Here it mentions:
Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
of energy
https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/

Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
understanding this)

A human being can contain
another universe
within
a human being
with stars and planets
and galaxies,
and little people...
all within
a single particle
od a person.

Like...
a Mandelbrot zooming
in a particle
within
a human being.

Each particle
containing
a universe.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

Sergio wrote:
>
> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Here it mentions:
> > Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> > being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> > of energy
> > https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> > understanding this)
> >
> > A human being can contain
> > another universe
> > within
> > a human being
> > with stars and planets
> > and galaxies,
> > and little people...
> > all within
> > a single particle
> > od a person.
> >
> > Like...
> > a Mandelbrot zooming
> > in a particle
> > within
> > a human being.
> >
> > Each particle
> > containing
> > a universe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> your BONG is calling you

do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?

There is a universe in each particle...

our universe can be contained in a single particle.

"My God, it's full of stars!"

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Sergio wrote:
> >
> > On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Here it mentions:
> > > Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> > > being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> > > of energy
> > > https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> > > understanding this)
> > >
> > > A human being can contain
> > > another universe
> > > within
> > > a human being
> > > with stars and planets
> > > and galaxies,
> > > and little people...
> > > all within
> > > a single particle
> > > od a person.
> > >
> > > Like...
> > > a Mandelbrot zooming
> > > in a particle
> > > within
> > > a human being.
> > >
> > > Each particle
> > > containing
> > > a universe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > your BONG is calling you
>
> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>
> There is a universe in each particle...
>
> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>
> "My God, it's full of stars!"

I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)

but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.

E=M

=
U

A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Here it mentions:
>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
>>>> of energy
>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
>>>> understanding this)
>>>>
>>>> A human being can contain
>>>> another universe
>>>> within
>>>> a human being
>>>> with stars and planets
>>>> and galaxies,
>>>> and little people...
>>>> all within
>>>> a single particle
>>>> od a person.
>>>>
>>>> Like...
>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
>>>> in a particle
>>>> within
>>>> a human being.
>>>>
>>>> Each particle
>>>> containing
>>>> a universe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> your BONG is calling you
>>
>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>
>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>
>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>
>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>
>
> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)

Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
not alter reality.

> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>
> E=M
>
> =
> U
>
> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>
>
>
>
>
>

whodat wrote:
>
> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sergio wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> Here it mentions:
> >>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> >>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> >>>> of energy
> >>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> >>>> understanding this)
> >>>>
> >>>> A human being can contain
> >>>> another universe
> >>>> within
> >>>> a human being
> >>>> with stars and planets
> >>>> and galaxies,
> >>>> and little people...
> >>>> all within
> >>>> a single particle
> >>>> od a person.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like...
> >>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
> >>>> in a particle
> >>>> within
> >>>> a human being.
> >>>>
> >>>> Each particle
> >>>> containing
> >>>> a universe.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> your BONG is calling you
> >>
> >> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
> >>
> >> There is a universe in each particle...
> >>
> >> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
> >>
> >> "My God, it's full of stars!"
> >
> >
> > I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>
> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
> not alter reality.
>
> > but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
> >
> > E=M
> >
> > =
> > U
> >
> > A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.

I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.

Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> whodat wrote:
> >
> > On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sergio wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>> Here it mentions:
> > >>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> > >>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> > >>>> of energy
> > >>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> > >>>> understanding this)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A human being can contain
> > >>>> another universe
> > >>>> within
> > >>>> a human being
> > >>>> with stars and planets
> > >>>> and galaxies,
> > >>>> and little people...
> > >>>> all within
> > >>>> a single particle
> > >>>> od a person.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Like...
> > >>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
> > >>>> in a particle
> > >>>> within
> > >>>> a human being.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Each particle
> > >>>> containing
> > >>>> a universe.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> your BONG is calling you
> > >>
> > >> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
> > >>
> > >> There is a universe in each particle...
> > >>
> > >> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
> > >>
> > >> "My God, it's full of stars!"
> > >
> > >
> > > I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
> >
> > Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
> > with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
> > not alter reality.
> >
> > > but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
> > >
> > > E=M
> > >
> > > =
> > > U
> > >
> > > A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>
> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>
> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.

