Three identical robots were made with artificial intelligence, R1,R2 and R3.. R1 and R2 are at rest in inertial reference frame F0. R1 and R2 are separated 5*sqrt(3) light-years apart along the x-axis, as measured by observers in F0. R1 observes that robot R3 is approaching him along the x-axis with relative velocity V = c*sqrt(3)/2, in inertial reference frame F1. As R1 and R3 approach each other they determine when they pass each other they will be the identical age based on each of their own internal clocks. R1 and R3 start a conversation as they approach each other.
R1 transmits to R3 that you and I will be the identical age when we meet, and we are identical robots. R3 agrees. R1 transmits to R3 that he has an identical twin robot R2 a long distance away along the x-axis. R1 transmits to R3 that my identical twin robot R2 and I are the same age as shown by our internal clocks.
R1 transmit to R3 that I sent a message to my twin R2 to prepare a list of things to give to you when you and he meet so that you will know what your future will be.
R3 asks, "What do you mean?"
R1 replies, "You know we are physical devices. We have circuits that will fail, the rotors in our AC generators will fail, batteries need to be replaced, etc. My twin robot R2 will give you a list of those things when you and he meet up, letting you know the exact time they will occur in the future to you so that you can plan ahead and avoid some of the problems we will all face as we age."
"How do you know when these problems will occur?" asks R3. Robot R1 says, "I don't know when any of these things will occur, but when you pass my identical robot R2 he will know exactly what will happen to you in the future."
R3 asks, "Is R2 some sort of psychic?"
R1 replies, "No, he and I are just relativity gurus. You see, my twin robot and I are in the same inertial reference frame F0. As measured in our inertial reference frame, time for you is running slower than in our inertial reference frame. When you meet up with my twin robot R2, he will be 10 years older than you and I are today, but you will only be 5 years older than you and I are today. Since all three of us have identical construction, he can give you the info on everything that will happen to you over the next 5 years after you pass him so you can prepare ahead of time!"

Is that a correct understanding of events in special relativity?
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:14:27 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Three identical robots were made ... R1,R2 and R3. R1 and R2 are at rest in
> inertial reference frame F0. R1 and R2 are separated 5*sqrt(3) light-years apart
> along the x-axis, as measured by observers in F0. R1 observes that robot R3 is
> approaching him along the x-axis with relative velocity V = c*sqrt(3)/2.. [Let F1
> denote the inertial coordinates in which R3 is at rest.]

You failed to specify whether R3 is between R1 and R2, and the direction of motion, whether they were made at the same location and then separated, etc. In view of your limitations, I will conjecturally fill in the missing information.

> As R1 and R3 approach each other they determine when they pass each other
> they will be the identical age...

If the robots/clocks were made and initialized at the same place, and then followed different paths, there would need to be careful coordination (moving both of them) to have R1 and R3 intersect later at the same proper age. That would never happen without precise planning and coordination involving the use of special relativity (whose validity you deny, so to actually make this scenario work you would learn in the process that special relativity is correct). All the superfluous claptrap can be dispensed with, and the robots are really just clocks, two of which (R1 on the left and R2 on the right) are at rest and inertially synchronized in terms of F0, and one of which (R3) is moving from the left of R1 to the right at speed V in terms of F0 and its time is set equal to the time of the left clock R1 when they pass. Yawn.

> As measured in F0, time for R3 is running slow, so when R3 meets up with R2, the latter will
> be 10 years older than R3 and R1 were at their intersection event, but R3 will only be 5 years
> older.

Right, there are three relevant events, e1 being the event at which R3 and R1 intersect, and e2 being the event on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F0, and e3 being the event at which R3 intersects with R2. The elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e1 to e3 is 10 years, and the elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3 is 5 years. Yawn.

> When R3 meets R2, the latter can give R3 the info on everything that will happen to R3
> over the next 5 years of R3's existence. Is that a correct understanding of events in special
> relativity?

No, that's utterly insane. The future of R3 after passing R2 occurs after passing R2. (Duh) What R2 has experienced by the time it reaches e3 is the 10 years of proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3, it has not experienced anything in the causal future of e3, which includes the causal future of R3 as well. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:14:27 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> As measured in F0, time for R3 is running slow, so when R3 meets up with R2, the latter will
> be 10 years older than R3 and R1 were at their intersection event, but R3 will only be 5 years
> older.

Right, there are three relevant events, e1 being the event at which R3 and R1 intersect, e2 being the event on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F0, and e3 being the event at which R3 intersects with R2. The elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e1 to e3 is 10 years, and the elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3 is 5 years. Yawn.

