"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:xizji.1012$Xa3.602@attbi_s22...
Koobee Wublee wrote:
...the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911 and
and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
such as religious faith. shrug

[Sam]
Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox

http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...n_paradox.html

[hanson]
..... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
..... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson

BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
ahahaha.....

Androcles wrote:
"malibu" wrote in message
[...]
**** off, cretin.
*plonk*

Hey, ****wit - CLIP the unnecessary part of the post. You are part of
the problem.

BradGuth wrote:

The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
either?

There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.

No there is not, and also there is not enough resolution for the focal
length of the lenses they were using.

Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.

Take the challenge. Be a man. Or woman. Or whatever you are.

BradGuth wrote:

Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth,

Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).

BradGuth wrote:

Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.

Ah, BradGuth admits he is not informed, out of the argument; he has
lost. He cannot reach into his Zionist-conspiracy sources for backup.
Kinda too bad because their rationales are just a hoot.

"pico" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
: [...]
: **** off, cretin.
: *plonk*
:
: Hey, ****wit - CLIP the unnecessary part of the post. You are part of
: the problem.

**** off, ****.
*plonk*

On Jul 6, 7:59 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
either?

There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.

No there is not, and also there is not enough resolution for the focal
length of the lenses they were using.

Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.

Take the challenge. Be a man. Or woman. Or whatever you are.

I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.

You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 10:14 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
BradGuth
Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.
Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nasty moon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within those Apollo EVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.
The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic charged moon.
As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anything NASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from that moon is where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
BradGuth
Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
range of the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they
were not.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
-
Brad Guth

I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just down-load, install and run with most any good 3D interactive
solar system simulator. It'll put the moon and other planets exactly
where they were, hour by hour if need be, along with displaying such
items in their proper albedo.

Otherwise, contact Kodak Corporate for all the film expertise you'll
ever need, and then some. Then look at published images of our moon
along with other planets and even a few stars showing up within the
very same FOV and exposure.

Too bad Sirius was apparently hiding out along with Venus, as
otherwise the vibrant speck of Sirius would also have been rather
impressive on film.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 8:01 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth,

Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).

My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot. Do you
also suck private parts for a living?
-
Brad Guth

S/he who chases after insanity deserves what s/he catches.