One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"

Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???

I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!

DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????

I mean, I'm talking old science here...

I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 9/8/2022 12:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sergio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Here it mentions:
>>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
>>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
>>>>>> of energy
>>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
>>>>>> understanding this)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A human being can contain
>>>>>> another universe
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> a human being
>>>>>> with stars and planets
>>>>>> and galaxies,
>>>>>> and little people...
>>>>>> all within
>>>>>> a single particle
>>>>>> od a person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like...
>>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
>>>>>> in a particle
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> a human being.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each particle
>>>>>> containing
>>>>>> a universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> your BONG is calling you
>>>>
>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>>>
>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>>>
>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>>>
>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>>>
>>>
>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>>
>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
>> not alter reality.
>>
>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>>>
>>> E=M
>>>
>>> =
>>> U
>>>
>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>
>
>
> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.

Entertainment TV has a science department? Where do you get such ideas?

> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.

Your posting has the appearance of just that.

On 9/8/2022 2:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> whodat wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Here it mentions:
>>>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
>>>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
>>>>>>> of energy
>>>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
>>>>>>> understanding this)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A human being can contain
>>>>>>> another universe
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> a human being
>>>>>>> with stars and planets
>>>>>>> and galaxies,
>>>>>>> and little people...
>>>>>>> all within
>>>>>>> a single particle
>>>>>>> od a person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like...
>>>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
>>>>>>> in a particle
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> a human being.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each particle
>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>> a universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your BONG is calling you
>>>>>
>>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>>>>
>>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>>>
>>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
>>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
>>> not alter reality.
>>>
>>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>>>>
>>>> E=M
>>>>
>>>> =
>>>> U
>>>>
>>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>>
>> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
>> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>>
>> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.
>
>
>
> One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
> in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"
>
> Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???

You haven't posted anything science relevant since I can remember.

> I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!

When your posts appear to be related to children's entertainment TV
that's bound to become a topic of conversation here. Got any real
science to discuss? Bigger on the inside, that you've attempted to foist
off as science, is straight up Dr Who children's entertainment stuff
with no relevance in real science.

> DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????

Rather than complain, why haven't you started such threads yourself?

Why, because you haven't touched any sot of science book since 12th
grade.

Fake it till you make it doesn't work here.

> I mean, I'm talking old science here...

There is no such thing as "old science." There's only obsolete science
and currently accepted science. How come you don't know that?

> I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...

No gold in any of your postings.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > whodat wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Sergio wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>>> Here it mentions:
> > > >>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> > > >>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> > > >>>> of energy
> > > >>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> > > >>>> understanding this)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A human being can contain
> > > >>>> another universe
> > > >>>> within
> > > >>>> a human being
> > > >>>> with stars and planets
> > > >>>> and galaxies,
> > > >>>> and little people...
> > > >>>> all within
> > > >>>> a single particle
> > > >>>> od a person.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Like...
> > > >>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
> > > >>>> in a particle
> > > >>>> within
> > > >>>> a human being.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Each particle
> > > >>>> containing
> > > >>>> a universe.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> your BONG is calling you
> > > >>
> > > >> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
> > > >>
> > > >> There is a universe in each particle...
> > > >>
> > > >> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
> > > >>
> > > >> "My God, it's full of stars!"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
> > >
> > > Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
> > > with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
> > > not alter reality.
> > >
> > > > but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
> > > >
> > > > E=M
> > > >
> > > > =
> > > > U
> > > >
> > > > A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
> >
> > I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
> > Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
> >
> > Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.
>
> One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
> in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"
>
> Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???
>
> I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!
>
> DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????
>
> I mean, I'm talking old science here...
>
> I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...

if you need more information about 'a bag of gold' (since this is another knowledge gap you people have)

it's all about Einstein's General Relativity...the surface area stays the same but the amount inside becomes every which way large.