> When R3 meets R2, the latter can give R3 the info on everything that will happen to R3
> over the next 5 years of R3's existence. Is that a correct understanding of events in special
> relativity?

No, that is utterly insane. The future of R3 after passing R2 occurs after passing R2. (Duh) What R2 has experienced by the time it reaches e3 is the 10 years of proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3, it has not experienced anything in the causal future of e3, which includes the causal future of R3 as well. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:14:27 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> As measured in F0, time for R3 is running slow, so when R3 meets up with R2, the latter will
> be 10 years older than R3 and R1 were at their intersection event, but R3 will only be 5 years
> older.

Right, there are three relevant events, e1 being the event at which R3 and R1 intersect, e2 being the event on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F0, and e3 being the event at which R3 intersects with R2. The elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e1 to e3 is 5 years, and the elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3 is 10 years. Yawn.

> When R3 meets R2, the latter can give R3 the info on everything that will happen to R3
> over the next 5 years of R3's existence. Is that a correct understanding of events in special
> relativity?

No, that is utterly insane. The future of R3 after passing R2 occurs after passing R2. (Duh) What R2 has experienced by the time it reaches e3 is the 10 years of proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3, it has not experienced anything in the causal future of e3, which includes the causal future of R3 as well. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at 21:10:16 UTC+2, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:14:27 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > As measured in F0, time for R3 is running slow, so when R3 meets up with R2, the latter will
> > be 10 years older than R3 and R1 were at their intersection event, but R3 will only be 5 years
> > older.
>
> Right, there are three relevant events, e1 being the event at which R3 and R1 intersect, e2 being the event on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F0, and e3 being the event at which R3 intersects with R2. The elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e1 to e3 is 5 years, and the elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3 is 10 years. Yawn.
>
> > When R3 meets R2, the latter can give R3 the info on everything that will happen to R3
> > over the next 5 years of R3's existence. Is that a correct understanding of events in special
> > relativity?
>
> No, that is utterly insane. The future of R3 after passing R2 occurs after passing R2. (Duh) What R2 has experienced by the time it reaches e3 is the 10 years of proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3, it has not experienced anything in the causal future of e3, which includes the causal future of R3 as well. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS
clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did. Is there something about this
that you don't understand?

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:14:27 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > As measured in F0, time for R3 is running slow, so when R3 meets up with R2, the latter will
> > be 10 years older than R3 and R1 were at their intersection event, but R3 will only be 5 years
> > older.
>
> Right, there are three relevant events, e1 being the event at which R3 and R1 intersect, e2 being the event on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F0, and e3 being the event at which R3 intersects with R2. The elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e1 to e3 is 5 years, and the elapsed proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3 is 10 years. Yawn.
>
> > When R3 meets R2, the latter can give R3 the info on everything that will happen to R3
> > over the next 5 years of R3's existence. Is that a correct understanding of events in special
> > relativity?
>
> No, that is utterly insane. The future of R3 after passing R2 occurs after passing R2. (Duh) What R2 has experienced by the time it reaches e3 is the 10 years of proper time along the inertial path from e2 to e3, it has not experienced anything in the causal future of e3, which includes the causal future of R3 as well. Is there something about this that you don't understand?

By everything, I mean everything that will happen to R3's robot mechanism if R3 doesn't take corrective action. Do you understand that?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:53:01 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> By everything, I mean everything that will happen to R3's robot mechanism if R3
> doesn't take corrective action. Do you understand that?

I understand what you are saying, and it's utterly insane. R2 does not have access to any knowledge of R3's future. Again, R3 and R2 meet at event e3, and neither of them have any foreknowledge of what they will encounter after e3.

Of course, they can each speculatively extrapolate their past trajectories into the future, but that has nothing to do with special relativity.

Your statement above really makes no sense at all. Can you clarify what you mean? What kind of information about R3's future do you believe R2 could tell R3 when they pass? For example, are you saying that if R3 rolls some dice one year after passing R2, that R2 could have told R3 (when they passed) what the outcome would be?

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 3:28:57 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:53:01 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > By everything, I mean everything that will happen to R3's robot mechanism if R3
> > doesn't take corrective action. Do you understand that?
> I understand what you are saying, and it's utterly insane. R2 does not have access to any knowledge of R3's future. Again, R3 and R2 meet at event e3, and neither of them have any foreknowledge of what they will encounter after e3.
>
> Of course, they can each speculatively extrapolate their past trajectories into the future, but that has nothing to do with special relativity.
>
> Your statement above really makes no sense at all. Can you clarify what you mean? What kind of information about R3's future do you believe R2 could tell R3 when they pass? For example, are you saying that if R3 rolls some dice one year after passing R2, that R2 could have told R3 (when they passed) what the outcome would be?

