http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/07/cern%E2%80%99s-last-media-gag-the-korean-two-fingers-gang/comment-page-5

where you put lower numbers at the end ie 4 3 2 and 1

Rössler, please ask your nurse to read it to you again, because you missed the point. The argument was that two signals cannot be “locally equivalent” if their periods differ in local time. Do you understand that?

Very, very strange. This was the reason humanity had fights in the middle ages. Interpretations instead of the facts that were the same before veryone’s eyes. ”

Rössler, would you cut that crap out please? We see that the lower period is longer in your diagram. And you just stated—contradicting the caption of that very same figure, but nevertheless—that this length refers to local time. The only problem we have with that, is that it makes the diagram plain wrong. That is a fact, not an interpretation, the interpretation was yours.

The clock periods are longer downstairs than upstairs, everyone sees it, but a religion is being made out of wrong interpretations of what is lying before everyone’s eye.

Very, very strange. This was the reason humanity had fights in the middle ages. Interpretations instead of the facts that were the same before veryone’s eyes.

Here the denial of Telemach is the obvious and only goal. To defend CERN’s irresponsibility. And so of course anonymously, so that afterwards it has been “no one” (oudéis) as Ulysses, the father of Telemach, called himself after his cruel deed).

Poor Telemach.

No, this is not what you always said, and it’s quite puzzling that you suddenly think it is. And after all, it is very evidently not what your Eq. (1) states, because the smaller quantity in it pertains to the upper clock, not the lower one, as we relentlessly told you. So there must be an interpretative twist along the way from this most recent statement of yours to your Eq. (1). And the cause of it is most pobably your own dubious diagram.

…then the T of Telemach is rubbish. Can’t you even see when people point out your contradictions? The caption of your picture says that the two signals are “locally equivalent” (i.e. they cover the same amount of local proper time) but in the picture they are “locally distinguishable” (i.e. they cover different amounts of local proper time). Which one is incorrect, the caption or the picture?

Second (quote): “Nobody denies that two observers can exchange light signals and measure propagation times in local time.” Thanks for that.

Third (quote): “the lower sine curve’s period would be 4 times longe than the lower one measured in local time, which would make both signals locally distinguishable” Thanks again, this is the T of Telemach.

That is all what I ever said: The measured time intervals after a roundtrip signal are smaller downstairs, so that a unit period downstairs covers more than one unit period upstairs, of two equally built clocks upstairs and downstairs.

I am completely unable to understand your denying that. And so over weeks and months in a row.

If you no longer deny it, your crusade against my Eq.(1) of Telemach which says the same thing would be overcome at last.