our universe can be contained in a single particle

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 9/9/2022 1:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here it mentions:
>>>>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
>>>>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
>>>>>>>> of energy
>>>>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
>>>>>>>> understanding this)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A human being can contain
>>>>>>>> another universe
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> a human being
>>>>>>>> with stars and planets
>>>>>>>> and galaxies,
>>>>>>>> and little people...
>>>>>>>> all within
>>>>>>>> a single particle
>>>>>>>> od a person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like...
>>>>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
>>>>>>>> in a particle
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each particle
>>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>>> a universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your BONG is calling you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>>>>
>>>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
>>>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
>>>> not alter reality.
>>>>
>>>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>>>>>
>>>>> E=M
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>> U
>>>>>
>>>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>>>
>>> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
>>> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>>>
>>> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.
>>
>> One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
>> in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"
>>
>> Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???
>>
>> I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!
>>
>> DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????
>>
>> I mean, I'm talking old science here...
>>
>> I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...
>
> if you need more information about 'a bag of gold' (since this is another knowledge gap you people have)
>
> it's all about Einstein's General Relativity...the surface area stays the same but the amount inside becomes every which way large.
>
> our universe can be contained in a single particle

As they say a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
a paradox, not an accepted model.

"You'll shoot your eye out" if you keep playing with things
you don't understand.

Wake me up when WBG leaves the realm of paradox.

See also, "Overcounting of interior excitations: a resolution
to the bags of gold paradox in AdS"

<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP02(2021)027>

Are you going to promote cold fusion next?

<https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i44/Cold-fusion-died-25-years.html>

whodat wrote:
>
> On 9/9/2022 1:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> whodat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sergio wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Here it mentions:
> >>>>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> >>>>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> >>>>>>>> of energy
> >>>>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> >>>>>>>> understanding this)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A human being can contain
> >>>>>>>> another universe
> >>>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>>> a human being
> >>>>>>>> with stars and planets
> >>>>>>>> and galaxies,
> >>>>>>>> and little people...
> >>>>>>>> all within
> >>>>>>>> a single particle
> >>>>>>>> od a person.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Like...
> >>>>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
> >>>>>>>> in a particle
> >>>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>>> a human being.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Each particle
> >>>>>>>> containing
> >>>>>>>> a universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> your BONG is calling you
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
> >>>>
> >>>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
> >>>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
> >>>> not alter reality.
> >>>>
> >>>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> E=M
> >>>>>
> >>>>> =
> >>>>> U
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
> >>>
> >>> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
> >>> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
> >>>
> >>> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.
> >>
> >> One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
> >> in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"
> >>
> >> Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???
> >>
> >> I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!
> >>
> >> DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????
> >>
> >> I mean, I'm talking old science here...
> >>
> >> I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...
> >
> > if you need more information about 'a bag of gold' (since this is another knowledge gap you people have)
> >
> > it's all about Einstein's General Relativity...the surface area stays the same but the amount inside becomes every which way large.
> >
> > our universe can be contained in a single particle
>
> As they say a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.
>
> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>

You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 9/9/2022 12:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 9/9/2022 1:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>>>>> your BONG is calling you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
>>>>>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
>>>>>> not alter reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E=M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>> U
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
>>>>> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't confuse reality with children's TV entertainment.
>>>>
>>>> One person in these newsgroups sez, "your BONG is calling you". Another person
>>>> in these newsgroups sez, ..."Been watching Dr Who again?"
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't anybody here know anything about real science???? I thought this was a sci newsgroups???
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking science here and everyone else is talking about bong hits and tvee shows!
>>>>
>>>> DON'T YOU PEOPLE READ BOOKS ANYMORE????
>>>>
>>>> I mean, I'm talking old science here...
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid you people don't know what a bag of gold means...
>>>
>>> if you need more information about 'a bag of gold' (since this is another knowledge gap you people have)
>>>
>>> it's all about Einstein's General Relativity...the surface area stays the same but the amount inside becomes every which way large.
>>>
>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle
>>
>> As they say a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.
>>
>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>>
>
> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?