I mean R2 knows precisely when any component of the R3 robot will fail. For example, R2 and RE pass, R2 could say to R3 when your clock reads 1 year from now, the coils in your AC generator will fail, so change them ahead of time, and when your clock reads 2 years from now, one set of your batteries will fail and they can no longer be recharged so change them before that happens, etc.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:01:36 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I mean R2 knows precisely when any component of the R3 robot will fail.

Wow. That has nothing to do with special relativity, since you can just construct a test widget and run it through its life cycle to see when various components fail, and then build an "identical" widget and expect similar times to component failures. This is standard practice in industry, although (needless to say) there is a degree of randomness in most failure modes, and widgets encounter non-identical environments and usage conditions (you can't step into the same river twice), and there is unavoidable lack of perfection in replicating identical widgets, etc., so we can't reasonably expect every widget to exhibit exactly the same failures at exactly the same times in their life cycles. But as a general method of predicting failure characteristics, this is done all the time. No one (other than you) would be nutty enough to describe this as psychic phenomena... and it clearly does not in any way invalidate special relativity.

Now, if you want to know how a widget (or vaccine) will behave over, say, 20 years, but you don't want to test for 20 years before releasing the product to market, you can do what's called accelerated aging tests. For mechanical and electronic devices this usually involves elevated temperatures and vibration levels, which tends to replicate longer aging times. But none of this has anything to do with special relativity. You can't make something age faster compared with the UTC by putting it in motion, you can only make it age slower. (In principle you could make something age faster relativistically by sending it to higher elevations, but that is a very tiny effect compared to the earth's surface.) If you could accelerate the entire planet Earth up to speed V relative to your test lab, and then decelerate the Earth back to rest relative to your lab, you could have conducted a 20 year test in just 10 years of elapsed time on earth, but this is obviously not a realistic possibility, and even if it was, there would be nothing "psychic" about it. It's called "learning from experience"... which is admittedly not something that you are acquainted with, as witness:

Special Relativity: 840 .... Barnpole Dave: 0

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 4:37:44 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:01:36 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I mean R2 knows precisely when any component of the R3 robot will fail.
> Wow. That has nothing to do with special relativity, since you can just construct a test widget and run it through its life cycle to see when various components fail, and then build an "identical" widget and expect similar times to component failures. This is standard practice in industry, although (needless to say) there is a degree of randomness in most failure modes, and widgets encounter non-identical environments and usage conditions (you can't step into the same river twice), and there is unavoidable lack of perfection in replicating identical widgets, etc., so we can't reasonably expect every widget to exhibit exactly the same failures at exactly the same times in their life cycles. But as a general method of predicting failure characteristics, this is done all the time. No one (other than you) would be nutty enough to describe this as psychic phenomena... and it clearly does not in any way invalidate special relativity.
>
> Now, if you want to know how a widget (or vaccine) will behave over, say, 20 years, but you don't want to test for 20 years before releasing the product to market, you can do what's called accelerated aging tests. For mechanical and electronic devices this usually involves elevated temperatures and vibration levels, which tends to replicate longer aging times. But none of this has anything to do with special relativity. You can't make something age faster compared with the UTC by putting it in motion, you can only make it age slower. (In principle you could make something age faster relativistically by sending it to higher elevations, but that is a very tiny effect compared to the earth's surface.) If you could accelerate the entire planet Earth up to speed V relative to your test lab, and then decelerate the Earth back to rest relative to your lab, you could have conducted a 20 year test in just 10 years of elapsed time on earth, but this is obviously not a realistic possibility, and even if it was, there would be nothing "psychic" about it. It's called "learning from experience"... which is admittedly not something that you are acquainted with, as witness:
>
> Special Relativity: 840 .... Barnpole Dave: 0
Wow, there are only 3 of these robots ever built in my scenario. No test widget was made, no one knew how long they would continue to function. But R2 can tell R3 what will happen in R3's future once they meet, per relativity, because time is running slower for R3 than R2 as measured by R2, and time is running at the same rate for R1 and R2, so when R1 and R3 meet, with R1 and R3 being the same age, R2 must be older than R3 (as measured by R3), per Einstein, at that point in time when R1 and R3 meet and also when R2 and R3 meet. Correct? What part of relativity 101 don't you understand? You keep adding things to the scenario. Do you have something against Einstein's concepts?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:52:21 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Wow, there are only 3 of these robots ever built in my scenario. No test widget was made...

Not true. R2 is your test widget.

> R2 can tell R3 what will happen in R3's future once they meet...

