TWIN PARADOX IN EINSTEIN 1905 PAPER

"Alen" wrote in message oups.com...
On Oct 5, 2:22 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Alen says...


[...]

Is that a good excuse where the POR is concerned?

What do you mean by "excuse"? The statement of the problem
is given from the point of view of a particular frame. The
problem states "A and B accelerate simultaneously so that
afterwards they are traveling in opposite directions at
the same speed". That description is only accurate from
the point of view of one frame, the frame of P.

You want to use semantics to pin me down to specifying
that P's frame is special, so I will state the initial conditions
in the following three alternative ways, all of which are
equivalent as for as the POR is concerned, and produce the
same paradoxical results:

P's viewpoint: A and B accelerate simultaneously towards him
in P's frame

A's viewpoint: P and B accelerate simultaneously towards him
in A's frame

B's viewpoint: P and A accelerate simultaneously towards him
in B's frame

As far as SR is concerned, I don't give any special status to
any frame. My description had a preference among the
descriptions, but gave no special status to P's frame.

[...]

In this perspective, there is no nonsimultaneity effect
involved in setting the clocks to zero, and the time dilation
owing to the acceleration period can be neglected.

That's not true. The setting of the clocks to 0 is only
simultaneous in Ps frame. Not in any other (inertial)
frame.

As I said above, in accordance with the POR, what you
call P's frame can be regarded as the frame of A, B,
or P, depending on what observer's viewpoint you
select to view the experiment. What you call 'A's frame'
is only A's frame from P's point of view. From A's point
of view, it is P that moves, and not himself. To get out
of that by using gravitational effects is merely a
fudging of the POR, which doesn't care how a relative
velocity is acquired, as long as it exists.

Your nonsimultaneity argument looks very like a
fudging of the POR concept, in order to avoid the
terrible prospect of an unresolved paradox

What you are saying is that if you fail to take into
account nonsimultaneity, then you get nonsensical answers.
If you do the calculation without taking nonsimultaneity
into account, then you are doing it *incorrectly*.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Nonsimultaneity is a red herring. In any of the three possible
relationships, AB, AP, or BP, the two observers involved
have perfectly reciprocal views of their relationship. You can
get a paradox out of A and B only, without using P at all,
in which case even the gravitational effects on the accelerated
clocks are identical.

Alen

"Alen" wrote in message oups.com...
On Oct 5, 2:22 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Alen says...


[...]

Is that a good excuse where the POR is concerned?

What do you mean by "excuse"? The statement of the problem
is given from the point of view of a particular frame. The
problem states "A and B accelerate simultaneously so that
afterwards they are traveling in opposite directions at
the same speed". That description is only accurate from
the point of view of one frame, the frame of P.

You want to use semantics to pin me down

You are pinned to the ground - and you will never
even realize it. You won't even realize that it is you
who is doing the pinning.

Dirk Vdm

On Oct 4, 10:32 pm, Koobee Wublee [snip
crap]
Let's start with the
principle of relativity. After all, it was identified more than 300
years ago by Galileo. shrug

Kookee,


Did Galileo apply his PoR to electromagnetic theory?

:-)

On Oct 5, 11:45 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Alen says...



On Oct 5, 8:54 pm, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

[...]

As to your second remark, I would argue that
the concept of a spacelike nonsimultaneity is not
part of the original SR, which was dynamical in nature,
and involved the transmission of light, in accordance
with the light postulate.

Well, you are completely wrong about that. The relativity
of simultaneity was introduced in Einstein's original
1905 paper. Take a look at the English translation he

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification
to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which,
viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can
no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged
from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."


[...]


--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, N

Yes, that was the precise point at which Einstein made
his fatal error. In this statement he failed to ask and properly
examine two distinct questions, in view of the dynamical
derivation that led to the statement:

1) Is the appearance of nonsimultaneity in the moving frame
caused by a working of the light itself that was used in the
derivation of the equations, in accordance with the light
postulate?