Even wikipedia gets this right, you don't:

"Another way of looking at it is by realising that the travelling twin
is undergoing acceleration, which makes him a non-inertial observer.
In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the
sense of a logical contradiction. "

...

"In his famous paper on special relativity in 1905, Albert Einstein
deduced that when two clocks were brought together and synchronized, and
then one was moved away and brought back, the clock which had undergone
the traveling would be found to be lagging behind the clock which had
stayed put.[A 1] Einstein considered this to be a natural consequence of
special relativity, not a paradox as some suggested, and in 1911, he
restated and elaborated on this result as follows (with physicist Robert
Resnick's comments following Einstein's):"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Of course you should really read the entire article, which I predict you
will not because it contradicts your personal opinions about the
universe. Your "science" is always the cheap shots available to the
ineducable.

whodat wrote:
>
> On 9/8/2022 12:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sergio wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>> Here it mentions:
> >>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
> >>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
> >>>>>> of energy
> >>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
> >>>>>> understanding this)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A human being can contain
> >>>>>> another universe
> >>>>>> within
> >>>>>> a human being
> >>>>>> with stars and planets
> >>>>>> and galaxies,
> >>>>>> and little people...
> >>>>>> all within
> >>>>>> a single particle
> >>>>>> od a person.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like...
> >>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
> >>>>>> in a particle
> >>>>>> within
> >>>>>> a human being.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Each particle
> >>>>>> containing
> >>>>>> a universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> your BONG is calling you
> >>>>
> >>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a universe in each particle...
> >>>>
> >>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
> >>>>
> >>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
> >>
> >> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
> >> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
> >> not alter reality.
> >>
> >>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
> >>>
> >>> E=M
> >>>
> >>> =
> >>> U
> >>>
> >>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
> >
> >
> >
> > I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
> > Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>
> Entertainment TV has a science department? Where do you get such ideas?

Have you ever heard the expression...'Paying the bills is not my
department'.???

If you make a movie like Contact, ..you get someone who
is knowledgable like Carl Sagan.

Dept. has a variety of definitions... "a sphere or provience of
activity, knowledge, or responsibility" is a definition of the word
Department.

But I guess English is not your department.

Habla espanol?

pale vou frances?

how now brown cow?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

whodat wrote:

> On 9/9/2022 12:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>> As they say a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

Yes :-D

>>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?
>
> Even wikipedia gets this right, […]

Unfortunately, it does not.
> "Another way of looking at it is by realising that the travelling twin
> is undergoing acceleration, which makes him a non-inertial observer.

This – unfortunately commonly (even by some textbooks/physicists) given –
explanation is *wrong*.

> In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
> twins.

The only symmetry that is broken there, and *that* is which is relevant,
is that the traveling twin changes their frame of reference while the home
twin does not.

The Fermilab particle physicist Don Lincoln explains this convincingly in
two videos (one with and one without the mathematics). You can find them
in my public Relativity playlist:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>

In (free) introductory relativity classes like

<https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>

(which I took and passed before studying Physics at a university on site,
and therefore can highly recommend) one learns either in terms of "time
dilation" and "length contraction", or using the Lorentz transformation
*properly*, why both observers must agree that if both people were the same
age when the traveling person started their journey, when that person
returns they are the younger of the two. (Only the effects of relative
motion are considered.)

> Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the
> sense of a logical contradiction. "

That much is true.

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> In (free) introductory relativity classes like
>
> <https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
>
> (which I took and passed before studying Physics at a university on site,
> and therefore can highly recommend) one learns either in terms of "time
> dilation" and "length contraction", or using the Lorentz transformation
> *properly*, why both observers must agree that if both people were the
> same age when the traveling person started their journey, when that person
> returns they are the younger of the two. (Only the effects of relative
> motion are considered.)

