood suckers who run this sorry planet, should be shot into outer
space! To be charitable, you fucking abortions of humanity...]

Julio

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 7:33:41 AM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> This is my reply to Roberts: apparently too much of a lèse-majesté,

> you fucking agents of the enemy...
> > > it gives the time *it takes* to each of them,
> >
> > That's just another way of saying the same thing.
>
> No, what I am saying and what Ram and the received view are saying
> is *substantially different*, ...

> > The elapsed proper
> > time along a path is indeed the time it takes along that path.

Reading just those excerpts, one can not safely understand the intended meaning
of the main words (time, path...) . The full text should give the correct context.

> > > whence they do not in fact get to the "rendez-vous" point at the same
> > > time,

Ditto.

In physics, especially in these NG's, their is great ambiguity in the meaning of the words. One needs
to be careful and to be clear. This is why for instance I tried to avoid expressions such as 'time ' or 'time interval' or 'path' etc.
I rather adopt the terminology ' value on the clock' or ' difference in values of the clock(s)', etc.