Dingle and the Twins' Paradox (Tom and Paul Andersen are wrong)

[Koobee Wublee]

**** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
Lorentz transform is applied.

**** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors

In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
above two transforms can be simplified into the following.

1) dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

And

3) dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** B12 = - B21

Except for PD, anyone else disagree? <shrug>

Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. Does anyone disagree? And
why? <shrug>

**** Derivation 1: The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
years.

Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).

Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
following example):

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Where

** d[s22] = 0
** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
paradox in the Lorentz transform.

**** Derivation 2:

Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).

1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.

1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

Or

1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

**** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
accordance with the Euclidean geometry?

** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
valid.

** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
manifests the twins’ paradox.

<shrug>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I use constructive or synthetic spatial geometry,
with not necessarily any calculations.

only two observer-observees are needed,
that is to say a pair of age-corelated "twins"
of sufficiently similar metabolism,
to compare with the alleged dilation effects
that are apparently related to Doppler-Fizeau shifts
between them, per any accelerations.

stand back from the quadratic equations and
*qualify* your argument with a nice picture, please.

perhaps it is the case, as you note, that
the gedankenspiel does not consider the relatavistical
effects upon the "rods & cones" of the eye,
which are really "log-spiral antennae."

> scholars of physics say that derivation 1 is garbage, that
> it reflects a lack of understanding of Euclidean geometry
> among self-styled physicists.

[Tonico]

Idiot

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> Lorentz transform is applied.

This is how the transformation is to be applied to the twin
business:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
All it needs is some understanding of the variables in
the equations, and a tad of analytic geometry.

Near the end of his life Dingle had no understanding of either:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

Dirk Vdm

[Daryl McCullough]

On Monday, February 13, 2012 8:51:47 PM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[derivation skipped]

> 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.

You are confused. There is nothing contradictory about
that result. Notice that it does *not* say

dt11 = dt22/sqrt(1-B21^2)
dt22 = dt11/sqrt(1-B12^2)

That would be a contradiction. What you've written
is just a restatement of the symmetry between the
two frames: In the coordinates of one frame, the
clocks in the other frame are measured to run slow.

[Daryl McCullough]

The seeming "paradox" of mutual time dilation should be
compared with a similar paradox from good old Euclidean
planar geometry.

Suppose we have a Cartesian coordinate system (x,y), and we
consider a second coordinate system (x',y') obtained from the
first by rotating the x and y axes by an angle theta. The
relationship between coordinates is given by:

x' = (x + m y)/sqrt(1+m^2)
y' = (y - m x)/sqrt(1+m^2)

with the inverse

x = (x'-my')/sqrt(1+m^2)
y = (y'+mx')/sqrt(1+m^2)

where m = tan(theta) = slope of the x' axis as measured in the
original coordinate system.

Let's look at a particular case:

y=0

In this case, the transformation equation for x becomes:

x' = x/sqrt(1+m^2)

Notice that x' < x

Let's look at another case:

y' = 0, which means y = mx

In this case, the transformation equation for x becomes:

x' = (x + m^2 x)/sqrt(1+m^2)
= x sqrt(1+m^2)

In this case, x' > x.

So Euclidean geometry appears to be inconsistent.
You can derive both x' > x, and also x' < x.

It's easily understood once you realize that these
are two *different* cases, and they are mutually
exclusive. You can't have y=0 and y'=0 at the same
time (unless x and x' are also both zero).

The same thing is going on in the Lorentz transformation
for time:

t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

If you look at the case x=0, then you get:

t' = gamma t

So in this case, t' > t

If you look at the case x=vt, then you get:

t' = (t - v^2/c^2 t)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
= t sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

In this case, t' < t.

These two cases are mutually exclusive, except in the case x=t=x'=t'=0.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

ever since Dirac, we have known that
"atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"
that must be considered relativistically,"
mystical reification of Copenhagenskoolers, or not.

thus:
yeah, the Eemian;
most of the Confirmerists, as well as the Denierists,
really don't bother with "before our little Holocene --
we are then!"

> > Most likely it will rise more as the Greenland ice cap shrinks,
> > as it did in the previous interglacial (Eemian). Perhaps
> > up to 20 feet of additional sea level rise could be expected.

thus:
Morner was merely the president of a committee
of INQUA, devoted to paleoclimate & tide guages,
totally mainstream Quaternary Period studies.

> Morner is quack who believes in water dowsing.

thus:
that the Ptolemaic epicycles were always a hoax,
is manifest in the lack of a really big one,
for the precession of the equinoxes, and
I'm not a God-am Aquarius, either!

> in our universe, what you described never happened.

thus:
the guy who invented carbon-dating retired at my U,;
all of his stuff is probably there, but
I was told of this at a seminar by another Nobeliste
in chemistry, who developed a means of making fuel
from CO2 (say from a coalfired plant) and methane,
which is in commercial tryouts.

it's the oil company's that got the data;
whether or not they draw any obvious conclusion,
who knows, it will probably be in line with their Peack Oil analysis,
with which I must currently concur.

> Please give me an egrigeous source for carbon dating of oil.

thus:
this is a nice metastudy, as far
as retrospective statistics can go. I note that: a)
the nighttime warmth anomaly is duly noted & said to be
coherent with years of modeling; and that b)
there is no hypothesis given for that,
at least in this summary (meaning, perhaps,
it is just shoved into the models, ad hoc;
see _A Vast Machine_ MITPress 2011 .-)

thanks for not playing, folks -- again.

thus quoth:
record daily highs to record daily
lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations
in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950
through September 2009

[Koobee Wublee]

> 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)

> 2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** d[s22] = 0
> ** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c
>
> This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
> paradox in the Lorentz transform.
>
> **** Derivation 2:
>
> Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).
>
> 1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
> and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.
>
> 1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> Or
>

> 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.
>

> **** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
> applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
> accordance with the Euclidean geometry?
>
> ** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
> valid.
>
> ** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
> derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
> Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
> is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
> manifests the twins’ paradox.
>
> <shrug>

Only local village prostitutes are coming out in droves to perform lip
service for the self-styled physicists. As usual, when cornered, the
self-styled physicists just send the local village prostitutes out to
do lip service for them. It does not matter if these prostitutes do
not even know what they are talking about. <shrug>

Well, the mathematics presented is simple enough. You have to try to
be very stupid to not understand all that, but it can happen and has
happened many times already where each Einstein Dingleberry has a
little gospel of its own that allows no scientific method within.
Fvcking sad as usual, no? <shrug>

This thread will haunt the self-styled physicists and their local
village prostitutes in the times to come. <shrug>

[PD]

On 2/17/2012 2:47 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> Only local village prostitutes are coming out in droves to perform lip
> service for the self-styled physicists. As usual, when cornered, the
> self-styled physicists just send the local village prostitutes out to
> do lip service for them. It does not matter if these prostitutes do
> not even know what they are talking about.<shrug>
>
> Well, the mathematics presented is simple enough. You have to try to
> be very stupid to not understand all that, but it can happen and has
> happened many times already where each Einstein Dingleberry has a
> little gospel of its own that allows no scientific method within.
> Fvcking sad as usual, no?<shrug>
>
> This thread will haunt the self-styled physicists and their local
> village prostitutes in the times to come.<shrug>

[The angry drunk at the bar briefly regains consciousness, looks around,
hollers "Yer all mooks! I'll take all of ye on, a man at a time or all
together, no matter to me! Wassamatta, afraid to fight??" and then drops
his forehead onto the bar again in a stupor.]

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/13/12 7:51 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
> observed by the other as the observed.

Perhaps Koobee would benefit from a space-time diagram for the two
observers.
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif

> In the Earth frame of reference, time on the spaceship will be observed to pass more slowly than on the Earth due to time dilation. It may seem as if only a few years have past on the ship while decades pass on the Earth. So the twin of the astronaut waiting on the Earth expects the astronaut to be the much younger of the two upon return.
>
> In the spaceship frame of reference, it is the Earth that is moving at a very high speed so time on Earth will be observed to pass more slowly than on the spaceship. Decades will pass on the ship while only a few years pass on Earth. So the astronaut expects that the twin sibling waiting on the Earth to be the much younger of the two upon return.
>
> For the astronaut to return to the Earth, he/she must change direction and thereby switch from one inertial frame to another, and that breaks the symmetry between the two observers.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 17, 12:47 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is

> Perhaps Koobee would benefit from a space-time diagram for the two
> observers.
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif

No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
some time. Sam is indeed having his head in the clouds as usual.
<shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

PD has totally lost him mind in the discussion in physics, and now he
is totally confused. He is now ranting about some novel he has been
writing which nobody even cares. Is it about how a self-styled
physicist who now wants to be cowboy? No, it reads more like an
autobiography about himself. It is no wonder that his grandkids don’t
come to visit anymore. Sadly, he cannot even remember how many
grandkids he has. Let alone their names. Really fvcking sad in that
hospice! <shrug>

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/18/12 2:37 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
> some time. Sam is indeed having his head in the clouds as usual.
> <shrug>
>

Given the correctness of the space-time diagram showing the twin
paradox that I linked for YOU, Koobee, can you show one error? Any
error?

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 11:37 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> ever since Dirac, we have known that
> "atoms have internal (angular) momenta,"

You mean Ever since he imagined it...
Atoms don't rotate...

They have no orientation. Please show me where I am wrong by
measurement.

Please show us our atoms rotation...
Maybe you would want to make up a measurement of something
that has never been measured...?
It is only thought to be; but not.

Mitchell Raemsch; the Tripple Prize

[Daryl McCullough]

The meaning of coordinates for Special Relativity
(and for Galilean Relativity) is that they label
*events*. There is no pair of observers involved
intrinsically in a coordinate system. Instead, you
have an event, and you have a description of that
event in terms of the location and time that it
took place, where "location" and "time" are
described using tuples of real numbers.