Again, R2 is your test widget, and you are just assuming that R3 will experience the same failures at the same times in its life cycle that your test widget did.

> per relativity...

Again, this has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. You can build R2 right now, and let it operate for 10 years, and then construct an "identical" R3 and expect it to experience the same failures at the same times in its first 10 years. Of course, it won't replicate those things exactly, because of the randomness, etc., but it's just a way of trying to learn from experience. There is nothing psychic about this, and nothing in particular to do with relativity, as explained before.

> when R1 and R3 meet, with R1 and R3 being the same age, R2 must be older than R3 (as
> measured by R3)...

That's garbled because (as always) you fail to correctly qualify your assertions. A correct statement is: By stipulation, the proper age of R2 at e2 equals the proper age of R1 and R3 at e1. Those twp events are simultaneous in terms of F0, but of course not in terms of F1. There is another event, let's call it e4, on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F1, and the proper age of R2 is greater at e4 than at e2.

> at that point in time when R1 and R3 meet and also when R2 and R3 meet. Correct?

No, you are willy-nilly using the word "when" for separate events without qualifying the system of coordinates. Also, this is all irrelevant to the simple widget testing that you are describing.

> You keep adding things to the scenario.

All I've "added to the scenario" is the rational explanation of your misconeptions. Changing the word "robot" to "widget" is just to help you understand that all you are doing is predicting the life-cycle failures of one widget by assuming they will be the same as of another (previously tested) widget. This is just learning by experience. There is nothing psychic about this, and the ability to do this has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. Now do you understand?

On 04-Oct-21 4:14 am, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>

You're trying to find contradictions in basic geometry. Give it up. It's
futile.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 5:16:41 PM UTC-5, Al Coe wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 2:52:21 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Wow, there are only 3 of these robots ever built in my scenario. No test widget was made...
>
> Not true. R2 is your test widget.
>
> > R2 can tell R3 what will happen in R3's future once they meet...
>
> Again, R2 is your test widget, and you are just assuming that R3 will experience the same failures at the same times in its life cycle that your test widget did.
>
> > per relativity...
>
> Again, this has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. You can build R2 right now, and let it operate for 10 years, and then construct an "identical" R3 and expect it to experience the same failures at the same times in its first 10 years. Of course, it won't replicate those things exactly, because of the randomness, etc., but it's just a way of trying to learn from experience. There is nothing psychic about this, and nothing in particular to do with relativity, as explained before.
> > when R1 and R3 meet, with R1 and R3 being the same age, R2 must be older than R3 (as
> > measured by R3)...
>
> That's garbled because (as always) you fail to correctly qualify your assertions. A correct statement is: By stipulation, the proper age of R2 at e2 equals the proper age of R1 and R3 at e1. Those twp events are simultaneous in terms of F0, but of course not in terms of F1. There is another event, let's call it e4, on the path of R2 that is simultaneous with e1 in terms of F1, and the proper age of R2 is greater at e4 than at e2.
> > at that point in time when R1 and R3 meet and also when R2 and R3 meet. Correct?
> No, you are willy-nilly using the word "when" for separate events without qualifying the system of coordinates. Also, this is all irrelevant to the simple widget testing that you are describing.
> > You keep adding things to the scenario.
> All I've "added to the scenario" is the rational explanation of your misconeptions. Changing the word "robot" to "widget" is just to help you understand that all you are doing is predicting the life-cycle failures of one widget by assuming they will be the same as of another (previously tested) widget. This is just learning by experience. There is nothing psychic about this, and the ability to do this has nothing in particular to do with special relativity. Now do you understand?

Why do you keep changing the scenario and talk about misconceptions I have? I am just stating what happens using the concepts of relativity. If you want to call R2 a widget and let it operate for 10 years then in my scenario, R1 and R2 are identical robots, showing identical times on their internal clocks (as measured in the inertial reference frame of R1 and R2), so you must be saying that R1 has operated for 10 years just as R2 has, so when R1 and R3 meet with each robot showing the identical times on their internal clocks, you are also saying that R3 also shows 10 years when R1 and R3 meet..
Why do you keep changing things, and not simply agree that the scenario I posted is simply a presentation of Einstein's concepts? Do you see something wrong with Einstein's concepts? I stated it has nothing to do with a robot being a psychic - I said instead they were relativity gurus - What is wrong with that?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 4:07:39 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Why do you keep changing the scenario and talk about misconceptions I have?

I have not changed the scenario, I first explained your misconceptions about the scenario, and then, to help you grasp the idiocy of your claims, I described how your scenario is isomorphic to everyday facts. Again, what you implied was some kind of psychic foreknowledge is nothing but assuming that one object will behave the same as another does over the same duration of proper time. Duh.

> I am just stating what happens using the concepts of relativity.

Not really, I always have to correct and clarify even your most mundane statements, because you're incapable of actually correctly stating anything having to do with special relativity. Furthermore, the essential core of your misunderstandings is usually completely unrelated to special relativity anyway. For example, in this case, your claim is essentially than whenever we make predictions about when a widget will fail based on when a test widget failed, we are doing something psychic. That's absurd. There is nothing at all mysterious about constructing similar devices and estimating their failure times based on our experience with test devices. That's all your alleged psychical activity amounts to. Your claim is just silly.

> If you want to call R2 a widget and let it operate for 10 years then in my scenario,
> R1 and R2 are identical robots, showing identical times on their internal clocks (as
> measured in the inertial reference frame of R1 and R2), so you must be saying that
> R1 has operated for 10 years just as R2 has...

You are the one who stipulated that R1 and R2 have the same age at events e1 and e2, which are simultaneous in terms of F0. But this is irrelevant because R1 doesn't play any role in your scenario. Also, there is no "10 years" at this stage, because you did not specify how many centuries the robots had been in existence or how they had moved prior to satisfying the stated initial conditions. And that's all irrelevant anyway.

Look, you have stipulated that R3 at e1 and R2 at e2 have the same proper ages. Since you didn't specify, let's say they are 3465 years old at those events. Then R2 ages 5 more years and that's when the 5-year test begins, so we note its component failures during the subsequent five years from age 3470 to 3475. Meanwhile, R3 aged 5 years as it progresses from e1 to r3, so it is 3470 when it passes R2. So we have just finished a 5-year test of our test widget R2, showing what failures it experiences between proper ages 3470 to 3475, and our widget R3 is 3470 at e3 so R2 can project that R3 may experience similar failures during the next five years.

This is normal industry practice for predicting device failures. There is nothing psychic or surprising about this. Even without accelerating any of the objects to near light speed, we could just construct them 5 years apart, and make the same predictions.

> so when R1 and R3 meet with each robot showing the identical times on their
> internal clocks, you are also saying that R3 also shows 10 years when R1 and
> R3 meet.

No, not at all. You failed to specify how old R1 and R3 were when they meet, you just said they were the same age, so it could be (for example) 3465 years old. That isn't the test range. And, again, this is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is the progression of R2 from age 3470 to 3475, and your assumption that R3 will experience a similar pattern of failures as it ages through that same range. Nothing psychical or mysterious about this at all.

> Why do you keep changing things...

I have not changed anything in the scenario, I simply corrected your erroneous statements and misconceptions.

> and not simply agree that the scenario I posted is simply a presentation of Einstein's concepts?

What you posted is not even coherent, let alone a presentation of effects of special relativity. You fantasized that projecting the device failures of one widget for a range of its proper age based on the device failures of a similar widget over the same range of proper age is (1) uniquely enabled by special relativity (which it obviously is not), and (2) somehow mysterious or psychical (which it obviously is not).

Again, what I'm trying to convey to you is that it's ridiculous to find something mysterious about the fact that one can estimate the time to fail of a device based on the observed time to fail of a similar device. That's all you are doing. In essence, this method of "predicting" has nothing to do with special relativity. Obviously if you set some of the widgets moving near the speed of light, then the analysis will need to take special relativity into account, to keep track of their proper ages correctly, but that is not the source of the ability to "predict" based on the test widget. So your amazement at the ability to predict, and your belief that this is somehow related to special relativity, is simply false, and reveals a deep misunderstanding.

If all you are trying to say is that R3 ages 5 years while going from e1 to e3, whereas R2 ages 10 years while going from e2 to e3, then of course, but there's nothing mysterious or psychical about that. That's just Relativity 101.

Op 04-okt.-2021 om 00:39 schreef Sylvia Else:
> On 04-Oct-21 4:14 am, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> You're trying to find contradictions in basic geometry. Give it up. It's
> futile.
>
> Sylvia.

He's not really trying to find contradictions.
He is trying to keep someone very busy. And he's very successful :-)

Dirk Vdm

On 04-Oct-21 8:14 pm, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 04-okt.-2021 om 00:39 schreef Sylvia Else:
>> On 04-Oct-21 4:14 am, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> You're trying to find contradictions in basic geometry. Give it up.
>> It's futile.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> He's not really trying to find contradictions.
> He is trying to keep someone very busy. And he's very successful :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

Perhaps. He puts a lot of effort into it. Maybe he just needs a girlfriend.

Sylvia.