2) Is the appearance of nonsimultaneity in the moving frame
due to a permanent underlying property of space and time
itself, which the light only reveals, and does not actually
cause?

This failure by Einstein to properly distinguish and fully
examine these two possible alternatives led to the great
Minkowski spacetime debacle that has plagued Physics
for a century and, to judge from the attitude I have
experienced on this NG, is likely to continue to do so
into the future.

Alen

Alen says...

On Oct 5, 11:45 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification
to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which,
viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can
no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged
from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

Yes, that was the precise point at which Einstein made
his fatal error

Look, for a theory of physics, there are two ways for
something to be an error: (1) It can fail to agree with
experiment, or (2) It can be mathematically inconsistent.

Neither of these is the case with Special Relativity.

In this statement he failed to ask and properly
examine two distinct questions, in view of the dynamical
derivation that led to the statement:

1) Is the appearance of nonsimultaneity in the moving frame
caused by a working of the light itself that was used in the
derivation of the equations, in accordance with the light
postulate?

He didn't fail to ask that question. That question is
answered by his two assumptions of (1) Light has the same
speed in all directions, and (2) The principle of relativity:
the laws of physics have the same form in all inertial
reference frames. If these are true, then the relativity
of simultaneity is a *provable* consequence.

You don't seem to realize that it is *you* who are
making an unwarranted assumption here. *Why* do you
assume that simultaneity is absolute? What basis do
you have for such an assumption? It's not an error
for Einstein to make fewer assumptions than you do,
*especially* when your assumptions lead to a contradiction,
and his don't.

2) Is the appearance of nonsimultaneity in the moving frame
due to a permanent underlying property of space and time
itself, which the light only reveals, and does not actually
cause?

Einstein answers that question. According to his theory,
it is reflection of a property of space and time.

This failure by Einstein to properly distinguish and fully
examine these two possible alternatives led to the great
Minkowski spacetime debacle

How is it a "debacle"? It's the most successful
theory of physics since Newton.

that has plagued Physics for a century

It hasn't plagued physics. It's plagued crackpots.
Yes, many people have a lot of trouble with Special
Relativity, but it's almost always the case that they
are people who have trouble with mathematical reasoning
in general.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Oct 6, 1:23 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Alen" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 2:22 am, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Alen says...

[...]

Is that a good excuse where the POR is concerned?

What do you mean by "excuse"? The statement of the problem
is given from the point of view of a particular frame. The
problem states "A and B accelerate simultaneously so that
afterwards they are traveling in opposite directions at
the same speed". That description is only accurate from
the point of view of one frame, the frame of P.

You want to use semantics to pin me down

You are pinned to the ground - and you will never
even realize it. You won't even realize that it is you
who is doing the pinning.

Dirk Vdm

Of course I realise it. I have nailed my colours
to the mast - I have pinned my argument to the
door of the cathedral - whatever you like!

Alen

Alen says...

Of course I realise it. I have nailed my colours
to the mast - I have pinned my argument to the
door of the cathedral - whatever you like!

What you don't realize is that you *have* no
argument. What you have been doing is combining
Special Relativity with bits of your own beliefs
about the way the world should work, and showing
that the combination leads to nonsensical
conclusions. That isn't an argument against
Special Relativity, it's an argument against
the combination of Special Relativity and your
additions. What you need is an argument that
*pure* relativity has logical problems, or else a
separate argument that your assumptions help to
explain some phenomenon that cannot be explained
otherwise.

In particular, you have given a demonstration
that Special Relativity plus the assumption of
absolute simultaneity leads to a contradiction.
Yes, that's true. That's the reason that Special
Relativity *doesn't* assume absolute simultaneity.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Lempel wrote:
kduc, tu as raison !
Si l'on pose : ( ????? ) ( ??????? ) / ( ??????????? ) = 0
et que l'on simplifie, on obtient : 0 / 0 = 0
CQFD.

La caducité de 0/0 n'est plus à démontrer, par Cantor !

RJ

kduc wrote:
snapdragon31 a écrit :

kduc, exactly. You must be the dumb that I am trying to find? The
first dumb did not understanding what he put down (i.e the
relationship between acceleration and feeling). Similarly, you have
no idea what you put down. Simply by looking at the equations
LiMn2O4, Li2MnO3 and Mn2O3, one can tell it is chemstry related.

（１）　入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–å›½äººã‚„æ—¥æœ ¬äººã�®å‡ºå…¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã �™ã‚‹
外国人ã�®ç®¡ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé› £æ°‘ã�®èª�定å�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å ‹™ã‚’
行�����。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§å›½éš›åŒ–ã�Œé€²å±•ã�™ã‚‹ã�®ã�«ä¼´ã�„ï¼Œä ¸–ç•Œ
ã�®å›½ã€…ã�®äººã�Ÿã�¡ã�¨æ—¥æœ¬ã�¨ã�®çµ�ã�³ç›®ã�®å½ ¹å‰²ã‚’æžœã�Ÿã�™å‡ºå…¥å›½ç®¡ç�†è¡Œæ”¿ã�¯ï¼Œã�¾ã�™ã �¾ã�™
���も��������。
　入国管ç�†å±€ã�®äº‹å‹™ã‚’処ç�†ã�™ã‚‹ã�Ÿã‚�ï¼ Œã��ã�®æ–½è¨*ç*‰æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦å…¥å›½è€…å�Žå®¹æ‰€ï ¼ˆï¼“
ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œåœ°æ–¹å®Ÿæ–½æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦åœ°æ–¹å…¥å› ½ç®¡ç�†å±€ï¼ˆï¼˜ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œå�Œæ”¯å±€ï¼ˆï¼–ã�‹æ‰€ï ¼‰å�Š
ã�³å‡ºå¼µæ‰€ï¼ˆï¼–３ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ã�Œè¨*ç½®ã�•ã‚Œã�¦ã� „ã�¾ã�™ã€‚日本人ã�®é…�å�¶è€…ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹å*´å�ˆ

ア　当該日本人ã�¨ã�®å©šå§»ã‚’証ã�™ã‚‹æ–‡æ› ¸å�Šã�³ä½�民票
（ア）　当該日本人ã�®æˆ¸ç±�è¬„æœ¬ï¼Œå©šå§ »å±Šå�—ç�†è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸å�ˆã�¯å©šå§»è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰ã�§å©š
姻�事実�記載��るも�
（イ）　当該日本人��民票
イ　当該外国人å�ˆã�¯ã��ã�®é…�å�¶è€…ã�®è�·æ¥ *å�Šã�³å�Žå…¥ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸
（ア）　在è�·è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰è�·æ¥*を証明ã�™ã‚ ‹ã‚‚ã�®
（イ）　ä½�民税å�ˆã�¯æ‰€å¾—税ã�®ç´�ç¨Žè¨¼æ˜ Žæ›¸ï¼Œæº�泉徴å�Žç¥¨ï¼Œç¢ºå®šç”³å‘Šæ›¸ã�®å†™ã�—
ã�®ã�„ã�šã‚Œã�‹ã�§ï¼Œå¹´é–“ã�®æ‰€å¾—å�Šã�³ç´�ç¨Žé¡ �を証ã�™ã‚‹ã‚‚ã�®
ウ　本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹å½“該日本人ã�®èº«å… ƒä¿�証書

（２）　日本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹èº«å…ƒä¿�è¨¼äº ºã�®èº«å…ƒä¿�証書
入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–国人や日本人ã�®å‡ºå… ¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã�™ã‚‹å¤–å›½ä ººã�®
管ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé›£æ°‘ã�®èª�å® šå�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å‹™ã‚’è¡Œã�£ã �¦ã�„
��。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§æœ¬äººã�®ç‰¹åˆ¥é¤Šå*�å�ˆã�¯å*�ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹å *´å�ˆ

ア　当該日本人ã�®æˆ¸ç±�謄本å�Šã�³å½“è©²å¤ –国人ã�®å‡ºç”Ÿè¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ã��ã�®ä»–ã�®è¦ªå*�関係㠂’証
�る文書
（ア）　当該日本人�戸�謄本
（イ）　当該外国人�出生証明書
（ウ）　両親ã�®å©šå§»ã�«ä¿‚ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ï¼Œèª �知ã�«ä¿‚る証明書，養å*�ç¸�組ã�«ä¿‚る証
明書ç*‰
イ　当該外国人å�ˆã�¯çˆ¶è‹¥ã�—ã��ã�¯æ¯�ã�®è� ·æ¥*å�Šã�³å�Žå…¥ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸
（ア）　在è�·è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰è�·æ¥*を証明ã�™ã‚ ‹ã‚‚ã�®
（イ）　ä½�民税å�ˆã�¯æ‰€å¾—税ã�®ç´�ç¨Žè¨¼æ˜ Žæ›¸ï¼Œæº�泉徴å�Žç¥¨ï¼Œç¢ºå®šç”³å‘Šæ›¸ã�®å†™ã�—
ã�®ã�„ã�šã‚Œã�‹ã�§ï¼Œå¹´é–“ã�®æ‰€å¾—å�Šã�³ç´�ç¨Žé¡ �を証ã�™ã‚‹ã‚‚ã�®
ウ　本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹å½“該日本人å�ˆã�¯ã� �ã�®ä»–本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹èº«å…ƒä¿�証人ã�®èº«å …ƒä¿�証書
入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–国人や日本人ã�®å‡ºå… ¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã�™ã‚‹å¤–å›½ä ººã�®
管ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé›£æ°‘ã�®èª�å® šå�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å‹™ã‚’è¡Œã�£ã �¦ã�„
��。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§å›½éš›åŒ–ã�Œé€²å±•ã�™ã‚‹ã�®ã�«ä¼´ã�„ï¼Œä ¸–ç•Œ
ã�®å›½ã€…ã�®äººã�Ÿã�¡ã�¨æ—¥æœ¬ã�¨ã�®çµ�ã�³ç›®ã�®å½ ¹å‰²ã‚’æžœã�Ÿã�™å‡ºå…¥å›½ç®¡ç�†è¡Œæ”¿ã�¯ï¼Œã�¾ã�™ã �¾ã�™
���も��������。
　入国管ç�†å±€ã�®äº‹å‹™ã‚’処ç�†ã�™ã‚‹ã�Ÿã‚�ï¼ Œã��ã�®æ–½è¨*ç*‰æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦å…¥å›½è€…å�Žå®¹æ‰€ï ¼ˆï¼“
ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œåœ°æ–¹å®Ÿæ–½æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦åœ°æ–¹å…¥å› ½ç®¡ç�†å±€ï¼ˆï¼˜ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œå�Œæ”¯å±€ï¼ˆï¼–ã�‹æ‰€ï ¼‰å�Š
ã�³å‡ºå¼µæ‰€ï¼ˆï¼–３ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ã�Œè¨*ç½®ã�•ã‚Œã�¦ã� „ã�¾ã�™ã€‚

Vous êtes de Trantor, de Wotex ou de Sark ?

Le Glaude galactique.

Le Glaude wrote:

kduc wrote:
snapdragon31 a écrit :

kduc, exactly. You must be the dumb that I am trying to find? The
first dumb did not understanding what he put down (i.e the
relationship between acceleration and feeling). Similarly, you have
no idea what you put down. Simply by looking at the equations
LiMn2O4, Li2MnO3 and Mn2O3, one can tell it is chemstry related.

（１）　入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–å›½äººã‚„æ—¥æœ ¬äººã�®å‡ºå…¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã �™ã‚‹
外国人ã�®ç®¡ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé› £æ°‘ã�®èª�定å�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å ‹™ã‚’
行�����。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§å›½éš›åŒ–ã�Œé€²å±•ã�™ã‚‹ã�®ã�«ä¼´ã�„ï¼Œä ¸–ç•Œ
ã�®å›½ã€…ã�®äººã�Ÿã�¡ã�¨æ—¥æœ¬ã�¨ã�®çµ�ã�³ç›®ã�®å½ ¹å‰²ã‚’æžœã�Ÿã�™å‡ºå…¥å›½ç®¡ç�†è¡Œæ”¿ã�¯ï¼Œã�¾ã�™ã �¾ã�™
���も��������。
　入国管ç�†å±€ã�®äº‹å‹™ã‚’処ç�†ã�™ã‚‹ã�Ÿã‚�ï¼ Œã��ã�®æ–½è¨*ç*‰æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦å…¥å›½è€…å�Žå®¹æ‰€ï ¼ˆï¼“
ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œåœ°æ–¹å®Ÿæ–½æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦åœ°æ–¹å…¥å› ½ç®¡ç�†å±€ï¼ˆï¼˜ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œå�Œæ”¯å±€ï¼ˆï¼–ã�‹æ‰€ï ¼‰å�Š
ã�³å‡ºå¼µæ‰€ï¼ˆï¼–３ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ã�Œè¨*ç½®ã�•ã‚Œã�¦ã� „ã�¾ã�™ã€‚日本人ã�®é…�å�¶è€…ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹å ´å�ˆ

ア　当該日本人ã�¨ã�®å©šå§»ã‚’証ã�™ã‚‹æ–‡æ› ¸å�Šã�³ä½�民票
（ア）　当該日本人ã�®æˆ¸ç±�è¬„æœ¬ï¼Œå©šå§ »å±Šå�—ç�†è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸å�ˆã�¯å©šå§»è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰ã�§å©š
姻�事実�記載��るも�
（イ）　当該日本人��民票
イ　当該外国人å�ˆã�¯ã��ã�®é…�å�¶è€…ã�®è�·æ¥ *å�Šã�³å�Žå…¥ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸
（ア）　在è�·è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰è�·æ¥*を証明ã�™ã‚ ‹ã‚‚ã�®
（イ）　ä½�民税å�ˆã�¯æ‰€å¾—税ã�®ç´�ç¨Žè¨¼æ˜ Žæ›¸ï¼Œæº�泉徴å�Žç¥¨ï¼Œç¢ºå®šç”³å‘Šæ›¸ã�®å†™ã�—
ã�®ã�„ã�šã‚Œã�‹ã�§ï¼Œå¹´é–“ã�®æ‰€å¾—å�Šã�³ç´�ç¨Žé¡ �を証ã�™ã‚‹ã‚‚ã�®
ウ　本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹å½“該日本人ã�®èº«å… ƒä¿�証書

（２）　日本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹èº«å…ƒä¿�è¨¼äº ºã�®èº«å…ƒä¿�証書
入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–国人や日本人ã�®å‡ºå… ¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã�™ã‚‹å¤–å›½ä ººã�®
管ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé›£æ°‘ã�®èª�å® šå�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å‹™ã‚’è¡Œã�£ã �¦ã�„
��。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§æœ¬äººã�®ç‰¹åˆ¥é¤Šå*�å�ˆã�¯å*�ã�§ã�‚ã‚‹å ´å�ˆ

ア　当該日本人ã�®æˆ¸ç±�謄本å�Šã�³å½“è©²å¤ –国人ã�®å‡ºç”Ÿè¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ã��ã�®ä»–ã�®è¦ªå*�関係㠂’証
�る文書
（ア）　当該日本人�戸�謄本
（イ）　当該外国人�出生証明書
（ウ）　両親ã�®å©šå§»ã�«ä¿‚ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ï¼Œèª �知ã�«ä¿‚る証明書，養å*�ç¸�組ã�«ä¿‚る証
明書ç*‰
イ　当該外国人å�ˆã�¯çˆ¶è‹¥ã�—ã��ã�¯æ¯�ã�®è� ·æ¥*å�Šã�³å�Žå…¥ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸
（ア）　在è�·è¨¼æ˜Žæ›¸ç*‰è�·æ¥*を証明ã�™ã‚ ‹ã‚‚ã�®
（イ）　ä½�民税å�ˆã�¯æ‰€å¾—税ã�®ç´�ç¨Žè¨¼æ˜ Žæ›¸ï¼Œæº�泉徴å�Žç¥¨ï¼Œç¢ºå®šç”³å‘Šæ›¸ã�®å†™ã�—
ã�®ã�„ã�šã‚Œã�‹ã�§ï¼Œå¹´é–“ã�®æ‰€å¾—å�Šã�³ç´�ç¨Žé¡ �を証ã�™ã‚‹ã‚‚ã�®
ウ　本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹å½“該日本人å�ˆã�¯ã� �ã�®ä»–本邦ã�«å±…ä½�ã�™ã‚‹èº«å…ƒä¿�証人ã�®èº«å …ƒä¿�証書
入国管ç�†å±€ã�¯ï¼Œå¤–国人や日本人ã�®å‡ºå… ¥å›½å¯©æŸ»ã‚’始ã‚�，日本ã�«åœ¨ç•™ã�™ã‚‹å¤–å›½ä ººã�®
管ç�†ï¼Œå¤–国人ã�®é€€åŽ»å¼·åˆ¶ï¼Œé›£æ°‘ã�®èª�å® šå�Šã�³å¤–国人登録ã�«é–¢ã�™ã‚‹äº‹å‹™ã‚’è¡Œã�£ã �¦ã�„
��。
　諸外国ã�¨ã�®äº¤æµ�ã�Œæ´»ç™ºåŒ–ã�—，幅広ã� „分野ã�§å›½éš›åŒ–ã�Œé€²å±•ã�™ã‚‹ã�®ã�«ä¼´ã�„ï¼Œä ¸–ç•Œ
ã�®å›½ã€…ã�®äººã�Ÿã�¡ã�¨æ—¥æœ¬ã�¨ã�®çµ�ã�³ç›®ã�®å½ ¹å‰²ã‚’æžœã�Ÿã�™å‡ºå…¥å›½ç®¡ç�†è¡Œæ”¿ã�¯ï¼Œã�¾ã�™ã �¾ã�™
���も��������。
　入国管ç�†å±€ã�®äº‹å‹™ã‚’処ç�†ã�™ã‚‹ã�Ÿã‚�ï¼ Œã��ã�®æ–½è¨*ç*‰æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦å…¥å›½è€…å�Žå®¹æ‰€ï ¼ˆï¼“
ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œåœ°æ–¹å®Ÿæ–½æ©Ÿé–¢ã�¨ã�—ã�¦åœ°æ–¹å…¥å› ½ç®¡ç�†å±€ï¼ˆï¼˜ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ï¼Œå�Œæ”¯å±€ï¼ˆï¼–ã�‹æ‰€ï ¼‰å�Š
ã�³å‡ºå¼µæ‰€ï¼ˆï¼–３ã�‹æ‰€ï¼‰ã�Œè¨*ç½®ã�•ã‚Œã�¦ã� „ã�¾ã�™ã€‚

Vous êtes de Trantor, de Wotex ou de Sark ?

Le Glaude galactique.

Heu....je....oui, c'est pas très lisible...j'ai....euh.... bizarre comme frappe....

VERIFIE QU'IL A PAS MIS SON CLAVIER A L'ENVERS !!!


R.H.