I might as well give the kindergarten version of the explanation here:

For the home twin, the distance to the destination is a proper distance, so
they experience no "length contraction" in their frame. However, they have
to assume "time dilation" for the traveler twin’s "moving" frames, so less
time would elapse for the traveler than for the home twin.

For the traveling twin, the distance to the destination, and the distance to
their origin, are distances "moving" along their direction of motion, so
they are "length-contracted" in their ("moving") frame. But they experience
no "time dilation" in their frame (they are at rest in their frame, and so
at rest relative to their clocks which are also at rest in their frame).
Therefore they require less time to their destination and back than the
duration that the home twin experiences for themselves (and measure with
*their* clocks).

Bottom line: Both twins agree that the traveling twin is younger than
the home twin when they meet again because less time has elapsed for the
traveling twin than the home twin.

PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 9/9/2022 1:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 9/8/2022 12:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2022 11:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/2022 6:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here it mentions:
>>>>>>>> Thus, concluding our little mind experiment we find that just one human
>>>>>>>> being is roughly the equivalence of 1.86 MILLION kilotons of TNT worth
>>>>>>>> of energy
>>>>>>>> https://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, taking it a little further (somes of yous might have a gap in
>>>>>>>> understanding this)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A human being can contain
>>>>>>>> another universe
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> a human being
>>>>>>>> with stars and planets
>>>>>>>> and galaxies,
>>>>>>>> and little people...
>>>>>>>> all within
>>>>>>>> a single particle
>>>>>>>> od a person.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like...
>>>>>>>> a Mandelbrot zooming
>>>>>>>> in a particle
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each particle
>>>>>>>> containing
>>>>>>>> a universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your BONG is calling you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do you mean the bong contains particles in which universes exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a universe in each particle...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> our universe can be contained in a single particle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "My God, it's full of stars!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know it's differcult for yous people to understand...(especially bong heads)
>>>>
>>>> Been watching Dr Who again? Don't confuse children's TV entertainment
>>>> with reality. Just because you accept a kiddie show storyline does
>>>> not alter reality.
>>>>
>>>>> but imagine a world of particles that are bigger on the inside than the outside.
>>>>>
>>>>> E=M
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>>> U
>>>>>
>>>>> A place where you can put a universe saftely hidden...in a particle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I never seen the show Dr Who, isn't that a London country show?
>>> Besides, tv writers get their idea from the Science Dept.
>>
>> Entertainment TV has a science department? Where do you get such ideas?

> Have you ever heard the expression...'Paying the bills is not my
> department'.???
>
>
> If you make a movie like Contact, ..you get someone who
> is knowledgable like Carl Sagan.
>
> Dept. has a variety of definitions... "a sphere or provience of
> activity, knowledge, or responsibility" is a definition of the word
> Department.

Don't abbreviate unnecessarily. Don't capitalize where it is not
appropriate.

>
> But I guess English is not your department.

Your guesses are just as useless as your scientific pronouncements.

> Habla espanol?
>
> pale vou frances?
>
> how now brown cow?

I refer you to Strunk & White. It is a very small, but thorough, book
about usage of the English language. Cost is, most times and most
places, under 5 US$. Let me know if that's too sophisticated for
you to be able to use. I am also familiar with a couple of
secretarial handbooks that might be more appropriate for you.

I urge you to learn proper usage before you begin to rely on
arguing the dictionary.

For someone who relies on a dictionary to try to make points, you've
made two significant spelling errors above, to say nothing of the
ignorance you display with "pale you frances?"

Hint: stupidity is not funny. There's an entire hierarchy for the realm
of "humor." Please go there and don't come back here. Alas your
variations on a sense of humor will probably not serve you very well
there either.

On 9/9/2022 4:44 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2022 12:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>> As they say a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.
>
> Yes :-D
>
>>>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>>>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>>> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?
>>
>> Even wikipedia gets this right, […]
>
> Unfortunately, it does not.
>
>> "Another way of looking at it is by realising that the travelling twin
>> is undergoing acceleration, which makes him a non-inertial observer.
>
> This – unfortunately commonly (even by some textbooks/physicists) given –
> explanation is *wrong*.
>
>> In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
>> twins.
>
> The only symmetry that is broken there, and *that* is which is relevant,
> is that the traveling twin changes their frame of reference while the home
> twin does not.