The meaning of the Lorentz transformation
or the Galilean transformation is that it
relates two *different* coordinate descriptions
of the *same* event. Bringing in multiple
observers doesn't really make any sense; what's
relevant are: (1) multiple *coordinate systems*,
and (2) multiple *events*.

Now, of course you are free to associate a
coordinate system with an observer, if you
like, and you can also pick events that
take place at the observer, but fundamentally,
coordinates and coordinate transformations don't
have anything to do with observers.

So here's the Lorentz transformations,
simplified to one spatial dimension.

x' = (x - v t)/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
t' = (t - v x/c^2)/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

or the inverse equations:

x = (x' + v t')/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
t = (t' + v x'/c^2)/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

These two sets of equations have exactly the
same mathematical content--one set can be
derived from the other set. So it's just
a matter of convenience which ones you use.

Koobee wrote a number of conclusions that
can be derived using these transformation
equations. Correctly interpreted, they
*all* follow from the two equations,
and they don't contradict each other.

> 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> 2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)

In the more standard notation, this pair
of equations is

1) dt = dt'/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
2) dt' = dt square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

Of course, 2 is redundant--it just repeats
the information in 1)

Anyway, the meaning of this pair of equations
is this: Let e_1 and e_2 be two events taking
place at the same location, according to the
primed coordinate system. That is, in terms
of coordinates, if e_1 has coordinates (x_1', t_1'),
and e_2 has coordinates (x_2',t_2'), then
x_1' = x_2', so delta(x') = x_2' - x_1' = 0.

In that particular case, then we find that
(using the inverse equations):

delta(t) = (delta(t') + v/c^2 delta(x'))/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
= delta(t')/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

which is Koobee's equation 1).

On the other hand, if we choose two events
e_3 and e_4 that take place at the same location,
according to the *unprimed* coordinate system,
then we get a different equation: Using the
first set of transformation equations:

delta(t') = (delta(t) - v/c^2 delta(x))/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

In this case, delta(x) = 0, so we have

delta(t') = delta(t)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

The two results, the first saying delta(t) = delta(t')/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2),
and the second saying delta(t') = delta(t)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) are talking
about *different* pairs of events. For the pair of events

e_1, e_2

we have

delta(x') = 0
delta(t') = delta(t) sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

For the pair of events

e_3, e_4

we have

delta(x) = 0
delta(t) = delta(t') sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

The two results are only contradictory if you ignore
the spatial-depenence in the transformations for relating
t and t'. t and t' are *not* multiples of each other. t'
depends on *both* t and x. delta(t') depends on *both*
delta(t) and delta(x). In the case in which delta(x) = 0,
you get a *different* relationship between delta(t) and
delta(t') than in the case in which delta(x) is nonzero.

It's really analogous to transformations between rotated
coordinate systems in Euclidean geometry:

x' = (x + m y)/sqrt(1+m^2)
y' = (y - m x)/sqrt(1+m^2)

The transformation for x' depends on both x and y.
The transformation for y' depends on both x and y.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:37:50 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
> some time.

I would say it has no followers. There's nothing to follow--it's just
a way of visualizing the relationships implicit in the Lorentz
transformations. Like the use of any drawings as calculational aids
in mathematics or science, you have to understand what it means, and
then you can see that it's completely equivalent to the usual purely
algebraic treatment. Some people do better with diagrams.

[oriel36]

On Feb 19, 1:20 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> The meaning of coordinates for Special Relativity
> (and for Galilean Relativity) is that they label
> *events*. There is no pair of observers involved
> intrinsically in a coordinate system. Instead, you
> have an event, and you have a description of that
> event in terms of the location and time that it
> took place, where "location" and "time" are
> described using tuples of real numbers.
>

What Isaac Newton did was create a hypothetical observer on the Sun to
account for apparent retrogrades -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

It may appear correct but no such symmetry between observation of
retrogrades and their resolution requires a shift to a different view
or 'coordinate system' if you like and you simply cannot understand
Newton's absolute/relative space and motion without going through that
statement above as he is quite forthright about it when it comes to
his agenda -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

If your intention is just to dance around trying to sound like you
know what Isaac was doing then be my guest but anyone who accepts that
retrogrades are an illusion seen from a moving Earth is more than half
way to understanding what Isaac was actually trying to do -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Absolute/relative time is actually tied to the space and motion
definitions in a twisted sort of way but this assumes there are
actually people willing to engage in a type of forensics that clears
up the matter once and for all,sadly I haven;t seen anything close to
that and not even when common sense and modern imaging intervenes and
demonstrates where Isaac falls short.

[Daryl McCullough]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:35:07 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:20 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > The meaning of coordinates for Special Relativity
> > (and for Galilean Relativity) is that they label
> > *events*. There is no pair of observers involved
> > intrinsically in a coordinate system. Instead, you
> > have an event, and you have a description of that
> > event in terms of the location and time that it
> > took place, where "location" and "time" are
> > described using tuples of real numbers.
> >
>
> What Isaac Newton did was create a hypothetical observer
> on the Sun to account for apparent retrogrades-

It doesn't actually make any sense to call the sun an "observer".
What he was actually doing was choosing a coordinate system in
which the sun is at rest in the center. The coordinate
system in which the Earth is at rest is a noninertial
coordinate system, and Newton's laws of motion don't
easily describe such a situation.

(There is a way to formulate Newton's laws so that they can
be used in any coordinate system, inertial or not, but in
their simplest form, they only apply to an inertial coordinate
system.)

[oriel36]

On Feb 19, 3:39 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:35:07 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 1:20 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The meaning of coordinates for Special Relativity
> > > (and for Galilean Relativity) is that they label
> > > *events*. There is no pair of observers involved
> > > intrinsically in a coordinate system. Instead, you
> > > have an event, and you have a description of that
> > > event in terms of the location and time that it
> > > took place, where "location" and "time" are
> > > described using tuples of real numbers.
>
> > What Isaac Newton did was create a hypothetical observer
> > on the Sun to account for apparent retrogrades-
>
> It doesn't actually make any sense to call the sun an "observer".

I don't really have time for this,Newton assumes an observer on Earth
sees apparent planetary retrogrades while a separate observer on the
Sun would see the planets moving directly ,while this may be true it
is a technical non sequitur as the whole point of retrograde
resolution is that they are merely an artifact seen from of a moving
Earth hence his statement is adrift of the main arguments for the
Earth's orbital motion.This issue comes under forensics as it explains
what absolute/relative space and motion mean under Isaac's scheme -

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some
movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses
determine by its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for
immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an
æreal, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of
the earth. Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and
magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same."
Newton, Principia

http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm

It is when you throw in the Ra/Dec system or 'fixed stars' that the
whole thing becomes clear but this assumes there are people interested
in what Isaac was actually aiming for.

> What he was actually doing was choosing a coordinate system in
> which the sun is at rest in the center. The coordinate
> system in which the Earth is at rest is a noninertial
> coordinate system, and Newton's laws of motion don't
> easily describe such a situation.
>

Even to this day they assume Kepler's depiction of the motions of Mars
is geocentric when it isn't and this is hugely relevant to Newton's
agenda and especially when it comes to resolving retrogrades and,by
association,Newton's idiosyncratic use of absolute/relative space and
motion .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Newton assumes if you place the Sun at the center the retrogrades
disappear,like so -

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/cosmicengine/images/cosmoimg/copernicusmodel.gif


The motion of the Earth is included in the resolution for retrogrades
hence the need for an observer on the Sun is disruptive for Kepler
himself explains his diagram depicting the simultaneous motion of the
Earth and Mars and there is no problem turning his statement towards
modern imaging and coming up with the same conclusion -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the
earth,entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate
coils,leading the individual planets into their respective
orbits,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram [see above], Mars traverses one and the same
orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
center,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler commenting on his
diagram

It is dramatic with contemporary imaging of the Earth overtaking Mars
just as Kepler states apparent retrogrades and how they are resolved -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html

> (There is a way to formulate Newton's laws so that they can
> be used in any coordinate system, inertial or not, but in
> their simplest form, they only apply to an inertial coordinate
> system.)

It really gets complicated from here and especially in trying to
switch from relative to absolute space and motion using the Ra/Dec
system -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun. This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is
now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun
revolves about the earth.." Newton

I am not an empiricist so I am not arguing against Newton but rather
providing the picture he is looking at and probably,if you could make
sense of what I am saying,get glimpses that Newton references do not
stack up to either contemporary imaging or the original methods and
insights of Copernicus and Kepler.You may not care but you truly
should as Newton is still dictating the agenda to this day regardless
of what fuss surrounds the early 20th century ideologies.

[shuba]

oreo36 wrote:

> I am not an empiricist

You are a total loon. Your bizarre astronomical misconceptions have
nothing to do with relativity, or even Newtonian physics for that
matter. Some revealing comments from the insane Gerald Kelleher can
be found in the comments to a blog, e.g.:

"As a Christian I have fought through the newsgroups for
many years to call attention to this unconscionable
situation where the planetary facts were lost through a
number of errors that happened in the late 17th century."

"Ultimately God is good,despite the severity of the error
which even Christians have yet to discover,it puts a stop
to this ideology that science is one thing and
Christianity is something else for even at the time of
Copernicus,astronomy was a valuable facet of Christian
faith displaying how intelligent and creative we are in
that faith."

http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/05/from-heretic-to-hero-another-revolution-for-copernicus.html

What a loon!


---Tim Shuba---

[Uwe Hayek]

On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> Lorentz transform is applied.

I beg to differ.

There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.

Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
constitutes a Preferential Frame.

If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.

Basically, this is applied General Relativity.

First, the stationary clock rate, or the inertial field, is set by the
masses surrounding it, the mass distribution.

Then, if a clock moves with respect to this field, it runs even slower,
as determined by the gamma factor. This effectively makes relativity an
absolute theory.

Paradox solved, Dingle Happy, Einstein Happy. Except for SR-ians who
cannot understand absolute speeds. Eventually, they will die out.

Resistance to Inertial Theory is useless.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 2/14/2012 9:26 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Koobee Wublee<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
>> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
>> Lorentz transform is applied.
>
> This is how the transformation is to be applied to the twin
> business:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
> All it needs is some understanding of the variables in
> the equations,

ROTFL

> and a tad of analytic geometry.

Ok, you got a big car, so why you don't just drive it ?

In the mean "time" I am gonna sell 20 million books and order a jet.

That is what you get if you choose for the truth....

Uwe Hayek.

[Androcles]

"Uwe Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4f413c9a$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

| On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
| > **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
| > between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
| > Lorentz transform is applied.
|
| I beg to differ.
|
| There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.
|
| Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
| constitutes a Preferential Frame.
|
| If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.

Instead of one second per second it runs at the higher speed of
one second per second.
You are insane, Hayek.

[Dono.]

On Feb 19, 10:14 am,EXTREME CRANK Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>
> Paradox solved, Dingle Happy, Einstein Happy. Except for SR-ians who
> cannot understand absolute speeds. Eventually, they will die out.
>
> Resistance to Inertial Theory is useless.
>
> Uwe Hayek.

LOL

[oriel36]

> http://blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2010/05/from-heretic-to-hero-a...

>
> What a loon!
>
>          ---Tim Shuba---

You interrupted a technical issue and that is not cool.

Newton was an Arian and his work more or less is consistent with that
belief unlike his followers who seemingly are intent in airbrushing
the man's comments on what he perceives as God and his creation.He is
forthright here as he is with everything else and his Christian views
are important to him as his technical perspectives and the same
applies here and now.There are too many weak minded people who can't
make sense of intuitive issues and especially the background of
faith,not as something that is guessed by the mind but felt by the
heart.You should read Newton's views on Christianity as they reflect
his agenda to a large extent but if it anything,it is not mediocre. -

"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as
Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called
Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word,
and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not
over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of
the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal,
infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without
dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God,
the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not
say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of
Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles
which have no respect to servants. The word God1 usually signifies
Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual
being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion
makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it
follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful
Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most
perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that
is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from
infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that
are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and
infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.
He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing
always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every
particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration
is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be
never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in
different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the
same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration,
co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the
person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be
found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a
thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole
life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God,
always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also
substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him2
are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God
suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance
from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme
God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always,
and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all
brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but
in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a
manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours,
so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives
and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily
figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor
ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal
thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of
any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and
colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward
surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their
inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any
reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the
substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent
contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his
perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his
dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without
dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and
Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same
always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that
diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times
and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being
necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to
speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to
rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all
our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain
similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And
thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of
things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." Newton

http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

[shuba]

oreo36 wrote:

> You interrupted a technical issue and that is not cool.

First, no one is forcing you to read or respond to me. Second, your
technical knowledge of physics is virtually nonexistent. You are
seriously deranged and have failed miserably to convince *anyone*
else of your delusions about planetary dynamics with your campaign
of incoherent usenet spam. I just provided some of your own quotes
for others to marvel at and see where you are coming from.


---Tim Shuba---

[oriel36]

To summarize the important elements of 'observers' in Newton's system
after that rude interruption.

The core principles of Newton's absolute/relative space are entirely
astronomical and,unfortunately,totally idiosyncratic.He did not seem
to intentionally seek to diminish the main arguments for retrograde
resolution by creating a hypothetical observer on the Sun when it does
not require any other resolution than retrogrades are an illusion
created by the Earth's orbital motion and the retrograde 'loops' are
not intrinsic to the planets as previously thought by the astronomers
prior to Copernicus -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html

The background stars which play a huge role in empirical thinking rely
on Flamsteed's poor Ra/Dec conclusion for planetary dynamics so Isaac
Newton uses the right ascension/stellar circumpolar framework to
create a common bond between his absolute/relative space and motion -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean

distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is

now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same,
and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun

revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

[Uwe Hayek]

A clock does not measure 'time'.

Time was never correctly defined by anyone.

A clock measures inertia.

Inertia is variable, just like voltage.

A voltmeter always measures one volt, provided you measure a voltage
source of one volt.

If you put an inertiameter next to another one, in other words a clock
next to a clock, then they are in the same inertial field strength and
thus measure the same inertia. It so happens that on the Earth's sea
level the inertial field strength is about everywhere the same. Thus
clocks run everywhere the same on Earth's sea level.

Look at it as a voltage potential, it is an inertial potential.

If there is a gravitational force, you have a difference in inertia.

It is tremendously easy to see, but it does not plea for the
intelligence of this ng, that they simple are unable to grasp this.

I guess this is how it always worked, great ideas were always rejected
and ridiculed.

Uwe Hayek.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 12:59 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Uwe Hayek"<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl>  wrote in message

> Uwe Hayek.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A clock measures time for moving parts...

[Uwe Hayek]

Correct. And moving is governed by inertia.

That is why a clock is so useful for determining the motion of moving
parts. The clock measures and integrates the inertia that govern the
moving parts.

Of course, some people prefer non physical explanations, like little
green fairies or worldlines to govern clock speed.


Uwe Hayek.

[oriel36]

On Feb 19, 8:59 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Uwe Hayek"<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl>  wrote in message

> >news:4f413c9a$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
> > | On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > |>  ****  Introduction:  So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
> > |>  between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> > |>  Lorentz transform is applied.
> > |
> > | I beg to differ.
> > |
> > | There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.
> > |
> > | Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
> > | constitutes a Preferential Frame.
> > |
> > | If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.
>
> > Instead of one second per second it runs at the higher speed of
> > one second per second.
> > You are insane, Hayek.
>
> A clock does not measure 'time'.
>
> Time was never correctly defined by anyone.
>
> A clock measures inertia.
>

A clock doesn't measure anything,it sets a standard pace and the main
topic is discovering what exactly that pace corresponds to.The
fundamental unit of time is not the second,minute,hour,day or year,the
fundamental unit of time is a proportion between the two main
dynamical cycles of the Earth where 1461 rotations for 4 orbital
circuits reduces to 365 1/4 to 1 orbital circuit.The AM/PM
designations which straddle the natural noon cycles and the clock AM/
PM cycles are central to discovering the steady pace of a hand
sweeping across the face of a watch keeping pace with the daily cycle
of the Earth.

The core empirical ideology based on right ascension reasoning sets
the pace of the clock to stellar circumpolar motion or 'inertial
space' as you guys call it,in short,setting the pace of a clock to a
rotating celestial sphere was a particularly poor conclusion -

... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical [constant/steady]... " John Flamsteed

He was looking at this geometry which should be as unsightly and
unacceptable to any reader here in this 13 second time lapse footage -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

If you set the pace of a watch to that then forget
astronomy ,planetary dynamics and everything else because ultimately
that is what Newton's absolute/relative time,space and motion dissolve
into.In the race to the bottom that goes on here day in and day out,it
takes nothing to turn this around and begin to reason as men should.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 19, 1:26 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

If time is immaterial it flows over energy substance...
This is still physicality.

[Androcles]

"Uwe Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message

news:4f416341$0$6882$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

| On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
| > "Uwe Hayek"<hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
| > news:4f413c9a$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
| > | On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
| > |> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
| > |> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
| > |> Lorentz transform is applied.
| > |
| > | I beg to differ.
| > |
| > | There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.
| > |
| > | Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
| > | constitutes a Preferential Frame.
| > |
| > | If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.
| >
| > Instead of one second per second it runs at the higher speed of
| > one second per second.
| > You are insane, Hayek.
|
| A clock does not measure 'time'.

Yeah, and a speedometer doesn't measure speed and
an odometer or ruler doesn't measure distance and a
bathroom scale doesn't measure weight. As I said,
you are insane, Hayek. Still, as long as you are harmless
you can stay out of the funny farm.

[Uwe Hayek]

Honey, the 'celestial motions' you keep referring to, what do you think
drives them ?

Newton figured it out some 300 years ago. It is called Newton's Law of
inertia.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 2/19/2012 10:33 PM, oriel36 wrote:

> On Feb 19, 8:59 pm, Uwe Hayek<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Uwe Hayek"<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:4f413c9a$0$6862$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>>> | On 2/14/2012 2:51 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> |> **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
>>> |> between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
>>> |> Lorentz transform is applied.
>>> |
>>> | I beg to differ.
>>> |
>>> | There is a third way, neither SR ian or Dingle.
>>> |
>>> | Call it the Machian Way, were the mass distribution of the Universe
>>> | constitutes a Preferential Frame.
>>> |
>>> | If a clock is stationary wrt this frame it runs at the highest speed.
>>
>>> Instead of one second per second it runs at the higher speed of
>>> one second per second.
>>> You are insane, Hayek.
>>
>> A clock does not measure 'time'.
>>
>> Time was never correctly defined by anyone.
>>
>> A clock measures inertia.
>>
>
> A clock doesn't measure anything,

Then try to build an inertiameter, just to figure out if inertia is
variable.

Uwe Hayek.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> Uwe Hayek.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why is the beginning of motion weighted?
We can take advantage of it to detect motion
at its beginning...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Daryl McCullough]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:38:48 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:

> I don't really have time for this

Then don't do it.

[oriel36]

On Feb 19, 11:16 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 11:38:48 AM UTC-5, oriel36 wrote:
> > I don't really have time for this
>
> Then don't do it.

Remember now,Newton's jumping from relative to absolute space and
motion via the false resolution of retrogrades contrasts sharply with
astronomical principles and the work of the great astronomers and it
appears you and your colleagues understand neither and that is fair
enough.For all his distortions and maneuvering,at least Isaac is
interesting up to a point,what came afterwards is merely chimpanzees
jumping up and down on his account,no offence.

[oriel36]

Honey indeed !,what you are really asking is why they linked the pace
of the hands of a clock with a stellar circumpolar observation using
the 24 hour day within the calendar system where the 1461 rotations in
4 years is formatted as 3 years of 365 X 24 hour days and 1 year of
366 x 24 hour days.It should give you an idea of how poor the
conclusion Flamsteed drew relates to the 4 orbital circuits of the
Earth.

The Equation of Time format by which the 1461 natural noon cycles
transfer to the 1461 AM/PM cycles of a clock retain the natural
equivalency of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit.There is no
external reference for the rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours but
seeing you guys are convinced that the pace of a clock hand matches
stellar circumpolar motion and from there into constant rotation of
the Earth,you get what you pay for.

> Newton figured it out some 300 years ago. It is called Newton's Law of
> inertia.
>

You are all running around inside a labyrinth Isaac created for you
and it is a sight to behold.It is extremely unhealthy yet you all seem
happy enough with a collective form of autism that center around an
attempt to overlay the Ra/Dec system on top of the normal Lat/Long
system which contains all the components parts to set all the issues
straight.

Newton figured out nothing,he tried to bump up experimental sciences
directly to planetary dynamics by making it appear that the Ra/Dec
system which is a convenience that predicts things like lunar and
solar eclipses within the 365/366 day calendar system acts a bridge
between experimental sciences and the motions and structure of the
celestial arena.

You carry with you a chain and not a treasure for the more all of you
try to sound different,the more you all sound the same in a race to
the bottom.My business has been to present the picture both Flamsteed
and Newton were looking at,not to argue the merits of ideologies that
do not really have any other than intellectual greed and ,in
Flamsteed's case,astronomical incompetence in terms of planetary
dynamics.



> Uwe Hayek.

[shuba]

oreo36 wrote:

> To summarize the important elements of 'observers' in Newton's
> system after that rude interruption.

Listen up, you psychotic nitwit, what's rude is to change a thread
title back to one with people's names you don't intend to address.
What's rude is to post more of your steaming shit which ignores the
subject of this group. You don't care about being rude or exposing
yourself as woefully ignorant of Newtonian physics, relativity,
astronomy, and basic geometry in general, because you think you're
on some mission from God. You are NUTS.


---Tim Shuba---

[palsing]

On Feb 19, 3:33 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:>

>,,, what you are really asking is why they linked the pace

> of the hands of a clock with a stellar circumpolar observation

Don't be an idiot. No one anywhere has ever suggested such a thing.
The hands of 24-hour clock are unrelated to the sidereal day, and you
have been told this over and over again. UNRELATED. Is an Australian
dollar the same as a Canadian dollar? They are both dollars but they
are not the same thing. One can be expressed in terms of the other,
but they are not equivalent. The 24 day is not the same a a sidereal
day, they, too, are not equivalent. Get over it already.

[Androcles]

"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c04530d5-4fb4-4402...@f30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 19, 3:33 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:>

>,,, what you are really asking is why they linked the pace
> of the hands of a clock with a stellar circumpolar observation

Don't be an idiot.

============================
Aww, c'mon. That's like saying "Don't have two nostrils in your nose",
it's not something he can do anything about.

[oriel36]

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical [constant/steady]... " John Flamsteed

The superficial view of 'clocks measure time', and they are a great
convenience for practical purposes,hardly compares to what they
actually do as machines whether a water clock,a pendulum clock or an
atomic clock in maintaining a steady pace.

Flamsteed's statement is unique in that it is the first time a human
being tried to model the Earth's motions using a clock or to be more
precise,using the 24 hour day in tandem with the 365/366 day calendar
format.The short answer is that the return of a star in stellar
circumpolar motion cannot provide a basis for daily rotation and the
parent principles which create the 24 hour day rely on a close
approximation,at least to the nearest rotation,of 1461 rotations in
1461 days insofar as the AM/PM designations straddle the natural noon
cycles and the average 24 hour cycles.

I am not in a race to jump off an intellectual cliff as most here seem
eager to do and that means personal insults mean nothing for
ultimately when faced with something as basic as a proportion between
two distinct motions,in this case the 1461 rotations as distinct from
4 orbital circuits,people would choose to insult themselves by not
following proper principles.As February 29th approaches as the 1461st
rotation closing out 4 orbital circuits,the 1/4 rotation's worth of
orbital motion omitted each non leap year is picked up by an extra
rotation of February 29th thereby keeping the proportion of rotations
fixed close enough to the orbital points of the Solstices and
Equinoxes.

By attempting to set the pace of a clock to stellar circumpolar motion
and daily rotation in the late 17th century,an unsightly and
unacceptable 1465 rotations/1461 days imbalance was enforced as a
principle so this is the major issue and not the enormous wordplay
surrounding relativity.And there I leave it.

[Uwe Hayek]

The hands of the clock can be adjusted to anything. The measuring of the
inertial field takes place were the clocks measures the acceleration,
with the escapement or the pendulum.

The inertial field, cast upon us by the universe, constantly increases
as more masses come into gravitational contact with us.

This causes the Earth to rotate slower on its axis, to circle closer to
the sun, but also for the Earth and the Sun to shrink. Just so that
there is no way for us the measure it locally, just as relativity
predicts it. But this only works for object who are in some form of
attraction to another, like gravitational or electronic orbital. It
stops working when gravitation gets to little, at the edges of the galaxies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

This is also the reason that far away galaxies seemingly speed away from
us, as we both shrink, but there is no gravitational attraction and
corresponding rotation to hold us together.

And there is no way you can correlate any clock in a linear way with the
anomalous perihelion precession of mercury, for instance. Or if you did,
that clock would not run in check with your other celestial motions.

Your clock synchronization with celestial mechanics only works if you
stay within almost constant inertial field strength. And the inertial
field of the universe is a billion times stronger than the inertial
fields of the celestial bodies you are dealing with.

Did you know that the typical keplerian motion, completely breaks down
in the vicinity of a black hole ? Since the inertia generated by a black
hole starts to compete with the inertia generated by the universe,
keplerian orbits no longer apply.

The problem you mention, is the mapping of the two Earth's rotations, on
itself and around the sun, in order to keep the seasons correct.

The Earth's rotation is not perfectly inertial, it has a frictional
component from tidal motion. So it also slows down a little.

Also, a clock which is positioned a little higher than another wrt the
Earths surface, will run faster.

So what a clock measures is the inertial field strength. Your celestial
motions are nothing more that giant clocks measuring the inertial field
they plow through. The fact that we must keep our clocks in check with
our farmers who have to seed their fields in spring, has very little to
do with what a clock actually measures.

Uwe Hayek.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 5:40 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> By attempting to set the pace of a clock to stellar circumpolar motion
> and daily rotation in the late 17th century,an unsightly and
> unacceptable 1465 rotations/1461 days imbalance was enforced as a
> principle so this is the major issue and not the enormous wordplay
> surrounding relativity.And there I leave it.

Somehow, I cannot believe that you, Gerald, will "leave it" --
the observation that the earth revolves 1464.9688 times in 4
astronomical years.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 5:40 AM, oriel36 wrote:

> By attempting to set the pace of a clock to stellar circumpolar motion
> and daily rotation in the late 17th century,an unsightly and
> unacceptable 1465 rotations/1461 days imbalance was enforced as a
> principle so this is the major issue and not the enormous wordplay

> surrounding relativity. *And there I leave it*.

There are 366.242199 sidereal days in one astronomical year
and 365.242199 solar days in on astronomical year. Notice
the difference is one day per year as is expected. :-o

[oriel36]

On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> So what a clock measures is the inertial field strength. Your celestial
> motions are nothing more that giant clocks measuring the inertial field
> they plow through. The fact that we must keep our clocks in check with
> our farmers who have to seed their fields in spring, has very little to
> do with what a clock actually measures.
>
>

The great society which has the first written account of the 1461 day
calendar format of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days also
demonstrates the use of the stellar background as a gauge,not stellar
circumpolar motion as contemporaries use ,but the seasonal return of
one particular star - Sirius.

"..on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis
(Sirius) by one day in the course of 4 years... it shall be, that the
year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as
feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from this day
after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New Year,
whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the
order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which
are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are
now corrected and improved .." Canopus Decree

When Flamsteed tried to use Sirius in stellar circumpolar motion,he
locked you all into the 365/366 day format whereas the Egyptians are
correctly identifying that after 4 years of 365 days,Sirius will have
advanced by one day hence the extra day to keep the festivals fixed to
the orbital points of the solstices and equinoxes.It is a complicated
process to take this information and then translate it into 1461
rotations for 4 orbital circuits where it is then possible to see
where the 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance is creating havoc.

Don't wait for some spectacular show of collective exasperation as
what was born of mediocrity ends the same way.To think that a simple
mechanical device could create so much havoc yet unfortunately is
happened and is still happening.Again,best to leave it be,at least
here in this forum.

[PD]

On Feb 18, 2:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:47 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > ****  Introduction:  So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
> > > between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> > > Lorentz transform is applied.
>

> > > ****  Background:  To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
> > > at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
> > > observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4).  Writing down the
> > > Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
> > > where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
> > > respectively.  Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
> > > transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.
>
> > > 1)  dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 2)  dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > And
>
> > > 3)  dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 4)  dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Where
>
> > > **  [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
> > > **  [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
> > > **  [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors
>
> > > In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
> > > above two transforms can be simplified into the following.
>
> > > 1)  dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 2)  dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > And
>
> > > 3)  dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 4)  dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Where
>
> > > **  B12 = - B21
>
> > > Except for PD, anyone else disagree?  <shrug>
>
> > > Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
> > > observed by the other as the observed.  Thus, it is a matter of
> > > writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
> > > the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2.  Does anyone disagree?  And
> > > why?  <shrug>
>
> > > ****  Derivation 1:  The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
> > > Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
> > > years.
>
> > > Step 1:  Discard equations 3) and 4).
>
> > > Step 2:  Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
> > > following example):
>
> > > 1)  dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 2)  dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Or
>
> > > 1)  dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 2)  dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Where
>
> > > **  d[s22] = 0
> > > **  d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c
>
> > > This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
> > > paradox in the Lorentz transform.
>
> > > ****  Derivation 2:
>
> > > Step 1:  Discard equations 2) and 3).
>
> > > 1)  dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 4)  dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Step 2:  Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
> > > and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.
>
> > > 1)  dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 4)  dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > Or
>
> > > 1)  dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > > 4)  dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > > In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.
>
> > > ****  Discussion:  Which derivation is valid according to the
> > > applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
> > > accordance with the Euclidean geometry?
>
> > > **  Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
> > > valid.
>
> > > **  Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
> > > derivation 1 is garbage.  It reflects lack of understanding in the
> > > Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists.  Thus, derivation 2
> > > is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
> > > manifests the twins’ paradox.
>
> > > <shrug>
>
> >    Perhaps Koobee would benefit from a space-time diagram for the two
> >    observers.
> >      http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
> >      http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif
>
> No, the spacetime diagram has not too many serious followers for quite
> some time.  Sam is indeed having his head in the clouds as usual.
> <shrug>

Translation:
KW: "I can't follow the spacetime diagram, therefore it is
dismissible. Since it is dismissible, it cannot possibly be of
importance or value. Since it cannot possibly be of importance or
value, then it cannot be in use by many people."

[oriel36]

On Feb 20, 3:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/12 5:40 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > By attempting to set the pace of a clock to stellar circumpolar motion
> > and daily rotation in the late 17th century,an unsightly and
> > unacceptable 1465 rotations/1461 days imbalance was enforced as a
> > principle so this is the major issue and not the enormous wordplay
> > surrounding relativity.And there I leave it.
>
>    Somehow, I cannot believe that you, Gerald,  will "leave it" --

I have already done so in sci.astro.amateur where most of this was
worked out.

>    the observation that the earth revolves 1464.9688 times in 4
>    astronomical years.

You have February 29th approaching which closes out the 4 orbital
circuits of the Earth as both the 1461st day and the 1461st rotation
as both rotations and days are synonymous,if you have any doubt then
check the temperature rise and falls within that 24 hour period on the
29th of this month to affirm the balance between days and rotations.

You will face your students next Wednesday week and inform them that
the Earth will complete almost 4 orbital circuits by the end of the
day from a beginning 4 years earlier on March 1st 2008.You may inform
them that the original astronomers started with 1461 days in 4 years
which leads to a trivial reduction to 365 1/4 days per year hence you
start at the view which allows a steady progression of 1461 days
rather than try to start from 365 1/4 days and build up from there.

It is not so easy to convert the 1461 days/4 years into 1461 rotations/
4 orbital circuits yet the physical considerations of cause and effect
between day/night cycles and daily temperature fluctuations bind the
correspondence if not by the AM/PM designations themselves which tie
natural noon to clock noon or the unequal length of the day from noon
to noon as opposed to the equal length of the 24 hour day and the
steady progression of these days.

Never thought it would have gone on a decade but then again the issues
are many and important however the substance of empiricism as it now
stands has all but evaporated unless jumping up and down like
chimpanzees constitutes serious investigations of celestial and
terrestrial affairs.Don't doubt the dismay of coming here to provide
an explanation as to why the Earth turns once in a day and turns 10000
times in 10000 days but mark well that the original mistake was made
an astronomer Flamsteed and not a mathematician like Newton.

An erosion of the intellectual fabric of Western civilization was
inevitable with something as ridiculous as 1465 rotations in 4 years
lurking in the background and basically mocking everything you care
about.I can claim sanctuary among a really old and dignified
astronomical heritage but choose to come here and remind
mathematicians that the rules,methods and insights of astronomy are
much older than the errant child which is empiricism and especially
Newton's toxic strain.

[palsing]

On Feb 19, 9:11 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "palsing" <pnals...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Well, you got me there. I forgot he is completely unteachable...

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 20, 8:13 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Translation:
> KW: "I can't follow the spacetime diagram, therefore it is
> dismissible. Since it is dismissible, it cannot possibly be of
> importance or value. Since it cannot possibly be of importance or
> value, then it cannot be in use by many people."

PD is clueless. He needs to translate everything, and every
translation done by him is just wrong. In the meantime, it is a fact
and not a translation that PD does not even understand the Galilean
transform. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

> There is no pair of observers involved
> intrinsically in a coordinate system.
>
> [rest of garbage snipped]

These Einstein Prostitutes are so stupid and getting very desperate.
The self-styled physicists cannot even hire smarter prostitutes to do
their lip service. What’s up with that? Most likely, they have the
same low level of intelligence. Calling himself a physicist but not
understanding the simple Galilean transform is embarrassing enough for
them, right? No, they still don’t know that they do not even
understand the Galilean transform. Just fvcking sad. <shrug>

Let’s explore more psychological issue of not knowing the basic laws
of physics as a physicist. When you finally wakes up, do you lament
and publicly condone your mistake, or do you continue to keep silent
and hopefully all others would do the same? After all, nothing can be
more embarrassing when you are exposed that you do not even understand
the very basic foundation of classical physics --- the good old
Galilean transform. <shrug>

Conclusion: Misapplication of the Galilean transform led one down to
the false path of a resolution to the twins’ paradox. The Lorentz
transform, if properly applied in accordance with the meaning of the
Galilean transform and the Euclidean geometry, manifests the twins’
paradox ever so definitively. Dingle was right, and the following
sums up about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 12:25 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> PD is clueless. He needs to translate everything, and every
> translation done by him is just wrong. In the meantime, it is a fact
> and not a translation that PD does not even understand the Galilean
> transform.<shrug>

Let me repeat, Koobee:

Given the correctness of the space-time diagram showing the twin
paradox that I linked for YOU, Koobee, can you show one error? Any
error?

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section15.html
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/twin.gif

[Androcles]

"palsing" <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:900c7014-9dc3-403c...@9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

====================================

'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in
their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their
having received it from some person who has their entire confidence,
impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of
their heads.'- Galileo Galilei

'Faced with changing one's mind, or proving that there is no need to do so,
most people get busy on the proof.'- John Kenneth Galbraith

'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it with
reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 11:16 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> You have February 29th approaching which closes out the 4 orbital
> circuits of the Earth as both the 1461st day and the 1461st rotation
> as both rotations and days are synonymous,if you have any doubt then
> check the temperature rise and falls within that 24 hour period on the
> 29th of this month to affirm the balance between days and rotations.
>
> You will face your students next Wednesday week and inform them that
> the Earth will complete almost 4 orbital circuits by the end of the
> day from a beginning 4 years earlier on March 1st 2008.

Gerald, the calendar makes no cause on the way the earth rotates about
its axis, nor how the earth orbits the sun. The observable fact is
that the earth rotates 360.985591° every day (24 hour period) no
matter what day of the week, month or year it is.

The earth rotates 360.985591° every day, day after day after day.

[Sam Wormley]

CORRECTION: >
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=360°+*+1+mean+solar+days+%2F+1+sidereal+day

[oriel36]

The AM/PM designations representing both the natural noon event (ante
meridiem/post meridiem) and the 24 hour clock are observed to happen
1461 times in 4 years which in turn represents 4 orbital circuits of
the Earth.A person literally has to force himself to ignore the
effects within a 24 hour period such as daily temperature fluctuations
in response to the daily rotation of the Earth to arrive at an
imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days and that is not just
wrong,that is pretty frightening knowing that it is official policy.

The February 29th day and rotation reflects a known fact that daily
and orbital motions are independent of each other,a 1/4 rotation's
worth of orbital motion is omitted each non leap year and picked up by
the February 29th rotation after 4 orbital circuits.I should not have
to repeat this twice let alone spend a decade keeping the material
front and center in the hope that some person can either snap out of a
severe indoctrination or people who are just encountering the material
for the first time.

[oriel36]

Visiting these forums and the injustice carried out using the name of
astronomy has affected me in a way I read only in holocaust literature
as those first men encountered the physical atrocities of 7 decades
ago.There is a dismay that people can act in a way that races to the
bottom of human traits by a craving or a greed that only those who act
out of self-perpetuation could adhere to,in fact there is little
reason at all to it.

There is no reason why a society would choose to create an imbalance
between rotations and days as you are doing now and as representative
of the empirical culture other than that society never thought things
through in the first place.Once seen through February 29th as a
rotation and day that encloses 4 orbital circuits,there would exist
something of a brief hiatus where the run-on of the flawed agenda
would be overtaken by the correct principles rushing in to ringfence
the error but in a decade that hasn't happened and doesn't appear to
be happening.

The 'sidereal vs solar day' is late 17th century fiction that exists
only in the imagination as is the wandering analemma sun or the
rotating moon,an empirical manufacturing machine that composes
solutions as it sees fit no only without physical considerations but
more often in defiance of them.There is no reason why people would do
this other than the intellectual treason of a few dollars/euro and an
ill-begotten reputation but from experience it is far worse than
this,you don't even know you are doing wrong nor have the type of
capabilities to make things stable and that is why I turn to holocaust
literature.

What happens when the day comes and nobody affirms that the
temperature rises and falls within a 24 hour period due to the
rotating Earth and each daily temperature fluctuation keeps in step
with the rotation of the Earth ?.That day has come for me as I look on
at your response reflective of your empirical culture.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 2:42 PM, oriel36 wrote:

>
> The AM/PM designations representing both the natural noon event (ante
> meridiem/post meridiem) and the 24 hour clock are observed to happen
> 1461 times in 4 years which in turn represents 4 orbital circuits of
> the Earth.A person literally has to force himself to ignore the
> effects within a 24 hour period such as daily temperature fluctuations
> in response to the daily rotation of the Earth to arrive at an
> imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days and that is not just
> wrong,that is pretty frightening knowing that it is official policy.
>
> The February 29th day and rotation reflects a known fact that daily
> and orbital motions are independent of each other,a 1/4 rotation's
> worth of orbital motion is omitted each non leap year and picked up by
> the February 29th rotation after 4 orbital circuits.I should not have
> to repeat this twice let alone spend a decade keeping the material
> front and center in the hope that some person can either snap out of a
> severe indoctrination or people who are just encountering the material
> for the first time.
>

Gerald, the *calendar makes no cause* on the way the earth rotates

about its axis, nor how the earth orbits the sun.

The observable fact is that the earth rotates 360.9856473° every 24
hours no matter what day of the week, month or year it is.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/20/12 2:19 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> Visiting these forums and the injustice carried out using the name of
> astronomy has affected me in a way I read only in holocaust literature
> as those first men encountered the physical atrocities of 7 decades
> ago.

Gerald, you need to understand that the physical circumstances of
the earth's rotation and orbit *drive the calendar* and not the
other way around. The observable fact is that the earth rotates
almost 361 degrees *every day* independent of the week, month or
year.

[oriel36]

You are all running around dragging a rotating celestial sphere with
you and calling it an inertial reference frame,Newtonian kinematics or
a blizzard of other buzzwords but it still reduces to the fact that
you can't account for the daily temperature fluctuations within a 24
hour period as it reflects the rotation of the planet.The Earth turns
once in a 24 hour day and ten thousand times in ten thousand days with
all the experiences of cause and effect.

By setting the pace of a clock to stellar circumpolar motion and the
calendar based right ascension you assume that it substitutes for
daily rotation to an 'inertial reference frame' but all you are doing
is spinning your wheels with the 365/366 day calendar system and going
nowhere like a squirrel running around a cage.

The guys over 100 years ago couldn't make sense of Newton but I
certainly can as the problem emerged before Newton went on a solo run
with Flamsteed equatorial coordinate system and the dumbest possible
conclusion ever reached in any scientific discipline -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical [constant/steady]... " John Flamsteed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

You want to be stuck with an imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461
days ,and something like this has no precedence in science,then so be
it,under normal circumstances Flamsteed's error is not entirely
obvious and could be corrected but with the empirical community
running with it,it reaches the proportions of an intellectual
holocaust.The problem is the sheer volume of people following a dumb
conclusion and unable to stop and turn it around.That will happen soon
enough with or without this community here.

[oriel36]

On Feb 20, 9:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/12 2:19 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Visiting these forums and the injustice carried out using the name of
> > astronomy has affected me in a way I read only in holocaust literature
> > as those first men encountered the physical atrocities of 7 decades
> > ago.
>
>    Gerald, you need to understand that the physical circumstances of
>    the earth's rotation and orbit *drive the calendar* and not the
>    other way around.

They understood over 2000 years ago that they couldn't use a system of
continuous 365 days to keep the flooding of the Nile fixed to the
seasonal points but they were observant enough to realize that the
star Sirius returns to the same spot in the sky if they added an extra
day after every 4 years.The reductions to 365 1/4 days to 1 year is
merely extraneous to their observations -

"But that these feast days shall be celebrated in definite seasons for
them to keep for ever, and after the plan of the heaven established on
this day and that the case shall not occur, that all the Egyptian
festivals, now celebrated in winter, shall not be celebrated some time
or other in summer, on account of the precession of the rising of the
Divine Sothis by one day in the course of 4 years, and other festivals
celebrated in the summer, in this country, shall not be celebrated in
winter, as has occasionally occurred in past times, therefore it shall

be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so
one day as feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from
this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New
Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in
the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions
which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly

orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus Decree

What the calendar of 1461 days in 4 years does in dynamical terms of
1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits is express that daily and orbital
motions are separate and unless you are really desperate to retain an
unsightly and unacceptable imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days,I
suggest empiricists really try to make sense of that passage above in
order to return astronomy to some sort of functioning entity.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/21/12 7:38 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> They understood over 2000 years ago that they couldn't use a system of
> continuous 365 days to keep the flooding of the Nile fixed to the
> seasonal points

And that's because the length of a year is actually 365.242199 solar
days (366.242199 sidereal days).

That's why 265 solar days doesn't work for calendars!

[PD]

Well, maybe school year calendars....

[oriel36]

You meant 365 days of course,the term 'solar' is merely pretense in
the absence of having a clear view of the equation between 1461
rotations on one side and 4 orbital circuits on the other hence the
fundamental unit of timekeeping is a proportion like Pi,not as exact
of course but good enough to posit 365 1/4 rotations for one orbital
circuit as a derivative of the core observation of 1461 rotations in 4
years.

Nobody should be expected to explain that February 29th closes out
1461 rotations of the Earth that began March 1st 2008 more than once
but if you are intent on believing it is the 1465th rotation in 1461
days then be my guest and believe that space is warped or time travel
is possible along with it,I am not throwing good information after bad
regardless of who's reputation is on the line.

You have just had your own reference system explained to you by the
Egyptian astronomers of 2000 years ago in making the distinction
between the seasonal return of the star Sirius and Flamsteed's ill-
considered return of Sirius in stellar circumpolar motion,by
coincidence the same star the Egyptians used in referencing the
orbital cycle of the Earth and not its daily rotational cycle.

The next time mathematicians decide to carve up astronomy so they can
engage in thought experiments or experiments of any kind,be sure to
check with an astronomer first,if another one can be found.

[Sam Wormley]

<laughing>

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/21/12 11:05 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> The next time mathematicians decide to carve up astronomy so they can
> engage in thought experiments or experiments of any kind,be sure to
> check with an astronomer first,if another one can be found.

It won't be you, Gerald. :-o

[oriel36]

February 29th is not just another rotation of the Earth,it is the 1461
st rotation nearest 4 orbital circuits that began 4 years earlier on
March 1st 2008 hence the equation of 1461 rotations on one side and 4
orbital circuits on the other.

They say the world is going to end in 2012 and that may be so from an
intellectual standpoint insofar as it would be nice for people in the
21st century to know when the end of 4 orbital circuits/4 years is and
the number of rotations/days that make it the end of the cycle next
Wednesday.

You must understand that dismay is almost total and that it would not
be easy for anyone to accept the flawed reasoning of Flamsteed in
setting in motion your imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461
days,again,I have to resort to literature from the second world war to
describe a sadness as the curtain goes down on the Western scientific
heritage for no good reason other than the novelties of mathematical
indulgence.

You cannot sense you are doing wrong,not what your believe to be
wrong,and that is the difference between intellectual innovation and
doctrinal slavery of the worst kind.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:26:12 +0100, Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>On 2/19/2012 10:16 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Feb 19, 12:59 pm, Uwe Hayek<haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2012 7:53 PM, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> A clock measures time for moving parts...
>
>Correct. And moving is governed by inertia.
>
>That is why a clock is so useful for determining the motion of moving
>parts. The clock measures and integrates the inertia that govern the
>moving parts.

Hey, idiot, time is a fundamental dimension, like space.

A clock consists of an oscillator and a counter.

The period of the oscillator defines and absolute interval of time.

TIME is used to express rates of movement.

Time itself 'moves'...in terms of time itself....which can only happen if
there is more than one time dimension..

[oriel36]

On Feb 22, 4:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/12 2:15 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > the ancient
> > astronomical authorities recognized that Sirius disappears for 70 days
> > each year so it doesn't  'rise' day after day after day as opposed to
> > the stellar circumpolar stars of Ursa Major which are constantly in
> > view.
>
>    Well, the ancients were sure wrong on that one. Fifth graders can
>    put binoculars or telescope to Sirius and time of the year day and
>    night. It's just a matter of looking in the direction of Sirius.
>
>    Sirius rises *every day*, Gerald. Try not to be so archaic.

Is there someone watching this ?.I wouldn't even dignify that
statement least I dishonor my astronomical ancestors and if you truly
believe Sirius 'rises' every day then what are you doing before
students and calling yourself a doctor in astronomy.You couldn't get
another person to support you but the point is that they are no better
or worse than you are.

Right now with climate sciences imploding and the greater part of
humanity wondering what is going on,the core issue is trying to model
planetary dynamics with clocks and drawing a ridiculous conclusion
like 1465 rotations in 1461 days,not that you can do it but that you
can do so without objection.

Stop snipping newsgroups,if mathematicians don't have the stomach to
look at what they have wrought then they don't belong on the Usenet

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/22/12 11:20 AM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:18 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, the ancients were sure wrong on that one. Fifth graders can
>> put binoculars or telescope to Sirius and time of the year day and
>> night. It's just a matter of looking in the direction of Sirius.
>>

>> Sirius rises*every day*, Gerald. Try not to be so archaic.

> Is there someone watching this ?.I wouldn't even dignify that
> statement least I dishonor my astronomical ancestors and if you truly
> believe Sirius 'rises' every day then what are you doing before
> students and calling yourself a doctor in astronomy.You couldn't get
> another person to support you but the point is that they are no better
> or worse than you are.

I guess that make you indignant of observational fact, Gerald. :-o

[Sam Wormley]

See:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sirius+rise+set++London%2C+August+6%2C+2012

From London, Sirius rises at 5:33am GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012
From London, Sirius sets at 8:40pm GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012

[Sam Wormley]

> From London, Sirius rises at 6:11am GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012
> From London, Sirius sets at 3:30pm GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012
>

CORRECTION:
From London, Sirius rises at 6:11am GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012
From London, Sirius sets at 3:30pm GMT/BST on Aug. 6, 2012

[oriel36]

Remember.this is an issue of 1461 rotations in 1461 days with February
29th closing out the 1461st rotation nearest to 4 orbital circuits in
an era which is full of people like you who are convinced of 1465
rotations in 1461 days.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/EgyptianCalendarEN.html

A potential astronomer would find no difficulty in accepting a
seasonal disappearance in Sirius behind the glare of the Sun as the
Earth moves along its orbital circumference and using this star as a
gauge for the completion of 4 circuits in 1461 days gets rid of the
contrived attempt to put Sirius in stellar circumpolar motion when it
is not observed constantly.

The issue is hugely complex but not among those like yourself who are
trapped inside the clockwork solar system of right ascension and who
can manufacture observations that don't exist.It is for this reason
that I had to resort to holocaust literature and those who know
firsthand how dangerous a 'fact' manufacturing machine can be for no
good reason other than self-perpetuation and it wasn't that you are
wrong with the observation of Sirius,it is that there was no objection
giving the extent of the situation -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

If you have to be believe that Sirius rises every day without fail in
order to support your 1465 rotations in 1461 days then that is what
your imagination will dictate happens and any other technical or
historical detail that needs to be adjusted to suit whatever
conclusion you desire.The frightening part for me,more like that which
causes the most dismay,is that so many people can do it for so long.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/22/12 12:48 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/22/12 11:20 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 4:18 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, the ancients were sure wrong on that one. Fifth graders can
>>>> put binoculars or telescope to Sirius and time of the year day and
>>>> night. It's just a matter of looking in the direction of Sirius.
>>
>>>> Sirius rises*every day*, Gerald. Try not to be so archaic.
>>> Is there someone watching this ?.I wouldn't even dignify that
>>> statement least I dishonor my astronomical ancestors and if you truly
>>> believe Sirius 'rises' every day then what are you doing before
>>> students and calling yourself a doctor in astronomy.You couldn't get
>>> another person to support you but the point is that they are no better
>>> or worse than you are.
>>
>> I guess that make you indignant of observational fact, Gerald. :-o
>
> Remember.this is an issue of 1461 rotations in 1461 days with February
> 29th closing out the 1461st rotation nearest to 4 orbital circuits in
> an era which is full of people like you who are convinced of 1465
> rotations in 1461 days.
>

Nope--you are totally wrong. The issue is that Sirius for the majority
of locations where humans live, rises and sets *every day*, Gerald.

Furthermore bright stars and planets can be seen during the day. You
are wrong Gerald! Our ancestors would likely be thrilled to know that
we can view Sirius in August!

[oriel36]

You are a bunch of imposters calling themselves astronomers.

The rising and setting of Sirius and its disappearance for 70 days
marks an orbital event as the star disappears behind the glare of the
Sun and rises as a consequence of the Earth's orbital motion.If you
can come here and determine that Sirius rises and sets every day
without fail then none of you are astronomers .These ancient people
can give you an education -

“… these, Orion and Sirius, who are the first of the gods, that is to
say they customarily spend 70 days in the Duat (and they rise) again…
it is in the east that they celebrate their first feast… Their burial
takes place like those of men… that is to say, they are the likeness
of the burial-days which are for men today… 70 days which they pass in
the embalming-house…its duration in the Duat indeed takes place. It is
the taking place of its duration in the Duat… everyone of the stars,
that is to say 70 days… this is what is done by dying. This one which
sets is the one which does this…” Carlsburg Papyrus I

You are so mesmerized by a rotating celestial sphere derived from late
17th century Ra/Dec conclusions that you may be unable to distinguish
the orbital setting of Sirius and its orbital (heliacal) rising due to
the Earth's orbital motion alone.

When the dust settles on the climate issue and it returns to a
functioning state which has yet to be dealt with in dynamical terms,it
is this one which requires immediate attention for there is nothing
worse than a group of doctorates running around with a belief in 1465
rotations in 1461 days and I don't mind if you cannot snap out of a
mental block,I am counting that there are enough individuals who will
be drawn to a specific rotation in one week's time that closes out the
balance between days and rotations for 4 orbital circuits.

So,the orbital rising and setting of Sirius does not involve stellar
circumpolar motion tied to the attempt to overlay the Ra/Dec system on
the normal Lat/Long system and it is imperative that humanity comes
to understand the references by which the clock and calendar system
was created as this heritage belongs to everyone.

[oriel36]

On Feb 22, 6:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/12 12:48 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 6:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 2/22/12 11:20 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 4:18 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>   Well, the ancients were sure wrong on that one. Fifth graders can
> >>>>   put binoculars or telescope to Sirius and time of the year day and
> >>>>   night. It's just a matter of looking in the direction of Sirius.
>
> >>>>   Sirius rises*every day*, Gerald. Try not to be so archaic.
> >>> Is there someone watching this ?.I wouldn't even dignify that
> >>> statement least I dishonor my astronomical ancestors and if you truly
> >>> believe Sirius 'rises' every day then what are you doing before
> >>> students and calling yourself a doctor in astronomy.You couldn't get
> >>> another person to support you but the point is that they are no better
> >>> or worse than you are.
>
> >>     I guess that make you indignant of observational fact, Gerald.  :-o
>
> > Remember.this is an issue of 1461 rotations in 1461 days with February
> > 29th closing out the 1461st rotation nearest to 4 orbital circuits in
> > an era which is full of people like you who are convinced of 1465
> > rotations in 1461 days.
>
>    Nope--you are totally wrong. The issue is that Sirius for the majority
>    of locations where humans live, rises and sets *every day*, Gerald.
>

I will tell you now,looking for an appropriate expression of the
orbital appearance of Sirius on the internet was much,much tougher
than I expected -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=9LT1q0Il3-YC&pg=PA87&dq=sirius+heliacal+rising&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KERFT6WcDJGk-gaFyOmOAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

What is it with this era that people don't feel responsible for an
astronomical heritage ?.

It is not that you made an utterly ridiculous statement,it is that
there is a sense of others being no better for what could be more
enjoyable than the appearance of Sirius from behind the Sun as the
Earth moves through the field of stars in its orbital circuit.

[Quadibloc]

I read Herbert Dingle's original paper. His claim that Special
Relativity was inconsistent was based on working out the Twins Paradox
in two ways and getting different answers - because in one case "time
at a distance" was explicit, and because he didn't believe in it, he
didn't use it.

This is like proving arithmetic is inconsistent because you don't
believe in carries, and so you add two numbers in two different ways,
one in which the operation is hidden (so you get the right answer),
and one in which carrying is explicit, and you intentionally neglect
to do it - so you get the wrong answer, and the two answers don't
agree.

I'm sorry, but this sort of thing proves only that he can't be taken
seriously.

John Savard

[Androcles]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:58be0606-4bd4-4102...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

You are midway between two candles, travelling toward one
and away from the other. The speed of light from one candle
is "measured" (Einstein's word) to be c when it is in fact c+v
and the speed of light from the other candle is measured to be
c when it is in fact c-v.
You're sorry, but this sort of thing proves only that you are fucking
stupid.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 23, 5:42 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:47 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > **** Introduction: So, basically the issue of the twins’ paradox,
> > between those with Dingle and those against, revolves around how the
> > Lorentz transform is applied.
>
> > **** Background: To decide who is right or wrong, we must first look
> > at the bigger picture where a system involves 4 parties --- 2
> > observers (#1 and #2) and 2 observed (#3 and #4). Writing down the
> > Lorentz transform for time transformation only, we have the following
> > where equation 2) and 4) are the inverse transforms of 1) and 3)
> > respectively. Otherwise, 1) and 2) still belong to the same
> > transformation, and 3) and 4) belong to another transformation.
>
> > 1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 2) dt23 = (dt13 – [B12] * d[s13] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > And
>
> > 3) dt14 = (dt24 – [B21] * d[s24] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [s23] = Position vector of #3 as observed by #2
> > ** [B21] c = Velocity vector of #1 as observed by #2
> > ** [] * [] = Dot product of two vectors
>
> > In the case where the velocity [B21] or [B12] is along the x-axis, the
> > above two transforms can be simplified into the following.
>
> > 1) dt13 = (dt23 – B21 dx23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 2) dt23 = (dt13 – B12 dx13 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > And
>
> > 3) dt14 = (dt24 – B21 dx24 / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 4) dt24 = (dt14 – B12 dx14 / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B12 = - B21
>
> > Except for PD, anyone else disagree? <shrug>
>
> > Of course, in the twins’ paradox, there each of the two observers is
> > observed by the other as the observed. Thus, it is a matter of
> > writing the above 2 transformations into the equations equating how
> > the time flow rate at #1 differs from #2. Does anyone disagree? And
> > why? <shrug>
>
> > **** Derivation 1: The following derivation is exactly how Tom, Paul
> > Andersen, and other self-styled physicists have done in the past 100
> > years.
>
> > Step 1: Discard equations 3) and 4).
>
> > Step 2: Replace #3 in equations 1) and 2) with #1 or #2 (#2 in the
> > following example):
>
> > 1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 2) dt22 = (dt12 – [B12] * d[s12] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Or
>
> > 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 2) dt22 = dt12 sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** d[s22] = 0
> > ** d[s12]/dt12 = [B12] c
>
> > This is exactly how the self-styled physicists claim there is no
> > paradox in the Lorentz transform.
>
> > **** Derivation 2:
>
> > Step 1: Discard equations 2) and 3).
>
> > 1) dt13 = (dt23 – [B21] * d[s23] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 4) dt24 = (dt14 – [B12] * d[s14] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Step 2: Replace #3 in equation 1) with #2 since #1 is observing #2,
> > and replace #4 in equation 4) with #1 since #2 is observing #1.
>
> > 1) dt12 = (dt22 – [B21] * d[s22] / c) / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 4) dt21 = (dt11 – [B12] * d[s11] / c) / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > Or
>
> > 1) dt12 = dt22 / sqrt(1 – B21^2)
> > 4) dt21 = dt11 / sqrt(1 – B12^2)
>
> > In this derivation, the paradox is so apparent.
>
> > **** Discussion: Which derivation is valid according to the
> > applicability of both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms in
> > accordance with the Euclidean geometry?
>
> > ** Tom, Paul Andersen, and self-styled physicists say derivation 1 is
> > valid.
>
> > ** Dingle, Koobee Wublee, and other scholars of physics say
> > derivation 1 is garbage. It reflects lack of understanding in the
> > Euclidean geometry among self-styled physicists. Thus, derivation 2
> > is valid, and the Lorentz transform physically and definitively
> > manifests the twins’ paradox.
>
> > <shrug>

>
> I read Herbert Dingle's original paper. His claim that Special
> Relativity was inconsistent was based on working out the Twins Paradox
> in two ways and getting different answers - because in one case "time
> at a distance" was explicit, and because he didn't believe in it, he
> didn't use it.

Grossly wrong, dude. Another Einstein Prostitute who gives lip
service on something he does not know anything about. <shrug>

> [rest of babbling nonsense snipped]

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:42:23 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

As I have previously pointed out, until now, no critic of Einstein has been
able to find a flaw in SR's mathetical consistentcy because none has
identified the basic problem.
When faced with an apparent paradox, relativists merely pull out the RoS and
everything seems to fall into place. It does, but only because the reasoning
is circular. Everything about the theory assumes Einstein's P2 correct and
is consistent with it.

It is Einstein's definition of clock synching and the RoS itself that is
wrong, as I have pointed out many times.

That leaves the rest of the theory without any foundation at all...ie., it
is pure bullshit from start to finish.

see: www.scisite.info/ros.html (in which I explain Einstein's false logic in
a number of different ways.)
or run my animation: www.scisite.info/clocksynch.exe

>John Savard

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/24/12 4:03 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> As I have previously pointed out, until now, no critic of Einstein has been
> able to find a flaw in SR's mathetical consistentcy because none has
> identified the basic problem.

That's because SR is mathematically self consistent, Ralph.
Furthermore, there has never been an observation that contradicts
a prediction of special relativity.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

That's what I pointed out.

It is mathematically consistent BUT ONLY if the RoS is assumed correct. The
standard SRian analyses of paradoxes etc., appear plausible because they
rely on circular logic that is too complicated for the average person to
recognize.

Nobody has seriously questioned Einstein's RoS or clock synch definition,
which which are both blatantly wrong and are where the problem lies.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the Relativity of Specialness?

Koobee-doo has never attempted to answer my assertion
-- even though he may have found the elementary flaw,
perhaps the same as you, in the standard gedankenspiel --
that the internal (angular) momenta of atoms *must* be
accounted-for, relativistically.

> It is mathematically consistent BUT ONLY if the RoS is assumed correct.

thus:
they never get this metaphor, perhaps because
it seems to be mixed, that "global" warming is a misnomer,
an oxymoron or nonsequiter, because Ahrrenius et al have
never bothered to apply the glasshouse "effect"
to a model of an actual glass house,
sited at some lattitude on Eaaarth.

thus:
aren't Himalyan glaciers a significant ration of all glaciers,
aside from those areound AnIS and GrIS?

> In fact where I am sitting at the moment
> in the State of NJ was once under a glacier.

thank you, IAS!

thus:
it is quite clear that our alteration of the biosphere
is rapidly changing the rate & kind of "evapotranspiration,"
notably through urban heat-islanding -- I be a verb -- and
deforestation.

however, note that these only appear to *increase* the rate
of snowfall on GrIS and AnIS,
the vast bulk of terrestrial ice, as shown
in the slides of the Man from NOAA, Swiss govt. affiliate,
at two catered events in Los Angeles, last year!

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/25/12 3:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Nobody has seriously questioned Einstein's RoS or clock synch definition

Ralph Rabbidge, who is neither a Henry nor a Wilson and most
certainly not a DSc., has *failed to learn* about the relativity
of simultaneity. Take, for example, two observers in relative
motion to each other. Say, one on the ground and one on a
passing train.

The space-time diagram makes it easy to see for which
observer, simultaneity holds.

See: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/section09.html

Here's the thought problem:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/lightbulb.gif

Here's the analysis via space-time diagram:
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/lightbulb-STD.gif

Events that seem to have happened at the same time for the observer
on train do not happen at the same time for the observer on the
ground. The concept of before and after actually depends on the
observer.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Of course they fucking don't....that's just an Einsteinian red herring.

Simultaneity has nothing to do with what humans SEE.

Here's the simple truth about the bogus RoS:

www.scisite.info/ros.html
www.scisite.info/clocksynch.exe

[Peter Webb]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:5k9jk75v82pjhdp19...@4ax.com...

That's a crank site. It doesn't even vaguely resemble a scientific argument.


> www.scisite.info/clocksynch.exe
>

You want us to download and run an executable program? And this somehow
explains Relativity? I doubt that you will get too many takers on that, and
I am certainly not one of them.

You need to use sites which were done by people who understand basic
physics. Crank sites will not help you at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

is as good a place as any to start.

[Sam Wormley]

Given two postulates, the principle of relativity and
the constancy of the speed of light, the relativity of
simultaneity is a *consequence* of relativity. Furthermore,
there has *never been and observation* that contradicts

a prediction of special relativity.

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:41:13 +1100, "Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Computers are full of .exe programs. Mine are perfectly harmless to
computers if not to Einstein supporters' egos.

>You need to use sites which were done by people who understand basic
>physics. Crank sites will not help you at all.

If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's of no concern to me.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
>
>is as good a place as any to start.

I can smell bullshit from a long way off.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:06:31 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/25/12 9:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:07:11 -0600, Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/25/12 3:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>> Events that seem to have happened at the same time for the observer
>>> on train do not happen at the same time for the observer on the
>>> ground. The concept of before and after actually depends on the
>>> observer.
>>
>> Of course they fucking don't....that's just an Einsteinian red herring.
>>
>> Simultaneity has nothing to do with what humans SEE.
>>
>
> Given two postulates, the principle of relativity and
> the constancy of the speed of light, the relativity of
> simultaneity is a *consequence* of relativity. Furthermore,
> there has *never been and observation* that contradicts
> a prediction of special relativity.

Light speed is not constant. No properties of the physical world are
dependent on what humans see. Einstein's clock synch definition and RoS are
pure nonsense based on blatantly false logic, as I have clearly shown. If
you cannot understand what I have written, then you should simply accept
that you are not intellectual equipped to handle such difficult logic.

Teaching clocks to lie, doesn't alter the known fact that light from a
moving source requires different times to transit a rod in opposite
directions AS CALCULATED BY EINSTEIN HIMSELF AND INDICATED BY THE READINGS
OF THE MOVING CLOCKS.

what a load of crap!

Einstein's train gedanken is explained very simply by correcting for light
travel time. It is a distaction from the real issue, which is 'whether
clocks that are synched in one frame are out of synch in all others'. That
is what the RoS is all about...AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SHOWN TO BE BOGUS.

Einstein deliberately made his clocks lie to prop up his stupid theory and
has finally been caught out.

[Roger Onslow]

On Feb 27, 6:17 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:06:31 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/25/12 9:30 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:07:11 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/25/12 3:08 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >>>    Events that seem to have happened at the same time for the observer
> >>>    on train do not happen at the same time for the observer on the
> >>>    ground. The concept of before and after actually depends on the
> >>>    observer.
>
> >> Of course they fucking don't....that's just an Einsteinian red herring.
>
> >> Simultaneity has nothing to do with what humans SEE.
>
> >    Given two postulates, the principle of relativity and
> >    the constancy of the speed of light, the relativity of
> >    simultaneity is a *consequence* of relativity. Furthermore,
> >    there has *never been and observation* that contradicts
> >    a prediction of special relativity.
>
> Light speed is not constant.

Except experiment shows that it is

> No properties of the physical world are
> dependent on what humans see.

Noone says they are

> Einstein's clock synch definition and RoS are
> pure nonsense based on blatantly false logic, as I have clearly shown.

But you agreed that his method for clock sync is valid and was the one
thing he got right

Ballistic theory agrees that clocks A and B are in sync if the time
shown by the clocks for light to go from clock A to clock B is the
same as the time for the light to be reflected back from clock B to
clock A. This is regardless of the motion of the light source. SR
and Ballistic theory agree on that method for clock sync.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

liars are losers...

I win.

>Ballistic theory agrees that clocks A and B are in sync if the time
>shown by the clocks for light to go from clock A to clock B is the
>same as the time for the light to be reflected back from clock B to
>clock A. This is regardless of the motion of the light source. SR
>and Ballistic theory agree on that method for clock sync.

That's not what I said. The method only works if the source is at rest with
the mirrors and clocks

[Roger Onslow]

Yes you are a liar and a loser.

[Roger Onslow]

On Feb 29, 11:38 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:03:37 -0800 (PST), Roger Onslow

> >Ballistic theory agrees that clocks A and B are in sync if the time
> >shown by the clocks for light to go from clock A to clock B is the
> >same as the time for the light to be reflected back from clock B to
> >clock A.  This is regardless of the motion of the light source.  SR
> >and Ballistic theory agree on that method for clock sync.
>
> That's not what I said.

I didn't say you said it. You're not that bright

> The method only works if the source is at rest with
> the mirrors and clocks

No .. in ballistic theory it works if the source is moving as well.
You're probably to stupid to understand it.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

So now you have proved that you know nothing about either SR OR ballistic
theory.
Why do you actually bother to post your crap here?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Only one twin can be older. Meaning its clock was always running
faster in comparison. Lost time is out..
On passing each other it is easy to see one clock is fast and the
other is slower.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize