Fucking SR Morons
Richard
eh?
Matthew Lybanon
Paul Cardinale
> eh?
Translation:
"I'm too stupid to do the math correctly.
I can't accept that I'm not a genius.
In order to preserve my huge ego,
I must assert that anyone who can do the math is a moron."
Richard
Translation:
Paul resembles the initial remark:)
BTW, I do hold that any person who can do the math, 'and' who still
holds that it is consistent with reality, then that person is a moron.
No doubt about it.
A ship leaves the Earth, moves straight away from it at constant
velocity. Suddenly the ship comes to a stop wrt Earth. Which clock has
ticked slower, the ship clock or the Earth clock? What does
Hafele-Keating reveal on an empirical level?
Now assume that you live on a planetoid that, as far as you know, has
always been at rest in the very frame that the Earth-launched ship has
just accelerated into. Now what will be the result that you obtain with
SR, that is, when assuming your planetoid frame as proper frame? What
will you predict as the ticking rate of the ship clock relative to the
Earth clock upon the ship clock's return to Earth frame? Keep in mind
that for all you know the Earth and its entire Solar system were once a
chunk of your planetoid that blew off of its surface at some distant
time in the past. Will you not derive the result that in this case it
will be the Earth clock that ticked slower than the ship clock. Thus
either you admit that SR is necessarily empirically contradictory, or
you remain a moron for the remainder of your pathetic life.
In short: If you pick a proper frame and stay with it, then you can
derive till hell freezes over without encountering a mathematical
contradiction in SR. Problem is, even though you find internal
consistency of the math, you're going to get the wrong fucking answers.
The proof lies in the fact that you'll get different answers if you
chose a different proper frame. Thus you either proved the existence of
multiple universes, or you are a moron, take your pick.
Richard Perry
http:/www.cswnet.com/~rper
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> A ship leaves the Earth, moves straight away from it at constant
> velocity. Suddenly the ship comes to a stop wrt Earth. Which clock has
> ticked slower, the ship clock or the Earth clock? What does
> Hafele-Keating reveal on an empirical level?
>
> Now assume that you live on a planetoid that, as far as you know, has
> always been at rest in the very frame that the Earth-launched ship has
> just accelerated into. Now what will be the result that you obtain with
> SR, that is, when assuming your planetoid frame as proper frame? What
> will you predict as the ticking rate of the ship clock relative to the
> Earth clock upon the ship clock's return to Earth frame? Keep in mind
> that for all you know the Earth and its entire Solar system were once a
> chunk of your planetoid that blew off of its surface at some distant
> time in the past. Will you not derive the result that in this case it
> will be the Earth clock that ticked slower than the ship clock.
No, because the ship had to go approximately twice as fast as the earth
in order to get back to it. Thus, the ship's clock goes slower than the
earth's clocks.
Richard
No, the ship didn't have to get back to the planet, only to the planets
frame.
Richard Perry
Jon Bell
Crossposted and followups set to go there only, by default.]
In article <3F5257BF...@yahoo.com>,
Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>A ship leaves the Earth, moves straight away from it at constant
>velocity. Suddenly the ship comes to a stop wrt Earth. Which clock has
>ticked slower, the ship clock or the Earth clock? What does
>Hafele-Keating reveal on an empirical level?
Less time will elapse on the ship's clock, as determined by comparing the
ship's clock with clocks on the earth and at the destination, both of
which have been synchronized in their mutual reference frame (in which the
Earth and the destination are stationary).
>Now assume that you live on a planetoid that, as far as you know, has
>always been at rest in the very frame that the Earth-launched ship has
>just accelerated into. Now what will be the result that you obtain with
>SR, that is, when assuming your planetoid frame as proper frame?
Yes. All observers will agree that the spaceship had to change inertial
reference frames twice. Observers on the earth and at the destination
will observe that the ship had to accelerate from rest to cruising
velocity, then decelerate back to rest again. An observer in the
planetoid frame will observe that the ship was originally moving in his
reference frame, then decelerated to a stop, then accelerated back into
its original state of motion. An observer on the ship will observe that
he must have accelerated/decelerated at the beginning and end of his trip,
because he can feel the effects.
> What
>will you predict as the ticking rate of the ship clock relative to the
>Earth clock upon the ship clock's return to Earth frame? Keep in mind
>that for all you know the Earth and its entire Solar system were once a
>chunk of your planetoid that blew off of its surface at some distant
>time in the past.
What does that have to do with it?
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
ghytrfvbnmju7654
Then there is no way to compare the time on the ship with the time on
the planet. Remember that the idea of two events at different places
occuring at the same time is a relative concept. The beings of the
alien planet and the people of earth get different numbers for the year
on earth when the ship arrived at the alien planet, because saying it
is "now" a certain year on earth, when you are not on earth, is a
relative concept that depends on your reference frame.
By the way, are you familiar with Minkowski's interpretation of special
relativity? It allows one to derive all the strange formulas for time
dilation and other wierdness from basic geometry. And the concept of
different reference frames simplifies to literally looking at the
universe at a different angle. I found that when I studied it, it
cleared up much of the confusion I had about special relativity.
Dirk Van de moortel
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message news:cb623e6.03090...@posting.google.com...
Ask him to draw a spacetime diagram ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul Cardinale
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
> >
> > Richard <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3F4DA105...@yahoo.com>...
> > > eh?
> >
> > Translation:
> > "I'm too stupid to do the math correctly.
> > I can't accept that I'm not a genius.
> > In order to preserve my huge ego,
> > I must assert that anyone who can do the math is a moron."
>
> Translation:
> Paul resembles the initial remark:)
>
> BTW, I do hold that any person who can do the math, 'and' who still
> holds that it is consistent with reality, then that person is a moron.
> No doubt about it.
>
> A ship leaves the Earth, moves straight away from it at constant
> velocity. Suddenly the ship comes to a stop wrt Earth. Which clock has
> ticked slower, the ship clock or the Earth clock?
Here the dullard, richard perry, makes a ploy often used by crackpots:
he assumes that simulaneity is absolute. That assumption is in
conflict with SR. When one makes an assumption that is in conflict
with a theory,
one can easily draw the (false) conclusion that the theory is invalid.
(Note however that such logic is beyond the grasp of the richard
perry).
[remaining drooling blather snipped]
Paul Cardinale