There are all sorts of problems with that description.

> The Fermilab particle physicist Don Lincoln explains this convincingly in
> two videos (one with and one without the mathematics). You can find them
> in my public Relativity playlist:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>
> In (free) introductory relativity classes like
>
> <https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-y0009-understanding-einstein-special-theory-relativity>
>
> (which I took and passed before studying Physics at a university on site,
> and therefore can highly recommend) one learns either in terms of "time
> dilation" and "length contraction", or using the Lorentz transformation
> *properly*, why both observers must agree that if both people were the same
> age when the traveling person started their journey, when that person
> returns they are the younger of the two. (Only the effects of relative
> motion are considered.)

If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not. The
"paradox" part of the discussion occurs because in terms of relative
motion each twin sees the other as moving. Clearly, because acceleration
is absolutely detectable, we can tell which one is moving, and the "age"
consequences further demonstrate the validity of knowing who is moving
and who is not for this particular scenario.

>> Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the
>> sense of a logical contradiction. "

> That much is true.

> PointedEars

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn puts the foot in his mouth:

> Bottom line: Both twins agree that the traveling twin is younger than
> the home twin when they meet again because less time has elapsed for the
> traveling twin than the home twin.

impossible, you fucking idiot. One more proof. When they meed at home the
time elapses equally for both. And you can't tell the home twin ANYTHING
about time "elapsing less". What an idiot. He can't "agree" because he is
a good guy, or what. Man, this idiot is so stupid.

whodat wrote:

> On 9/9/2022 4:44 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>>>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>>>>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>>>> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?
>>> In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
>>> twins.
>>
>> The only symmetry that is broken there, and *that* is which is relevant,
>> is that the traveling twin changes their frame of reference while the
>> home twin does not.
>
> There are all sorts of problems with that description.

Which problems do you have with it?

>> The Fermilab particle physicist Don Lincoln explains this convincingly in
>> two videos (one with and one without the mathematics). You can find them
>> in my public Relativity playlist:
>>
>>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>
>> […]
>
> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.

AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the only
thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration, consider the
different reference frames, and still get the same result.

If you had watched the explanatory videos (at least one of them) that I
referred to, you would have known. Instead you continue to revel in your
own ignorance of the basics, projecting it onto others.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

On 9/9/2022 7:47 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>> On 9/9/2022 4:44 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>>>>>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>>>>> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?
>>>> In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
>>>> twins.
>>>
>>> The only symmetry that is broken there, and *that* is which is relevant,
>>> is that the traveling twin changes their frame of reference while the
>>> home twin does not.
>>
>> There are all sorts of problems with that description.
>
> Which problems do you have with it?
>
>>> The Fermilab particle physicist Don Lincoln explains this convincingly in
>>> two videos (one with and one without the mathematics). You can find them
>>> in my public Relativity playlist:
>>>
>>>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>
>>> […]
>>
>> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
>> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.
>
> AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the only
> thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration, consider the
> different reference frames, and still get the same result.
>
> If you had watched the explanatory videos (at least one of them) that I
> referred to, you would have known. Instead you continue to revel in your
> own ignorance of the basics, projecting it onto others.
>
>
> PointedEars

I'm going to let this discussion sit in its current state because I am
quite satisfied with my understandings and feel no need to convince you
of anything.

whodat wrote:

> On 9/9/2022 7:47 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2022 4:44 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>>>> That's WBG, or Wheeler's bags of gold, and it is actually
>>>>>>> a paradox, not an accepted model.
>>>>>> You mean like Einstein's Twin Paradox?
>>>>> In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the
>>>>> twins.
>>>> The only symmetry that is broken there, and *that* is which is
>>>> relevant, is that the traveling twin changes their frame of reference
>>>> while the home twin does not.
>>>
>>> There are all sorts of problems with that description.
>>
>> Which problems do you have with it?

