On Jul 3, 4:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
> 
> news:46045fc7-c9c0-4727-aa6a-fa042f030cb4@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 1:58 pm, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 3, 8:11 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> 
>>> "Pole and Barn for Dummies"
> 
>>> I was challenged by "Mike" to write this. It is as if he is forcing
>>> Chateau Latour 1982 down my throat.
> 
>>> I don't know why Mike thought this problem deep enough for a
>>> challenge. There are many treatments already published, and all I have
>>> examined (outside of this newsgroup!) are correct. So I have nothing
>>> new really to contribute --
> 
> Never mind, Mike. I see by the link in your reply to Dirk that I have
> given you more credit than you deserve.

Save your credits, you are going to need them for yourself. Dirk is
waiting around the corner for you too. He is the most vicious
individual I have ever come accross anywhere. Tom Roberts was forces
to tell him off ince.

> 
> "Sufficiently restricted" regions of space-time for the applicablilty
> of SR are sufficiently explained in, say, MTW, p. 304 and elsewhere.

Inventing terminology is not my expetise. SR assumes globally inertial
reference frames only. Anyway, the choice of terminology is
unfortunate. MTW is out of date, confusing and has many errors:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html#intro_gr

> 
> I challenge to to cite a single line of my original post that is in
> error.

I gave you a link where you can compare and see your errors.

Now, it is not nice of you old man that you tried to divert reply to
alt.morons. You are a moron because you do not understand relativity
and you bite the bate and become victim of the paradox, you think you
solved, but hey moron, the paradox cannot be solved like that.

It takes math you won't understand a single line of it to resolve the
paradox.

Your post ia an immortal fumble of idiocy.

I think golf is better for you.