So you are claiming that there would be problems, but you are unable to
point them out.

I tell you why: The problem with that sits merely between your ears. You
are simply too incompetent to understand or even learn what you are being
explained.

>>>> The Fermilab particle physicist Don Lincoln explains this convincingly
>>>> in
>>>> two videos (one with and one without the mathematics). You can find
>>>> them in my public Relativity playlist:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=7>
>>>>
>>>> […]
>>>
>>> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
>>> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.
>>
>> AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the
>> only thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration,
>> consider the different reference frames, and still get the same result.
>>
>> If you had watched the explanatory videos (at least one of them) that I
>> referred to, you would have known. Instead you continue to revel in your
>> own ignorance of the basics, projecting it onto others.
>
> I'm going to let this discussion sit in its current state because I am
> quite satisfied with my understandings

Spoken like a true ignorant.

> and feel no need to convince you of anything.

ROTFL.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

On 9/9/2022 9:35 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> whodat wrote:

...

>> I'm going to let this discussion sit in its current state because I am
>> quite satisfied with my understandings
>
> Spoken like a true ignorant.
>
>> and feel no need to convince you of anything.
>
> ROTFL.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

Enjoy yourself.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> whodat wrote:
>> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
>> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.
>
> AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the
> only thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration,
> consider the different reference frames, and still get the same result.

but that accelerates, along the differences, idiot. The passage of time is not constant. Here we have what the khakhole *fake_money* switzerland are doing with their citizens, from the commando central.

Swiss Social Media Abuzz Over 'Rat Out Your Neighbor' Energy Use Posters
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/swiss-social-media-abuzz-over-rat-out-your-neighbor-energy-use-posters

As Switzerland takes drastic measures to reduce its gas use this winter - including fines and up to three years in prison for citizens who violate new regulations, a viral poster circulating on Swiss social media telling citizens to rat out neighbors heating their homes above 19C (66.2F) has raised eyebrows.

The ’nym-shifting troll wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
>>> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.
>>
>> AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the
>> only thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration,
>> consider the different reference frames, and still get the same result.
>
> but that accelerates, along the differences, idiot.

No, as shown in Don Lincoln’s video: If two inertial (NON-accelerating)
observers B and C pass each other *in opposite directions of motion* – i.e.
they are at rest in two *different* *inertial* reference frames – and B is
telling the other their travel time from observer A on passing, observer C
then adds to their own travel time and communicates the result to the
observer A “at home”, the same discrepancy between A’s elapsed time and the
total elapsed time for observers B and C will be observed.

> The passage of time is not constant.

It is for every inertial observer. But two observers in two different
reference frames do not agree on the elapsed time. That is exactly the
point that Don Lincoln and I are, and indeed Einstein was, making.

> Here we have what the khakhole *fake_money* switzerland are
> doing with their citizens, from the commando central.
>
> Swiss Social Media Abuzz Over 'Rat Out Your Neighbor' Energy Use Posters
> https://www.zerohedge.com/political/swiss-social-media-abuzz-over-rat-out-your-neighbor-energy-use-posters
>
> As Switzerland takes drastic measures to reduce its gas use this winter -
> including fines and up to three years in prison for citizens who violate
> new regulations, a viral poster circulating on Swiss social media telling
> citizens to rat out neighbors heating their homes above 19C (66.2F) has
> raised eyebrows.

And the article CONTINUES:

| "Does the neighbor heat the apartment to over 19 degrees? Please inform
| us," reads the poster currently circulating on messaging services such as
| Signal and Telegram, according to Swiss media.
|
| [image of the poster]
|
| Except, IT'S FAKE.
|
| According to Energy Department official, Simone Hug, the federal
| government has nothing to do with the poster.
|
| "There are no such federal posters, nor do we call for people to be
| exposed," said Hug, who added that the government is investigating who
| created the hoax.”

But a ’nym-shifting troll like you is not interested in such "details",
because then there would be nothing to use for trolling. Or you are simply
too stupid to read carefully.

One can only hope that your new Usenet provider, like the previous one, will
quickly terminate your account for not only trolling, but disseminating fake
news and hate speech on a daily basis, whereas at least the latter is
actually a CRIME according to German law (by which your Usenet provider says
they would abide):

,-<http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
|
| […]
| Observing the law and regulations
| | This server must only be used for lawful purposes. Each user has to
| observe applicable law and regulations. Regulations of the Federal
| Republic of Germany apply implicitly, as this is the location of
| news.eternal-september.org

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung>

FOAD.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

The ’nym-shifting troll wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> whodat wrote:
>>> If you actually understood this "problem" you would realize that one
>>> twin experiences acceleration that the "stay at home" twin does not.
>>
>> AISB: Acceleration is irrelevant. The change of reference frame is the
>> only thing that is relevant, as you can take away the acceleration,
>> consider the different reference frames, and still get the same result.
>
> but that accelerates, along the differences, idiot.

No, as shown in Don Lincoln’s video: If two inertial (NON-accelerating)
observers B and C pass each other *in opposite directions of motion* – i.e.
they are at rest in two *different* *inertial* reference frames – and B is
telling the other their travel time from observer A on passing, observer C
then adds to their own travel time and communicates the result to the
observer A “at home”, the same discrepancy between A’s elapsed time and the
total elapsed time for observers B and C will be observed.

> The passage of time is not constant.

It is for every inertial observer. But two observers in two different
reference frames do not agree on the elapsed time. That is exactly the
point that Don Lincoln and I are, and indeed Einstein was, making.

> Here we have what the khakhole *fake_money* switzerland are
> doing with their citizens, from the commando central.
>
> Swiss Social Media Abuzz Over 'Rat Out Your Neighbor' Energy Use Posters
> https://www.zerohedge.com/political/swiss-social-media-abuzz-over-rat-out-your-neighbor-energy-use-posters
>
> As Switzerland takes drastic measures to reduce its gas use this winter -
> including fines and up to three years in prison for citizens who violate
> new regulations, a viral poster circulating on Swiss social media telling
> citizens to rat out neighbors heating their homes above 19C (66.2F) has
> raised eyebrows.

And the article CONTINUES:

| "Does the neighbor heat the apartment to over 19 degrees? Please inform
| us," reads the poster currently circulating on messaging services such as
| Signal and Telegram, according to Swiss media.
|
| [image of the poster]
|
| Except, IT'S FAKE.
|
| According to Energy Department official, Simone Hug, the federal
| government has nothing to do with the poster.
|
| "There are no such federal posters, nor do we call for people to be
| exposed," said Hug, who added that the government is investigating who
| created the hoax.”

But a ’nym-shifting troll like you is not interested in such "details",
because then there would be nothing to use for trolling. Or you are simply
too stupid to read carefully.

One can only hope that your new Usenet provider, like eventually your
previous one, will more quickly terminate your account for not only
trolling, but disseminating fake news and hate speech on a daily basis,
whereas at least the latter is actually a CRIME according to German law
(by which your new Usenet provider says they would abide):

,-<http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=terms>
|
| […]
| Observing the law and regulations
| | This server must only be used for lawful purposes. Each user has to
| observe applicable law and regulations. Regulations of the Federal
| Republic of Germany apply implicitly, as this is the location of
| news.eternal-september.org

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung>
| | […]
| Incitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is defined by § 130 (Incitement
| to hatred) Section 1 of the Criminal Code:[1][2]
| | Section 1
| | Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
| | 1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or
| a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of
| the population or individuals because of their belonging to one
| of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or
| calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
|
| 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously
| maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or
| individuals because of their belonging to one of the
| aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming
| segments of the population,
|
| shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years

[As a native German I can confirm that the above is an accurate
translation of the text of the German Criminal Code, available online
at <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html>]

FOAD.

PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven