Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The twin paradox
498 views
Skip to first unread message
Alfonso
Jun 17, 2014, 2:34:56 PM6/17/14
to
I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
The difference between the moving twin and the stay at home twin is the
fact that the distant point, where the moving twin turns around, is
stationary in the FoR of the stay at home twin and the distance to it, X
is considered to be the distance in that FoR.
The stay at home twin sees the moving twins clock go slower by a factor
Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
done if the distance had been X.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the moving twin accelerates and
all the other convoluted explanations put forward. it is simply that one
twin puts the difference down to a change in time while the other simply
travels a shorter distance.
Its still nonsense but it is comforting to know that I - as someone who
is critical of relativity - understand it better than those who defend
it.
Alfonso
many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
The difference between the moving twin and the stay at home twin is the
fact that the distant point, where the moving twin turns around, is
stationary in the FoR of the stay at home twin and the distance to it, X
is considered to be the distance in that FoR.
The stay at home twin sees the moving twins clock go slower by a factor
Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
done if the distance had been X.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the moving twin accelerates and
all the other convoluted explanations put forward. it is simply that one
twin puts the difference down to a change in time while the other simply
travels a shorter distance.
Its still nonsense but it is comforting to know that I - as someone who
is critical of relativity - understand it better than those who defend
it.
Alfonso
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 17, 2014, 2:45:05 PM6/17/14
to
Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
it?
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
Indeed you don't. Astute analysis.
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles
Jun 17, 2014, 3:13:23 PM6/17/14
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:lnq2be$m03$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Dork Van de faggot, trolling as usual.
Tell us all how you have aged 28 years since your twin sister vanished in
1999, Dork.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Dono,
Jun 17, 2014, 5:22:23 PM6/17/14
to
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:34:56 AM UTC-7, Alfonso wrote:
> I am a critic of SR -
In order to be a critic you need to understand it. You don't, you are just a crank.
> I am a critic of SR -
space...@gmail.com
Jun 17, 2014, 5:27:10 PM6/17/14
to
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:34:56 AM UTC-7, Alfonso wrote:
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
>
> many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
In the history of speed and gravity strength everything has aged differently...
>
> many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
Mitchell Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 2:43:00 AM6/18/14
to
Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
> [snipped nothing of value]
Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future. According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction. This contradiction is not only limited to the Lorentz transform but the Voigt and Larmor's transforms as well.
The question now is how to apply the equation above to the scenario of twins' paradox. Say twins are @I and @J. When @I is observing @J, the following is true.
** dtI sqrt(1 - BIJ^2) = dt_J sqrt(1 - BJJ^2) = dtJ
Where
** #1 = @I, #2 = #3 = @J
** BJJ = 0
When @J is observing @I, another spacetime is required since according to any transformation, there can only two observers and one observed. So, the indices have to be sorted out from scratch.
** dtJ sqrt(1 - BJI^2) = dtI sqrt(1 - BII^2) = dtI
Where
** #1 = @J, #2 = #3 = @I
** BII = 0
Paul Andersen does not understand that in the scenario of twins' paradox there are two transforms. Then, we integrate the equations above to derive the elapsed time.
** deltaIJ = Integral(T1, T2)[dtI sqrt(1 - BIJ^2)]
** deltaJI = Integral(T1, T2)[dtJ sqrt(1 - BJI^2)]
** deltaII = deltaJJ = T2 - T1
Where
** Integral(T1, T2)[] = Integration from T1 to T2 of []
** http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
Since [(deltaIJ == deltaJI) and (deltaIJ != deltaJJ)], the prediction shows a fatal contradiction in time. This is how SR predicts the observations directly derived from the simple mathematics itself.
So long as the twins never unite, the mutually observed time dilation is not a problem. Only when the reunite, the fatal consequence to the special theory of relativity surfaces itself. This serious flaw was repointed out by Herbert Dingle (1890-1978), but amazingly the scientific communities chose to ignore the simple mathematics involved and continue with their religion. Instead, there have been a series of resolutions showing that the Twin paradox is indeed not a contradiction. Each one of these happened in a succession to the next that went through the following phases.
** Identifying a potential contradiction
** Despair that "How can a theory that gives such beautiful mathematics be wrong?"
** Relentless brainstorming of quests to find that resolution
** Presenting a resolution that comes forth similar to divine vision facing with people in unimaginable hardship
** Euphoria and zeal after the announcement of a resolution as in "Halleluiah!"
** Rude awakening after thorough investigation as in "What in the world was I thinking?"
The cycle would repeat itself. There have been at least four such resolutions. Each one is as ridiculous as the others:
** Broken symmetry
This resolution was suggested by Max Born (1882-1970). Without thinking, he proposed that the act of traveling away implies acceleration, and it is through this acceleration that the symmetry of mutual time dilation can be broken. The result is that the twin that undergoes acceleration will come back with a slower age than its stay-at-home twin. There is no mathematics given to show any merit to this suggestion. One can simply redesign the scenario to have both twins traveling where each twin will experience the same acceleration profile and thus nullifying the effect of acceleration. Given an arbitrary amount of time to allow both twins coasting with null acceleration but with a significant speed between them, the mutual time dilation building up will obviously never be rectified.
** Spacetime diagram
In this resolution, a few lines are drawn on the spacetime diagram. The ones who support this one do not understand that time dilation is accumulative.
** Mathemagics
By far, the most celebrated resolution actually engages with mathematics showing exactly how lack of the contradiction would occur where some top echelons of the scientific communities still blindly cling on to this hope. In this resolution, Minkowski spacetime is completely abandoned, and the rest is mathemagics played through inadequate, obscure, and abusive labeling of the variables involved. This treatise gives thorough labeling of what each variable means, and thus one can easily catch the trick in the act. Instead of using two different transforms since there are two such observed (each twin), the supporters of this one decide to use the same transform for both of the observed. The result is to always interpret Point #1 as Twin A and Point #2 and point #3 as Twin B or Point #1 as Twin B and Point #2 and Point #3 as Twin A. In this mathemagic trick, the symmetry is broken.
** Path length in proper time
Seemingly representing the last hope to the faith of the special theory of relativity, the newest resolution proposes that everyone ages through a mystical, divine measurement called the proper time. Any perceived time then becomes a projection to this proper time where all time measurement becomes a projection to this true clock that takes the form of absoluteness in concept. What this nonsense comes about is that spacetime is invariant. The invariance in spacetime comes about because of the local flow rate of time, and it is the local flow rate of time that is projected as observed by each observer. There is no such thing as the proper time, and each observer ages in its own time.
Herbert Dingle (1880-1978) tried to demystify these self-styled physicists, but the prophet was burnt at the stake instead.
> Alfonso wrote:
> > I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
> > so many peoples [show great] difficulty with the twin paradox.
> > I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
> [snipped nothing of value]
Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future. According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction. This contradiction is not only limited to the Lorentz transform but the Voigt and Larmor's transforms as well.
The question now is how to apply the equation above to the scenario of twins' paradox. Say twins are @I and @J. When @I is observing @J, the following is true.
** dtI sqrt(1 - BIJ^2) = dt_J sqrt(1 - BJJ^2) = dtJ
Where
** #1 = @I, #2 = #3 = @J
** BJJ = 0
When @J is observing @I, another spacetime is required since according to any transformation, there can only two observers and one observed. So, the indices have to be sorted out from scratch.
** dtJ sqrt(1 - BJI^2) = dtI sqrt(1 - BII^2) = dtI
Where
** #1 = @J, #2 = #3 = @I
** BII = 0
Paul Andersen does not understand that in the scenario of twins' paradox there are two transforms. Then, we integrate the equations above to derive the elapsed time.
** deltaIJ = Integral(T1, T2)[dtI sqrt(1 - BIJ^2)]
** deltaJI = Integral(T1, T2)[dtJ sqrt(1 - BJI^2)]
** deltaII = deltaJJ = T2 - T1
Where
** Integral(T1, T2)[] = Integration from T1 to T2 of []
** http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
Since [(deltaIJ == deltaJI) and (deltaIJ != deltaJJ)], the prediction shows a fatal contradiction in time. This is how SR predicts the observations directly derived from the simple mathematics itself.
So long as the twins never unite, the mutually observed time dilation is not a problem. Only when the reunite, the fatal consequence to the special theory of relativity surfaces itself. This serious flaw was repointed out by Herbert Dingle (1890-1978), but amazingly the scientific communities chose to ignore the simple mathematics involved and continue with their religion. Instead, there have been a series of resolutions showing that the Twin paradox is indeed not a contradiction. Each one of these happened in a succession to the next that went through the following phases.
** Identifying a potential contradiction
** Despair that "How can a theory that gives such beautiful mathematics be wrong?"
** Relentless brainstorming of quests to find that resolution
** Presenting a resolution that comes forth similar to divine vision facing with people in unimaginable hardship
** Euphoria and zeal after the announcement of a resolution as in "Halleluiah!"
** Rude awakening after thorough investigation as in "What in the world was I thinking?"
The cycle would repeat itself. There have been at least four such resolutions. Each one is as ridiculous as the others:
** Broken symmetry
This resolution was suggested by Max Born (1882-1970). Without thinking, he proposed that the act of traveling away implies acceleration, and it is through this acceleration that the symmetry of mutual time dilation can be broken. The result is that the twin that undergoes acceleration will come back with a slower age than its stay-at-home twin. There is no mathematics given to show any merit to this suggestion. One can simply redesign the scenario to have both twins traveling where each twin will experience the same acceleration profile and thus nullifying the effect of acceleration. Given an arbitrary amount of time to allow both twins coasting with null acceleration but with a significant speed between them, the mutual time dilation building up will obviously never be rectified.
** Spacetime diagram
In this resolution, a few lines are drawn on the spacetime diagram. The ones who support this one do not understand that time dilation is accumulative.
** Mathemagics
By far, the most celebrated resolution actually engages with mathematics showing exactly how lack of the contradiction would occur where some top echelons of the scientific communities still blindly cling on to this hope. In this resolution, Minkowski spacetime is completely abandoned, and the rest is mathemagics played through inadequate, obscure, and abusive labeling of the variables involved. This treatise gives thorough labeling of what each variable means, and thus one can easily catch the trick in the act. Instead of using two different transforms since there are two such observed (each twin), the supporters of this one decide to use the same transform for both of the observed. The result is to always interpret Point #1 as Twin A and Point #2 and point #3 as Twin B or Point #1 as Twin B and Point #2 and Point #3 as Twin A. In this mathemagic trick, the symmetry is broken.
** Path length in proper time
Seemingly representing the last hope to the faith of the special theory of relativity, the newest resolution proposes that everyone ages through a mystical, divine measurement called the proper time. Any perceived time then becomes a projection to this proper time where all time measurement becomes a projection to this true clock that takes the form of absoluteness in concept. What this nonsense comes about is that spacetime is invariant. The invariance in spacetime comes about because of the local flow rate of time, and it is the local flow rate of time that is projected as observed by each observer. There is no such thing as the proper time, and each observer ages in its own time.
Herbert Dingle (1880-1978) tried to demystify these self-styled physicists, but the prophet was burnt at the stake instead.
al...@interia.pl
Jun 18, 2014, 7:57:08 AM6/18/14
to
W dniu wtorek, 17 czerwca 2014 20:34:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Alfonso napisał:
> The stay at home twin sees the moving twins clock go slower by a factor
> Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
> travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
>
> The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
> v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
> done if the distance had been X.
You assumed something already here - no?
> The stay at home twin sees the moving twins clock go slower by a factor
> Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
> travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
>
> The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
> v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
> done if the distance had been X.
> Its still nonsense but it is comforting to know that I - as someone who
> is critical of relativity - understand it better than those who defend it.
and elementary mathematics gives correct result:
s = sum (vi-v0)^2, and under condition: sum vi = 0 (this means a closed loop).
So, what is the minimum of s?
for vi = 0, of course, ie. the twin don't move at all: v = v0 = const.
But the relativity assumes v0 don't exist at all, so there is no solution possible.
This is no paradox, but just the SR is incorrect model - inadequate to the situation.
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 8:10:18 AM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who
> first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins
> start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and
> comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future.
> According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one
> to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin
> observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction.
Yes, it is PHYSICALLY impossible to have each twin aging slower than the
>
> Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who
> first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins
> start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and
> comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future.
> According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one
> to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin
> observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction.
other. It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at two
different rates. Ergo, either (1) the LT does not describe reality or
(2) the LT is not being INTERPRETED properly.
In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions which
can be verified experimentally. If the LT is wrong, then either (a) at least
one of the premises/definitions is wrong or (b) it was not derived correctly.
The derivation based on the premises/definitions looks to be mathematically
correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz transform and are the following:
(1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
(2) position is the product of velocity and time
(3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
These seem pretty solid to our common sense, but (2) may have some problems
at the quantum level. Rafael seems to be the only one disputing (3). The
point is that these are all experimentally verifiable.
The fourth premise for the GT is absolute time (t' = t) and the fourth for
the LT is invariant lightspeed in vacuum. Some in this group dispute
invariant lightspeed, but it has been verified many, many times, and its
corrollary, limiting speed of c for all objects with rest mass, has also been
verified many, many times.
IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
logically and mathematically correct. Thus a contradiction is not possible.
So that leaves (2), interpretation of what it means. Kobbly Wobbly covers
most of the various interpretations, leaving out a couple (a glaring omission
- see http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html). However, it would
appear that his interpretations of the interpretations are specious. Cramer's
explanations make a lot of sense to me.
Gary
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 18, 2014, 11:25:18 AM6/18/14
to
hit...@yahoo.com <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip]
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Gary
Make sure you prepare for shitload of <shrugs>...
Dirk Vdm
Tom Roberts
Jun 18, 2014, 11:49:46 AM6/18/14
to
On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> logically and mathematically correct.
This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> logically and mathematically correct.
geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
geometry, and as is real analysis.
> Thus a contradiction is not possible.
Tom Roberts
JanPB
Jun 18, 2014, 12:11:06 PM6/18/14
to
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:43:00 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>
> > Alfonso wrote:
>
> > > I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
> > > so many peoples [show great] difficulty with the twin paradox.
>
> > [snipped nothing of value]
>
> Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future. According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one to age slower.
There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for the duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
> Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>
> > Alfonso wrote:
>
> > > I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand
> > > so many peoples [show great] difficulty with the twin paradox.
>
> > [snipped nothing of value]
>
> Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future. According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one to age slower.
> Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction. This contradiction is not only limited to the Lorentz transform but the Voigt and Larmor's transforms as well.
> Herbert Dingle (1880-1978) tried to demystify these self-styled physicists, but the prophet was burnt at the stake instead.
"The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A -- which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible" (sounds familiar?)
Another one:
"a proof that Einstein's special theory of relativity is false has been advanced; and ignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, treated in every possible way except that of answering it, by the whole scientific world"
It's very clear there is a pattern to those "objections", there is an interesting PhD thesis there in psychiatry or at least some sort of pathological psychology.
--
Jan
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 12:34:33 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:25:18 AM UTC-6, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> Gary Make sure you prepare for shitload of <shrugs>
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
> Gary Make sure you prepare for shitload of <shrugs>
>
:-)))
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 12:36:41 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:10:18 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who
> > first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins
> > start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and
> > comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future.
> > According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one
> > to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin
> > observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction.
>
> Yes, it is PHYSICALLY impossible to have each twin aging slower than the
> other. It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at two
> different rates. Ergo, either (1) the LT does not describe reality or
> (2) the LT is not being INTERPRETED properly.
Both (1) and (2) are correct. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Specific to the Lorentz transform, it was Paul Langevin (1872-1946) who
> > first noticed the Twin paradox. In this scenario, two hypothetical twins
> > start out at rest relative to each other. One of them travels away and
> > comes back reuniting with its twin at rest sometime in the future.
> > According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other one
> > to age slower. Since it is physically an impossibility to have each twin
> > observes the other to have aged slower at reunion, this is a contradiction.
>
> Yes, it is PHYSICALLY impossible to have each twin aging slower than the
> other. It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at two
> different rates. Ergo, either (1) the LT does not describe reality or
> (2) the LT is not being INTERPRETED properly.
> In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions
> which can be verified experimentally.
> If the LT is wrong, then either (a) at least one of
> the premises/definitions is wrong or (b) it was not derived correctly.
> The derivation based on the premises/definitions looks to be mathematically
> correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
> LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz
> transform and are the following:
>
> (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
> (2) position is the product of velocity and time
> (3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
> The fourth premise for the GT is absolute time (t' = t)
> and the fourth for the LT is invariant lightspeed in vacuum.
> ... it has been verified many, many times, and its corrollary,
> limiting speed of c for all objects with rest mass, has also been
> verified many, many times.
So is Larmor's transform. <shrug>
> verified many, many times.
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation
> is logically and mathematically correct.
> Thus a contradiction is not possible.
> Kobbly Wobbly covers most of the various interpretations, leaving
> out a couple (a glaring omission
>
No, it is covered by Koobee Wublee. Go back to read Koobee Wublee's post again. <shrgu>
> However, it would appear that his interpretations of the
> interpretations are specious. Cramer's explanations make a lot of
> sense to me.
Argument 2 is wrong. Itwas proposed by Born which the blessing of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Cramer claimed, handwaved physics of the inertial and non-inertial frames of reference are different and can be magically put back together again. You can always design scenarios where the moving twin experiences inertial frame. While both twins are in inertial frame, the mutual time dilation is building up. Making this time arbitrary, there is no way to avoid the contradiction. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 12:42:28 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:11:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:43:00 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other
> > one to age slower.
>
> There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for the
> duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
Hmmm... Jan is always out in the left field, and there is no need to continue. <shrug>
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:43:00 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > According to the Lorentz transform, each one will observe the other
> > one to age slower.
>
> There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for the
> duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
> [rest of bullshit snipped]
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 1:01:05 PM6/18/14
to
The only part I'm NOT sure of are the premises. The basic process to
measure velocity is to time a moving object between two points, but the
assumption that points exist becomes vague in the quantum world where
everything is discontinuous and jittering around. The only other way to
my knowledge of measuring v is the Doppler effect, and I haven't decided
whether that avoids my concerns about points.
However, I don't believe these concerns are a practical objection to
v = dx/dt in the macro universe. But anyway, THAT'S why I feel humble :-)
Gary
Maciej Woźniak
Jun 18, 2014, 1:10:19 PM6/18/14
to
Użytkownik napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:826047c2-2052-4dfb...@googlegroups.com...
|The only part I'm NOT sure of are the premises. The basic process to
|measure velocity is to time a moving object between two points, but the
|assumption that points exist becomes vague in the quantum world where
|everything is discontinuous and jittering around. The only other way to
|my knowledge of measuring v is the Doppler effect, and I haven't decided
|whether that avoids my concerns about points.
|However, I don't believe these concerns are a practical objection to
|v = dx/dt in the macro universe. But anyway, THAT'S why I feel humble :-)
You an Enlightened One Holding the Key to the Mysteries of Universe.
Well, You feel wrong. Your mumble makes You a pathetic, brainwashed
idiot. Nothing more, nothing less.
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 1:34:27 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:36:41 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:10:18 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions
>
> Wishing for the principle of relativity, the LT was derived from Larmor's
> transform which predicts the existence of the absolute frame of reference.
Bovine excrement! Larmor's xfrom is not a necessary premise of the LT.
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:10:18 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions
>
> Wishing for the principle of relativity, the LT was derived from Larmor's
> transform which predicts the existence of the absolute frame of reference.
I do not use it, and the LT arrives just the same.
> > which can be verified experimentally.
>
> What good are these experiments if they all also support Larmor's transform?
> The LT and Larmor's transform are antitheses to each other. If one is true,
> the other must be false.
> > If the LT is wrong, then either
> > (a) at least one of the premises/definitions is wrong or
> > (b) it was not derived correctly.
> > The derivation based on the premises/definitions looks to be mathematically
> > correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
> > LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz
> > transform and are the following:
> >
> > (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
>
> Not sure what you mean.
Then you haven't carefully read Saint Albert's 1905 paper. But basically it
> > correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
> > LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz
> > transform and are the following:
> >
> > (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
>
> Not sure what you mean.
says that a meter here is the same length as a meter over there, etc.
> > (2) position is the product of velocity and time
>
> A segment of position is not the global position.
There is no "global" position.
> > (3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
>
> Keep in mind that these points corrected also apply to Larmor's transform.
> > The fourth premise for the GT is absolute time (t' = t)
>
> ** dt' = dt
please?
> > and the fourth for the LT is invariant lightspeed in vacuum.
>
> So is Larmor's transform.
> > ... it has been verified many, many times, and its corrollary, limiting
> > speed of c for all objects with rest mass, has also been verified many,
> > many times.
>
> So is Larmor's transform.
> > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > logically and mathematically correct.
>
> So is Larmor's transform in which both the LT and Larmor's transform cannot
> be valid together. One or both must be false.
> > Thus a contradiction is not possible.
>
> The Twin paradox is an example that points out this contradiction.
> > Kobbly Wobbly covers most of the various interpretations, leaving out a
> > couple (a glaring omission http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html).
>
> No, it is covered by Koobee Wublee.
You make no sense.
> Go back to read Koobee Wublee's post again.
> > However, it would appear that his interpretations of the interpretations
> > are specious. Cramer's explanations make a lot of sense to me.
>
> While both twins are in inertial frame, the mutual time dilation is building
> up. Making this time arbitrary, there is no way to avoid the contradiction.
Kobbly Wobbley just doen't get it. The key to understanding the LT is to
> up. Making this time arbitrary, there is no way to avoid the contradiction.
consider what happens when an observer boosts from one inertial frame to
another. He MUST measure exactly what one already in that frame measures.
When one realizes that, the "time jump" is weird, there is no contradiction.
Gary
JanPB
Jun 18, 2014, 1:47:46 PM6/18/14
to
The above argument makes sense only if you assume there exists a Lorentz transform applicable to the twins for the duration of the trip. Since such Lorentz transform doesn't exist, your argument fails.
--
Jan
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 18, 2014, 2:35:57 PM6/18/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:10:18 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> Both (1) and (2) are correct. <shrug>
> Voigt in 1887. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:10:18 AM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:43:00 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> Both (1) and (2) are correct. <shrug>
> other. If one is true, the other must be false. <shrug>
> Both (a) and (b) are correct. <shrug>
> Not sure what you mean. <shrug>
> A segment of position is not the global position. <shrug>
> transform. <shrug>
> So is Larmor's transform. <shrug>
> So is Larmor's transform. <shrug>
> So is Larmor's transform. <shrug>
> cannot be valid together. One or both must be false. <shrug>
> <shrug>
> post again. <shrgu>
> Argument 1 is correct. That is what the LT means. <shrug>
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> arbitrary, there is no way to avoid the contradiction. <shrug>
A shitload indeed.
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles
Jun 18, 2014, 3:08:51 PM6/18/14
to
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:PP2dnQ4imsq...@giganews.com...
On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> logically and mathematically correct.
This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
geometry, and as is real analysis.
Mary was a virgin, Jesus ascended into heaven on a Saturn V and there are
canals on Mars.
-- "(2) tau = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2), not t/gamma." -- Imbecile shitlong, too
stupid to understand
0.5 = 2 * (1- 3/4) is the same as 0.5 = 1/2
Does blabbermouth Humpty Roberts come to his aid? It's too difficult for him
too.
-- Note to readers: Tom Roberts is THE most persistent dingleberry around
here.
He has been repeating his nonsense for many years, without any attempt
to learn the subject he tries to write about. I reply to him only
occasionally,
as a service to readers who may not recognize his arrogant stupidity.
He has proven himself to be unable and unwilling to learn the Principle of
Relativity.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 4:08:51 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:34:27 AM UTC-7, Shit along wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:36:41 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Wishing for the principle of relativity, the LT was derived from Larmor's
> > transform which predicts the existence of the absolute frame of reference.
>
> Bovine excrement!
Shit along is dropping bullshit again. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:36:41 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Wishing for the principle of relativity, the LT was derived from Larmor's
> > transform which predicts the existence of the absolute frame of reference.
>
> Bovine excrement!
> Larmor's xfrom is not a necessary premise of the LT.
> I do not use it, and the LT arrives just the same.
> > What good are these experiments if they all also support Larmor's transform?
>
> Your appealing to this defunct rag is getting really boring.
>
> > The LT and Larmor's transform are antitheses to each other. If one is true,
> > the other must be false.
>
> Obviously, Larmor's is false :-)
> > Not sure what you mean.
>
> Then you haven't carefully read Saint Albert's 1905 paper. But basically it
> says that a meter here is the same length as a meter over there, etc.
> > A segment of position is not the global position.
>
> Not sure what YOU mean :-) All we have is relative position in this universe.
> There is no "global" position.
> > Keep in mind that these points corrected also apply to Larmor's transform.
>
> Who cares?
> These premises also apply to the GT, and the GT is wrong, too
> > ** dt' = dt
>
> And your point is? Is time continuous? Can you make dt as small as you
> please?
> If both have the same premises, they are the same, not "antitheses."
> You are very conflicted in your mind about this Larmor stuff, aren't you.
> > So is Larmor's transform in which both the LT and Larmor's transform cannot
> > be valid together. One or both must be false.
>
> There is another option: your interpretation of what they say is false.
> > The Twin paradox is an example that points out this contradiction.
>
> No, it doesn't. Read the link I posted.
> > No, it is covered by Koobee Wublee.
>
> Then why are you still beating your chops that the TP is contradictory?
> You make no sense.
Shit along is not listening. <shrug>
> > Go back to read Koobee Wublee's post again.
>
> Not necessary. You obviously are too conflicted internally to make sense.
> > While both twins are in inertial frame, the mutual time dilation is building
> > up. Making this time arbitrary, there is no way to avoid the contradiction.
>
> Kobbly Wobbley just doen't get it.
> The key to understanding the LT is to consider what happens when an
> observer boosts from one inertial frame to another.
> When one realizes that, the "time jump" is weird, there is no contradiction.
> Gary
Shit along as usual. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 4:09:06 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:47:46 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:42:28 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:11:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for
> > > the duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
>
> > Hmmm... Jan is always out in the left field, and there is no need
> > to continue. <shrug>
>
> You said "the Lorentz transform" and "Since it is physically an
> impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged
> slower at reunion, this is a contradiction."
Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:42:28 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:11:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for
> > > the duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
>
> > Hmmm... Jan is always out in the left field, and there is no need
> > to continue. <shrug>
>
> You said "the Lorentz transform" and "Since it is physically an
> impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged
> slower at reunion, this is a contradiction."
> The above argument makes sense only if you assume there exists a
> Lorentz transform applicable to the twins for the duration of the
> trip.
> Since such Lorentz transform doesn't exist, your argument fails.
JanPB
Jun 18, 2014, 5:00:22 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:47:46 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:42:28 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:11:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> > > > There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for
> > > > the duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
>
> > > Hmmm... Jan is always out in the left field, and there is no need
> > > to continue. <shrug>
>
> > You said "the Lorentz transform" and "Since it is physically an
> > impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged
> > slower at reunion, this is a contradiction."
>
> Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:47:46 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:42:28 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:11:06 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>
> > > > There is no "the Lorentz transform" applicable for both twins for
> > > > the duration of the trip, hence your conclusion is invalid.
>
> > > Hmmm... Jan is always out in the left field, and there is no need
> > > to continue. <shrug>
>
> > You said "the Lorentz transform" and "Since it is physically an
> > impossibility to have each twin observes the other to have aged
> > slower at reunion, this is a contradiction."
>
> Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Jun 18, 2014, 5:31:18 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:49:46 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > logically and mathematically correct.
>
>
> This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
> geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
> geometry, and as is real analysis.
Special relativity is much greater than that, gary cockroach and Honest Roberts. It does not depend on the postulates. Even if the speed of light is variable, special relativity remains unaffected, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:
> On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > logically and mathematically correct.
>
>
> This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
> geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
> geometry, and as is real analysis.
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern physics would not be threatened."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien..."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certes construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité a plusieurs pieds."
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw
"That's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah!"
Pentcho Valev
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 5:35:24 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:08:51 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:34:27 AM UTC-7, Shit along wrote:
> >
> > Larmor's xfrom is not a necessary premise of the LT.
>
> Yes, the Lorentz transform was derived from Larmor's transform,
Repeating lies doesn't make them so. The LT can be derived from four premises,
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:34:27 AM UTC-7, Shit along wrote:
> >
> > Larmor's xfrom is not a necessary premise of the LT.
>
> Yes, the Lorentz transform was derived from Larmor's transform,
none of which is the Larmor transform.
And your sophomoric, pre-adolescent "cuteness" with my handle is really old
and boring. Consequently, since you have proven you have no valid argument
worthy of a serious discussion, you can go pound sand.
Gary
JanPB
Jun 18, 2014, 6:10:35 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:31:18 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:49:46 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > > logically and mathematically correct.
>
> > This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
> > geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
> > geometry, and as is real analysis.
>
> Special relativity is much greater than that, gary cockroach and Honest Roberts. It does not depend on the postulates. Even if the speed of light is variable, special relativity remains unaffected, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:
Your reactions are abnormal.
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:49:46 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> > On 6/18/14, 6/18/14 - 7:10 AM, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > > logically and mathematically correct.
>
> > This is FAR more than your humble opinion -- it has been proven that the
> > geometry and mathematics underlying SR is as self-consistent as is Euclidean
> > geometry, and as is real analysis.
>
> Special relativity is much greater than that, gary cockroach and Honest Roberts. It does not depend on the postulates. Even if the speed of light is variable, special relativity remains unaffected, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, that's the way ahah ahah we like it, ahah ahah:
--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 6:23:32 PM6/18/14
to
Koobee Wublee
Jun 18, 2014, 6:23:37 PM6/18/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:35:24 PM UTC-7, Shit along wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:08:51 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Yes, the Lorentz transform was derived from Larmor's transform,
>
> Repeating lies doesn't make them so.
There is no lie. Shit along is wrong again. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:08:51 PM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Yes, the Lorentz transform was derived from Larmor's transform,
>
> Repeating lies doesn't make them so.
> The LT can be derived from four premises, none of which is the Larmor
> transform.
> And your sophomoric, pre-adolescent "cuteness" with my handle is really old
> and boring.
> Consequently, since you have proven you have no valid argument
> worthy of a serious discussion, you can go pound sand.
For the lurkers,
Any transformations including the Galilean, the Lorentz, and Larmor's transforms involve three parties of interest: two observers and one observed mutually observed by the observers. There can only be one observed in a transform. The reciprocal of the transform is not another transform but the same. The transform describes the relationships of the observations on the mutually observed. The Einstein Dingleberries have been abusing the Lorentz transform for so long. <shrug>
All these transforms are valid in all frames of references including inertial and non-inertial. <shrug>
The myths of the Lorentz transform is to claim:
** Non-inertial frame does not apply.
** Any non-inertial frame will always be a non-inertial frame.
** The reciprocal of the same transform the observed observes the other observer.
** Time dilation is not accumulative.
And more...
<shrug>
JanPB
Jun 18, 2014, 6:54:59 PM6/18/14
to
--
Jan
xxe...@comcast.net
Jun 18, 2014, 8:39:21 PM6/18/14
to
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:34:56 PM UTC-4, Alfonso wrote:
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
>
> many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
>
>
>
>
> The difference between the moving twin and the stay at home twin is the
>
> fact that the distant point, where the moving twin turns around, is
>
> stationary in the FoR of the stay at home twin and the distance to it, X
>
> is considered to be the distance in that FoR.
>
>
>
>
>
> The difference between the moving twin and the stay at home twin is the
>
> fact that the distant point, where the moving twin turns around, is
>
> stationary in the FoR of the stay at home twin and the distance to it, X
>
> is considered to be the distance in that FoR.
>
>
>
> The stay at home twin sees the moving twins clock go slower by a factor
>
> Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
>
> travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
>
>
>
> The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
>
> v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
>
> done if the distance had been X.
>
>
>
>
> Q and so he does not clock up as many days as the stay at home twin in
>
> travelling a distance 2X to the distant point and back at speed v.
>
>
>
> The moving twin OTOH sees the distance as 2X/Q which he travels at speed
>
> v so it takes him a time which is a factor Q less than it would have
>
> done if the distance had been X.
>
>
>
> It has nothing to do with the fact that the moving twin accelerates and
>
> all the other convoluted explanations put forward. it is simply that one
>
> twin puts the difference down to a change in time while the other simply
>
> travels a shorter distance.
>
>
>
>
> all the other convoluted explanations put forward. it is simply that one
>
> twin puts the difference down to a change in time while the other simply
>
> travels a shorter distance.
>
>
>
> Its still nonsense but it is comforting to know that I - as someone who
>
> is critical of relativity - understand it better than those who defend
>
> it.
>
>
>
> Alfonso
>
> is critical of relativity - understand it better than those who defend
>
> it.
>
>
>
xxein: You are still making up things that only satisfy your own ignorant mind.
xxe...@comcast.net
Jun 18, 2014, 8:44:56 PM6/18/14
to
xxe...@comcast.net
Jun 18, 2014, 9:15:30 PM6/18/14
to
It's perfectly logical. If you could think in a logical way instead of learning physics from what you read on this group, you might learn something.
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2014, 9:52:41 PM6/18/14
to
> Nothing wrong with that. But one twin comes back at a different age from
> the other, not both. It's perfectly logical.
> If you could think in a logical way
> instead of learning physics from what you read on this group, you might
> learn something.
the smartest guy in the world or the dumbest.
Gary
Koobee Wublee
Jun 19, 2014, 1:14:13 AM6/19/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>
> > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>
> > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>
> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
> wrong".
The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>
> > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>
> > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>
> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
> wrong".
> It's like saying "translation is wrong". I'm still waiting
> for an explanation.
First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any transform including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there are three parties of interest: two observers and one observed mutually observed by the observers. Do you agree? You can call the observers frames of references or whatever you want. If Jan objects the term "observed", Koobee Wublee would use the term Jan prefers. <shrug>
There is nothing about the Lorentz or the Galilean transforms that only applies to the inertial frames of reference. Do you agree? <shrug>
JanPB
Jun 19, 2014, 1:31:46 AM6/19/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:14:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>
> > > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>
> > > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>
> > You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
> > wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
So you keep saying but never presented a proof. Your last attempt was flawed.
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>
> > > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>
> > > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>
> > You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
> > wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
> > It's like saying "translation is wrong". I'm still waiting
> > for an explanation.
>
> So, Jan wishes to discuss the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any transform including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there are three parties of interest: two observers and one observed mutually observed by the observers. Do you agree? You can call the observers frames of references or whatever you want. If Jan objects the term "observed", Koobee Wublee would use the term Jan prefers. <shrug>
In this case: Lorentz transformation is a linear map of certain type from R^4 to R^4 (maps one quadruple of numbers to another). These coordinates have certain physical interpretations. Question: where is the contradiction and what is "wrong" in the transformation?
--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
Jun 19, 2014, 1:43:08 AM6/19/14
to
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:31:46 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:14:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any
> > transform including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there
> > are three parties of interest: two observers and one observed
> > mutually observed by the observers. Do you agree? You can call
> > the observers frames of references or whatever you want. If Jan
> > objects the term "observed", Koobee Wublee would use the term Jan
> > prefers. <shrug>
>
> You claim there is a contradiction in the twin paradox and that
> "Lorentz transformation is wrong".
Yes, and Koobee Wublee stands firmly on that ground. <shrug>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:14:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any
> > transform including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there
> > are three parties of interest: two observers and one observed
> > mutually observed by the observers. Do you agree? You can call
> > the observers frames of references or whatever you want. If Jan
> > objects the term "observed", Koobee Wublee would use the term Jan
> > prefers. <shrug>
>
> You claim there is a contradiction in the twin paradox and that
> "Lorentz transformation is wrong".
> Since these mean specific things in SR, you must address those
> specific things,
> not some new made-up definitions.
> In this case: Lorentz transformation is a linear map of certain type
> from R^4 to R^4 (maps one quadruple of numbers to another). These
> coordinates have certain physical interpretations. Question: where
> is the contradiction and what is "wrong" in the transformation?
> > So, Jan wishes to discuss the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
Wizard-Of-Oz
Jun 19, 2014, 2:19:21 AM6/19/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:58b3b841-293b-4352...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee
>> > > wrote:
>
>> > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>>
>> > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>>
>> > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>>
>> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
>> wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin paradox.
> <shrug>
What contradiction.
>> It's like saying "translation is wrong". I'm still waiting
>> for an explanation.
>
> So, Jan wishes to discuss the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any transform
> including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there are three
> parties of interest: two observers and one observed mutually observed
> by the observers. Do you agree?
No ... you clearly don't understand what a transform is
So you fail already. If you don't even know what a transform is, as
appears to be the case, then you have no way to claim that the Lorentz
Trnasforms are wrong, especially when they model the realy world so well.
news:58b3b841-293b-4352...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee
>> > > wrote:
>
>> > > > Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>>
>> > > Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>>
>> > Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>>
>> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
>> wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin paradox.
> <shrug>
>> It's like saying "translation is wrong". I'm still waiting
>> for an explanation.
>
> So, Jan wishes to discuss the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any transform
> including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there are three
> parties of interest: two observers and one observed mutually observed
> by the observers. Do you agree?
So you fail already. If you don't even know what a transform is, as
appears to be the case, then you have no way to claim that the Lorentz
Trnasforms are wrong, especially when they model the realy world so well.
Wizard-Of-Oz
Jun 19, 2014, 2:23:02 AM6/19/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:69fc920a-5b9a-4ede...@googlegroups.com:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:31:46 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:14:13 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > First, we have to agree on what the transform means. In any
>> > transform including the Lorentz and the Galilean transforms, there
>> > are three parties of interest: two observers and one observed
>> > mutually observed by the observers. Do you agree? You can call
>> > the observers frames of references or whatever you want. If Jan
>> > objects the term "observed", Koobee Wublee would use the term Jan
>> > prefers. <shrug>
>>
>> You claim there is a contradiction in the twin paradox and that
>> "Lorentz transformation is wrong".
>
> Yes, and Koobee Wublee stands firmly on that ground. <shrug>
>> Since these mean specific things in SR, you must address those
>> specific things,
>
> Absolutely! <shrug>
>> not some new made-up definitions.
>
> What made-up definitions? <shrug>
you claim it to be. That throws very grave doubts on any claim you make
of a contradiction, when you don't even know what a transform is.
>> In this case: Lorentz transformation is a linear map of certain type
>> from R^4 to R^4 (maps one quadruple of numbers to another). These
>> coordinates have certain physical interpretations. Question: where
>> is the contradiction and what is "wrong" in the transformation?
>
> In order to avoid Jan's favorite game of "Knock! Knock! Who's there?",
> Koobee Wublee wants to make sure Jan does not go astray from the
> discussion. Shall Jan answer Koobee Wublee's questions first?
> <shrug>
games, moron.
>> > So, Jan wishes to discuss the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> Guess not, and that is OK with Koobee Wublee. <shrug>
up.
I guess you're nothing but an ignorant blow-hard coward like most of your
fellow cretins here. As soon as you're challeneged to come up with the
goods, you run away with your tail between your legs.
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 19, 2014, 3:37:35 AM6/19/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>>>> Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>>
>>>> Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>>
>>> Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>>
>> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
>> wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
> paradox. <shrug>
Here's the proof that it doesn't:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:54:59 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:23:32 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:09:06 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>>>> Yes, this means the Lorentz transform is wrong. <shrug>
>>
>>>> Incorrect. It's like saying "translation is wrong".
>>
>>> Your reasoning is very abnormal. <shrug>
>>
>> You still haven't substantiated your claim "the Lorentz transform is
>> wrong".
>
> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
> paradox. <shrug>
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
the meanings of the variables involved:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
Must be lonely at the bottom.
Dirk Vdm
al...@interia.pl
Jun 19, 2014, 9:49:15 AM6/19/14
to
W dniu środa, 18 czerwca 2014 14:10:18 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
> It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at two
> different rates.
Why it's not possible?
This is a normal and natural situation, and more:
this is mathematicaly obvious!
> In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions which
> can be verified experimentally. If the LT is wrong, then either (a) at least
> one of the premises/definitions is wrong or (b) it was not derived correctly.
> The derivation based on the premises/definitions looks to be mathematically
> correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
> LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz transform and are the following:
You make very poor logics, because your intention is evidend already at the very begining.
This means You assume the final result in advance.
> (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
> (2) position is the product of velocity and time
> (3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
And there is about hundred of additional, but hidden - inplicit assumptions.
Esspecialy you mix the simple relational quantities with these physical,
ie. the causes, actions, with a physical impact.
For example: an acceleration can be geometrical - relational,
just due to a tangential motion, but other can be real - due to the evident forces - the causes.
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> logically and mathematically correct. Thus a contradiction is not possible.
> So that leaves (2), interpretation of what it means. Kobbly Wobbly covers
> most of the various interpretations, leaving out a couple (a glaring omission
> - see http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html). However, it would
> appear that his interpretations of the interpretations are specious. Cramer's
Science is based on the identification and recognition;
the interpretations are just anti-science, because these are based on beliefs only (this is just a conformism and conventionalism, specific to the colloquial - descriptive 'science', like history, economy, sociology, ect.).
> It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at two
> different rates.
This is a normal and natural situation, and more:
this is mathematicaly obvious!
> In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions which
> can be verified experimentally. If the LT is wrong, then either (a) at least
> one of the premises/definitions is wrong or (b) it was not derived correctly.
> The derivation based on the premises/definitions looks to be mathematically
> correct, so that leaves (a). I use four premises/definitions to derive the
> LT. The first three apply to BOTH the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz transform and are the following:
This means You assume the final result in advance.
> (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
> (2) position is the product of velocity and time
> (3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
Esspecialy you mix the simple relational quantities with these physical,
ie. the causes, actions, with a physical impact.
For example: an acceleration can be geometrical - relational,
just due to a tangential motion, but other can be real - due to the evident forces - the causes.
> IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> logically and mathematically correct. Thus a contradiction is not possible.
> So that leaves (2), interpretation of what it means. Kobbly Wobbly covers
> most of the various interpretations, leaving out a couple (a glaring omission
> - see http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html). However, it would
> explanations make a lot of sense to me.
You lost in the interpretations - ie. non-formal speech.
Science is based on the identification and recognition;
the interpretations are just anti-science, because these are based on beliefs only (this is just a conformism and conventionalism, specific to the colloquial - descriptive 'science', like history, economy, sociology, ect.).
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2014, 10:20:24 AM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:49:15 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu środa, 18 czerwca 2014 14:10:18 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
> >
> > It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> > inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at
> > two different rates.
>
> Why it's not possible? This is a normal and natural situation, and more:
> this is mathematicaly obvious!
I misspoke (miswrote?). What I meant is that it is physically impossible
>
> W dniu środa, 18 czerwca 2014 14:10:18 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
> >
> > It is also PHYSICALLY impossible for two observers in two different
> > inertial frames to observe someone in a third inertial frame aging at
> > two different rates.
>
> Why it's not possible? This is a normal and natural situation, and more:
> this is mathematicaly obvious!
for someone in a third frame to be aging at two different rates.
> > In case (1), the LT is derived from certain premises and definitions
> > which can be verified experimentally. If the LT is wrong, then either
> > (a) at least one of the premises/definitions is wrong or (b) it was not
> > derived correctly. The derivation based on the premises/definitions
> > looks to be mathematically correct, so that leaves (a). I use four
> > premises/definitions to derive the LT. The first three apply to BOTH
> > the Galilean transform AND the Lorentz transform and are the following:
>
> You make very poor logics, because your intention is evidend already at the
> very begining. This means You assume the final result in advance.
premises correct or not? And if not, which are not and why are they not
and to what extent are they wrong?
> > (1) space and time are linear, isotropic and homogeneous
> > (2) position is the product of velocity and time
> > (3) a stationary object in one frame is moving in another and vice versa.
>
> And there is about hundred of additional, but hidden - inplicit assumptions.
> Esspecialy you mix the simple relational quantities with these physical, ie.
> the causes, actions, with a physical impact. For example: an acceleration
> can be geometrical - relational, just due to a tangential motion, but other
> can be real - due to the evident forces - the causes.
motion and inertial frames, so you are injecting fantasies into the situation.
> > IMHO, the premises of the LT are on solid footing and the derivation is
> > logically and mathematically correct. Thus a contradiction is not
> > possible. So that leaves (2), interpretation of what it means. Kobbly
> > Wobbly covers most of the various interpretations, leaving out a couple
> > (a glaring omission
> >
> > - see http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw38.html). However, it would
> > appear that his interpretations of the interpretations are specious.
> > Cramer's explanations make a lot of sense to me.
>
> You lost in the interpretations - ie. non-formal speech. Science is based
> on the identification and recognition; the interpretations are just anti-
> science, because these are based on beliefs only (this is just a conformism
> and conventionalism, specific to the colloquial - descriptive 'science',
> like history, economy, sociology, ect.).
and "explanation." There are implications of the LT, and some of those
explore the effect of things like length contraction, time dilation ...
and acceleration. You also seem to misunderstand that the LT is kinematic
in nature. The dynamics of SR deals with force, mass, momentum and energy.
Cramer's first explanation is NOT an interpretation. His second is a little
wobbly because it makes an appeal to GR, but his little equation can be
derived from the LT without such appeal.
Gary
Koobee Wublee
Jun 19, 2014, 12:48:24 PM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from ever being inertial again. <shrug>
So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations, no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate. <shrug>
A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
--------------------------------------------- +++++++
Where
** Font = Fixed font
** A = Twin A
** B = Twin B
** I = Inertial
** N = Non-inertial
** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
** +++ = Any mutual time dilation magically evaproates
The Einstein Dingleberries are just so fvcking stupid. <shrug>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
> > paradox. <shrug>
>
> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>
> the meanings of the variables involved:
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>
> Must be lonely at the bottom.
There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
> > The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
> > paradox. <shrug>
>
> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>
> the meanings of the variables involved:
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>
> Must be lonely at the bottom.
The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from ever being inertial again. <shrug>
So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations, no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate. <shrug>
A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
--------------------------------------------- +++++++
Where
** Font = Fixed font
** A = Twin A
** B = Twin B
** I = Inertial
** N = Non-inertial
** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
** +++ = Any mutual time dilation magically evaproates
The Einstein Dingleberries are just so fvcking stupid. <shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 19, 2014, 1:02:45 PM6/19/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
>>> paradox. <shrug>
>>
>> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>> the meanings of the variables involved:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>> Must be lonely at the bottom.
>
> There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the
shoulder?
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
>>> paradox. <shrug>
>>
>> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>> the meanings of the variables involved:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>> Must be lonely at the bottom.
>
> There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the
Yes, that's the <shrug>.
DIrk Vdm
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2014, 1:36:56 PM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:48:24 AM UTC-6, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames
> of reference.
No, it doesn't. Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames
> of reference.
station. Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
> The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference.
> There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise.
to approximate acceleration by stepwise inertial frames, as Jackson did in
Classical Electrodynamics.
> Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes a
> non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again even
> if acceleration stops?
where it started. Proof: Consider two inertial frames, A and B. The
observer in B has been traveling at velocity v wrt A since time immemorial.
A decides to accelerate at a certain time and winds up beside B with no
residual velocity between them. So you would say that B is inertial but A
isn't? Complete nonsense.
> So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial?
> This means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations, no?
frames in the case of boosts, as Jackson did.
> Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief moment,
> any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
Kobbly Wobbly and his ilk
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 19, 2014, 2:22:32 PM6/19/14
to
On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
>>> paradox. <shrug>
>>
>> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>>
>> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>>
>> the meanings of the variables involved:
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>>
>> Must be lonely at the bottom.
>
> There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations, no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate. <shrug>
>
Here lurkers can see what happens when "frames become inertial again".
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The Lorentz transform manifests the contradiction of the Twin
>>> paradox. <shrug>
>>
>> Here's the proof that it doesn't:
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>>
>> And here's proof that you haven't got a clue about
>>
>> the meanings of the variables involved:
>>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>>
>> Must be lonely at the bottom.
>
> There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations, no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate. <shrug>
>
Choose "B view" to see it in the frame of reference which
is accelerated part of the time, and inertial part of the time.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
Koobee Wublee doesn't know what the LT predicts,
because the simple math is beyond him.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Koobees_blunder.pdf
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
JanPB
Jun 19, 2014, 2:58:40 PM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:48:24 AM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference.
There is no Lorentz transform between non-inertial frames to begin with.
>
> The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference.
> The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference.
> There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
--
Jan
Dale Fletcher
Jun 19, 2014, 5:41:13 PM6/19/14
to
Alfonso wrote:
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
> many peoples difficulty with the twin paradox.
> I am a critic of SR - I think it is rubbish - but I do not understand so
Neither they do understand, but fooling themself by that feeling :)
Koobee Wublee
Jun 19, 2014, 9:00:03 PM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:22:32 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
>
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
>
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
> > ** +++ = Any mutual time dilation magically evaporates
>
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
>
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
>
> Here lurkers can see what happens when "frames become inertial again".
> Choose "B view" to see it in the frame of reference which
> is accelerated part of the time, and inertial part of the time.
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
What a blatant abuse of the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> Here lurkers can see what happens when "frames become inertial again".
> Choose "B view" to see it in the frame of reference which
> is accelerated part of the time, and inertial part of the time.
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
> Koobee Wublee doesn't know what the LT predicts,
> because the simple math is beyond him.
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Koobees_blunder.pdf
Koobee Wublee
Jun 19, 2014, 9:00:15 PM6/19/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:58:40 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
>
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
>
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
> > ** +++ = Any mutual time dilation magically evaporates
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
>
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
>
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
> It isn't. The transformation between any old frames is not necessarily
> of the Lorentz form. The closest you can get is relating the
> momentarily comoving inertial frames of two observers. That relation is
> necessarily Lorentz but it's valid only at one point in space at one
> instant of time. A moment later it's another frame pair connected by
> another Lorentz transform.
>
> The mathematical form alone won't tell you much of its applicability. You
> are free to apply a rotation matrix, for example, to curvilinear
> coordinates. You no longer get a rotation this way but the mathematics
> won't exhibit anything out of place. IOW, you are supposed to know what
> you're doing.
What is Jan talking about? Is there any math to support the wordy nonsense? Guess not. <shrug>
> are free to apply a rotation matrix, for example, to curvilinear
> coordinates. You no longer get a rotation this way but the mathematics
> won't exhibit anything out of place. IOW, you are supposed to know what
> you're doing.
In the meantime, the symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any frames of reference. <shrug>
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Koobee Wublee
Jun 20, 2014, 2:25:09 AM6/20/14
to
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:22:32 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 19.06.2014 18:48, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
> > ** +++ = Any mutual time dilation magically evaporates
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Fixed font
> > ** A = Twin A
> > ** B = Twin B
> > ** I = Inertial
> > ** N = Non-inertial
> > ** --- = Arbitrary time dilation building up
Properly applied the Lorentz transform for both A and B, the following will always hold regardless if A or B becomes non-inertial:
** dt_BB = dt_AB sqrt(1 - u^2)
And
** dt_AA = dt_BA sqrt(1 - u^2)
Where
** dt_AA = Local rate of time flow at A
** dt_BB = Local rate of time flow at B
** dt_AB = Rate of time flow at B as observed by A
** dt_BA = Rate of time flow at A as observed by B
** u c = Relative speed between A and B.
During both inertial frames, u is constant. When either A or B becomes non-inertial, u is variable. <shrug>
Thus, the fatal contradiction of the Twin paradox is glaring right at any true scholars of science. <shrug>
Through more brainstormings among the Einstein Dingleberries, some high priests of SR was able to bring up the "broken symmetry" to salvage their religion, and generation after generation of Einstein Dingleberries continued to be brainwashed. On rare occasions, when someone woke up to reality such as Dingle, he was ridiculed as a crackpot and burnt at the stake. <shrug>
> Here lurkers can see what happens when "frames become inertial again".
>
> Choose "B view" to see it in the frame of reference which
> is accelerated part of the time, and inertial part of the time.
** dt_BA = dt_AB sqrt(1 - u^2)
Where
** B = The one experienced acceleration
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
In reality, the symmetry of the Lorentz transform and the Lorentz transform should also apply for non-inertial frames of reference. This is exactly what the mathematics indicates, and no one can show otherwise. <shrug>
Despite the above, Paul continued to make quite a few fvck-ups:
1) Paul did not properly apply the Lorentz transform which is very clear that Paul did not fully understand the Galilean or the Lorentz transform. This is the reason why Koobee Wublee had asked Jan if it had agreed that the Lorentz transform (or the Galilean) is about the relationships of two observations on the same target, and Jan just replied who gives a fvck. <shrug>
2) When B experienced a period of non-inertial frame of reference, Paul immediately applied the so-called "broken symmetry". However, when B came out of the non-inertial frame of reference, the "broken symmetry" is still applied in Paul's fvcked up mathematics. In Paul's fantasy world, when someone experiences non-inertial frame of reference, it is always a non-inertial frame of reference, or the Lorentz transform has a magic memory to allow the broken symmetry to continue to apply even when both have immerged out of non-inertial frame of reference. <shrug>
Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 20, 2014, 4:23:50 AM6/20/14
to
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
> Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using
> matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
Kooobe in argument with boss.
Kooobe Very Angry.
Kooobe leaves room, slamming door.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Kooobe craves attention.
Dirk Vdm
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
> Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using
> matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
Kooobe Very Angry.
Kooobe leaves room, slamming door.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Silence.
Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
Kooobe craves attention.
Dirk Vdm
Message has been deleted
Koobee Wublee
Jun 20, 2014, 12:32:08 PM6/20/14
to
On Friday, June 20, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Paul Andersen wrote:
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
> > ** Font = Use fixed font to view the above
> > There is actually only one point to show the fatal fault in the Lorentz
> > transform that leads to the contradiction of the Twin paradox. <shrug>
>
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial
> > frames of reference. The Lorentz transform is very much valid for any
> > frames of reference. There is nothing mathematical in the Lorentz
> > transform that says otherwise. <shrug>
>
> > Another issue is the non-inertial frame of reference. If one becomes
> > a non-inertial frame of reference, would it ever become inertial again
> > even if acceleration stops? The mathemagics portrayed by the Einstein
> > Dingleberries sure keeps any frames that have become non-inertial from
> > ever being inertial again. <shrug>
>
> > So, if a non-inertial one can be inertial again, shouldn't mutual time
> > dilation start to build up when both frames become inertial? This
> > means any arbitrary time will give different mutual time dilations,
> > no? Magically, when one frame decides to go non-inertial for a brief
> > moment, any degree of mutual time dilation will just evaporate.
> > <shrug>
>
> > A: I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
> > B: I-N-N-N-N-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-N-N-N-N-I
> > --------------------------------------------- +++++++
>
> > Where
>
>
> > Paul violated the Lorentz transform by using the following. <shrug>
>
> > ** dt_BA = dt_AB sqrt(1 - u^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B = The one experienced acceleration
>
> > Paul violated the Lorentz transform by using the following. <shrug>
>
> > ** dt_BA = dt_AB sqrt(1 - u^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B = The one experienced acceleration
>
> > In reality, the symmetry of the Lorentz transform and the Lorentz
> > transform should also apply for non-inertial frames of reference.
> > This is exactly what the mathematics indicates, and no one can
> > show otherwise. <shrug
>
> > transform should also apply for non-inertial frames of reference.
> > This is exactly what the mathematics indicates, and no one can
> > show otherwise. <shrug
>
> > 1) Paul did not properly apply the Lorentz transform which is very
> > clear that Paul did not fully understand the Galilean or the Lorentz
> > transform. This is the reason why Koobee Wublee had asked Jan if it
> > had agreed that the Lorentz transform (or the Galilean) is about the
> > relationships of two observations on the same target, and Jan just
> > replied who gives a fvck. <shrug>
>
> > 2) When B experienced a period of non-inertial frame of reference,
> > Paul immediately applied the so-called "broken symmetry". However,
> > when B came out of the non-inertial frame of reference, the "broken
> > symmetry" is still applied in Paul's fvcked up mathematics. In
> > Paul's fantasy world, when someone experiences non-inertial frame
> > of reference, it is always a non-inertial frame of reference, or the
> > Lorentz transform has a magic memory to allow the broken symmetry to
> > continue to apply even when both have immerged out of non-inertial
> > frame of reference. <shrug>
>
> > clear that Paul did not fully understand the Galilean or the Lorentz
> > transform. This is the reason why Koobee Wublee had asked Jan if it
> > had agreed that the Lorentz transform (or the Galilean) is about the
> > relationships of two observations on the same target, and Jan just
> > replied who gives a fvck. <shrug>
>
> > 2) When B experienced a period of non-inertial frame of reference,
> > Paul immediately applied the so-called "broken symmetry". However,
> > when B came out of the non-inertial frame of reference, the "broken
> > symmetry" is still applied in Paul's fvcked up mathematics. In
> > Paul's fantasy world, when someone experiences non-inertial frame
> > of reference, it is always a non-inertial frame of reference, or the
> > Lorentz transform has a magic memory to allow the broken symmetry to
> > continue to apply even when both have immerged out of non-inertial
> > frame of reference. <shrug>
>
> > Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using
> > matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
> Kooobe in argument with boss.
> Kooobe Very Angry.
> Kooobe leaves room, slamming door.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Kooobe craves attention.
Does the above childish display a sign of defiance without reasoning? Is this the post that finally has demystified the Einstein Dibgleberries for good? <shrug>
> > matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
> Kooobe in argument with boss.
> Kooobe Very Angry.
> Kooobe leaves room, slamming door.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Silence.
> Kooobe opens door again. Kooobe slams door again.
> Kooobe craves attention.
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 20, 2014, 2:51:13 PM6/20/14
to
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 20, 2014, 2:52:13 PM6/20/14
to
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 20, 2014, 4:13:41 PM6/20/14
to
I love to pester Koobee Wublee, and find his desperate
kicking and screaming incredible hilarious. :-)
Koobee Wublee, look here, these are correct
despite your kicking and screaming and abuse
of elementary calculus:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Koobees_blunder.pdf
:-D
---------------------------
BTW, here is an excerpt from a posting I wrote in 2004:
| Look at the following scenario.
| We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
| at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
| Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
| both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
|
| At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
| Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
| dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
| dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
| That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
| to run fast in A's frame of reference.
I am confident that Koobee Wublee will not see the significance of it.
--
Paul, having fun
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 20, 2014, 5:26:14 PM6/20/14
to
Paul B. Andersen <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> On 20.06.2014 18:32, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
[snip]
> On 20.06.2014 18:32, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Friday, June 20, 2014, Dirk Van de moortel the sperm lover wrote:
Dirk Vdm
Koobee Wublee
Jun 20, 2014, 6:46:30 PM6/20/14
to
> > frame of reference. <shrug>
>
> > Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using
> > matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
>
> > Paul likes to play a little god in its own Java world using
> > matheMagics of its own inventions. <shrug>
> BTW, here is an excerpt from a posting I wrote in 2004:
>
> | We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
> | at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
> | Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
> | both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>
> | At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
> | Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>
> | dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
The Lorentz transform shows:
>
> | We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
> | at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
> | Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
> | both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>
> | At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
> | Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>
> | dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
** dt' = (dt + v dx c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
Where
** v = Relative speed between dt and dt'
In addition, (dt, dx, dy, dz) represent observed parameters of whatever A is observing, and (dt', dx', dy', dz') represent observed parameters of what B is observing. A and B are observing the same thing. In this case, both A and B are observing A itself. Thus, dx = 0. v is the relative speed between A and B. When Paul said (v = 0), v ought to be 0 and not (a dt). It looks Paul fvcked up again. Well, it happened in 2004. So, the retardedness is inborn. <shrug>
> | dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
>
> | That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
> | to run fast in A's frame of reference.
> I am confident that Koobee Wublee will not see the significance of it.
It is so hilarious indeed. Thanks for the laugh, Paul. :-D
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 21, 2014, 2:50:01 PM6/21/14
to
On 21.06.2014 00:46, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 1:13:41 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> BTW, here is an excerpt from a posting I wrote in 2004:
>>
>> | We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
>> | at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
>> | Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
>> | both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>>
>> | At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
>> | Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>>
>> | dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 1:13:41 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> BTW, here is an excerpt from a posting I wrote in 2004:
>>
>> | We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
>> | at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
>> | Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
>> | both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>>
>> | At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
>> | Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>>
>> | dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0
t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
dt/dt = 1, x = d, dv/dt = a, dx/dt = v = 0, gamma = 1
thus
dt'/dt = (1 + d*a/c^2)
or
dt' = dt + d*a*dt/c^2
>
> The Lorentz transform shows:
>
> ** dt' = (dt + v dx c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** v = Relative speed between dt and dt'
>
> In addition, (dt, dx, dy, dz) represent observed parameters of whatever A is observing,
> and (dt', dx', dy', dz') represent observed parameters of what B is observing.
> A and B are observing the same thing. In this case, both A and B are observing A itself.
> Thus, dx = 0. v is the relative speed between A and B.
> When Paul said (v = 0), v ought to be 0 and not (a dt).
that according to Koobee Wublee, v = 0 implies dv/dt = 0.
> It looks Paul fvcked up again. Well, it happened in 2004. So, the retardedness is inborn. <shrug>
>
>> | dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
>>
>> | That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
>> | to run fast in A's frame of reference.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html
>
> This is all wrong. <shrug>
>
>> I am confident that Koobee Wublee will not see the significance of it.
>
> Koobee Wublee thanks Paul for bringing on one of its many, many blunders to Koobee Wublee's attention. :-D
>
> It is so hilarious indeed. Thanks for the laugh, Paul. :-D
>
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
chanr...@gmail.com
Jun 21, 2014, 3:04:01 PM6/21/14
to
At the same time, Koobee Wublee is wrong and Paul is right.
I know it is counter-intuitive, but that's what debating relativity
involves.
I have no background in physics. I don't know much physics.
IMHO, I think this view correctly resolves this disputing
twin's paradox.
Chan Rasjid
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 21, 2014, 3:14:15 PM6/21/14
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
larger ?? Plus that you do not possibly know a c and x from a t' point of
> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
view.
> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
> dt/dt = 1, x = d, dv/dt = a, dx/dt = v = 0, gamma = 1
>
> thus
> dt'/dt = (1 + d*a/c^2)
> or
> dt' = dt + d*a*dt/c^2
Koobee Wublee
Jun 21, 2014, 4:26:27 PM6/21/14
to
> > > BTW, here is an excerpt from a posting I wrote in 2004:
>
> > > "We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
> > > at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
> > > Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
> > > both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>
> > > At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
> > > Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>
> > > dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0"
>
>
> > > "We have two clocks A and B which are instantly at rest to each other
> > > at a distance d . A has a constant acceleration a, while B is inertial.
> > > Let t be the time of clock A while t' is the time of clock B, and let
> > > both clocks show 0 at the time when A and B are at rest to each other.
>
> > > At the time dt, the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt.
> > > Thus the Lorentz transform say that clock B will show:
>
> > > dt' = gamma*(dt + d*a*dt/c^2), gamma = 1 because v = 0"
>
> > The Lorentz transform shows:
>
> > ** dt' = (dt + v dx c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** v = Relative speed between dt and dt'
>
> > In addition, (dt, dx, dy, dz) represent observed parameters of
> > whatever A is observing, and (dt', dx', dy', dz') represent observed
> > parameters of what B is observing. A and B are observing the same
> > thing. In this case, both A and B are observing A itself. Thus,
> > dx = 0. v is the relative speed between A and B. When Paul said
>
> > ** dt' = (dt + v dx c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** v = Relative speed between dt and dt'
>
> > In addition, (dt, dx, dy, dz) represent observed parameters of
> > whatever A is observing, and (dt', dx', dy', dz') represent observed
> > parameters of what B is observing. A and B are observing the same
> > thing. In this case, both A and B are observing A itself. Thus,
> > (v = 0), v ought to be 0 and not (a dt). It looks Paul fvcked up
> > again. Well, it happened in 2004. So, the retardedness is inborn.
> > <shrug>
>
> > <shrug>
>
> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
>
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
What Paul write down above is a special case of the Lorentz transform (similarly the Galilean transform also applies here) where x is constant. A more general form of the Lorentz transform which also applies to non-inertial frames of reference is:
>
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
** dt' = (dt + v dx c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
> dt/dt = 1, x = d, dv/dt = a, dx/dt = v = 0, gamma = 1
>
> thus
>
> dt'/dt = (1 + d*a/c^2)
>
> or
>
> dt' = dt + d*a*dt/c^2
>
Paul fvcked up again! :-D
> > > "dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
>
> > > That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
> > > to run fast in A's frame of reference."
>
> > This is all wrong. <shrug>
>
>
> I will not insult the reader by explaining why I find it hilarious
> that according to Koobee Wublee, v = 0 implies dv/dt = 0.
Paul said "the speed of B in A's accelerated frame will be -a*dt". Since (v = relative speed between A and B), (v = - a dt). Paul fvcked up again. For Paul's information,
> that according to Koobee Wublee, v = 0 implies dv/dt = 0.
** v = integral of (a dt)
:-D
> > > I am confident that Koobee Wublee will not see the significance of it.
>
> > Koobee Wublee thanks Paul for bringing on one of its many, many blunders
> > to Koobee Wublee's attention. :-D
>
> Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-D
:-D
> > It is so hilarious indeed. Thanks for the laugh, Paul. :-D
:-D
> > to Koobee Wublee's attention. :-D
>
> Wasn't I right, or was I right? :-D
:-D
> > It is so hilarious indeed. Thanks for the laugh, Paul. :-D
Koobee Wublee
Jun 21, 2014, 4:36:03 PM6/21/14
to
> I think Koobee Wublee is right and Paul is wrong.
> At the same time, Koobee Wublee is wrong and Paul is right.
>
> I know it is counter-intuitive, but that's what debating relativity
> involves.
Wrong, dude! Relativity is science. Debate does not work. You need to show you are right using mathematical analyses, logic, or experimental verifications. <shrug>
> At the same time, Koobee Wublee is wrong and Paul is right.
>
> I know it is counter-intuitive, but that's what debating relativity
> involves.
> I have no background in physics. I don't know much physics.
> IMHO, I think this view correctly resolves this disputing
> twin's paradox.
Dono,
Jun 21, 2014, 8:11:51 PM6/21/14
to
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
>
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>
This can't be, you surely meant:
>
> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
>
> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>
t' = gamma*(t+xv/c^2), this must have been a typo.
> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
\gamma.
If you want to teach Koobler-Woobler (an impossible task, by definition), you need to have your equations straight.
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 21, 2014, 8:21:39 PM6/21/14
to
Dono, wrote:
>> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>>
>>
> This can't be, you surely meant:
>
> t' = gamma*(t+xv/c^2), this must have been a typo.A
>> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>>
>>
> This can't be, you surely meant:
>
I disagree, PBA does not make typos
>> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
>
>
> This doesn't seem right either, since \gamma is a function of v, you did
> the derivative wrt t for (t+xv/c^2) but you forgot the derivative wrt t
> for \gamma.
beauty of own equation, no wonder he gets things wrong.
Koobee Wublee
Jun 22, 2014, 1:04:58 AM6/22/14
to
> PBA does not make typos
Everyone makes typos, and typos are easy to spot and should be easily forgiven by the opponents of the argument. It does no good to a discussion for the opposition to criticize on typos. However, Paul made a serious blunder back in 2004. No one would have come across it until Paul volunteered that information in hoping to bury Koobee Wublee. Well, it backed fired. :-D
Paul should have just admitted to its own blunder and moved on, but amazingly Paul tried to salvage that blunder he made 10 years ago. The result is a few more series of blunders getting itself deeper in shit. :-D
Paul's series of blunder where one blunder was an attempt to salvage the previous one is very similar to case of the Twin paradox. The contradiction of the Lorentz transform was identified more 100 years ago, but the self-styled physicists chose to salvage it --- in doing so with more blunders --- from the nonsense of Born's acceleration breaking the symmetry to the equal nonsense of inertial versus non-inertial frames. In the meantime, a pyramid of hypotheses was already built on the garbage of SR. It is no wonder the self-styled physicists are coming out in force to shut anyone down who thinks the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction. <shrug>
The moral of the story is that science is not an exercise of covering up the previous blunders. True scientists will admit mistakes and back track. In fact, that is what science is all about. However, the ones who call themselves scientists are just priests defending their religion and their god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. They are nothing but fvcking buffoons. <shrug>
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 22, 2014, 6:54:28 AM6/22/14
to
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul should have just admitted to its own blunder and moved on, but
> amazingly Paul tried to salvage that blunder he made 10 years ago. The
> result is a few more series of blunders getting itself deeper in shit.
Therefore I tell he does not make typos, I must insist. He does insists as
> Paul should have just admitted to its own blunder and moved on, but
> amazingly Paul tried to salvage that blunder he made 10 years ago. The
> result is a few more series of blunders getting itself deeper in shit.
well he does not do typos. All he writes he tells is correct.
I read same thing happened with a wave equation he fucked up, then told it
was not a typo. LOL
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 22, 2014, 8:46:51 AM6/22/14
to
>> dt/dt = 1, x = d, dv/dt = a, dx/dt = v = 0, gamma = 1
>
> From a purely mathematical point of view, what the fvck happened
> to the derivative of gamma which is a function of v? <shrug>
A very good question.
>
> From a purely mathematical point of view, what the fvck happened
> to the derivative of gamma which is a function of v? <shrug>
I didn't want to make it too complicated, but since you ask:
dt'/dt = d\gamma/dt*(1+xv/c^2)+gamma*d/dt(1+xv/c^2)
The first term is zero because d\gamma/dt = 0 when v = 0,
the second term is shown above.
>>
>> thus
>>
>> dt'/dt = (1 + d*a/c^2)
>>
>> or
>>
>> dt' = dt + d*a*dt/c^2
>>
>>>> "dt'/dt = 1 + ad/c^2
>>>>
>>>> That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
>>>> to run fast in A's frame of reference."
For lurkers:
>>>>
>>>> That is, if A is accelerating towards B, B will be measured
>>>> to run fast in A's frame of reference."
d\gamma/dt = (v/c^2)*(1-v^2/c^2)^(-3/2)*dv/dt
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 22, 2014, 9:01:56 AM6/22/14
to
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 22, 2014, 9:09:20 AM6/22/14
to
On 22.06.2014 02:11, Dono, wrote:
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
>>
>> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>>
>
> This can't be, you surely meant:
>
> t' = gamma*(t+xv/c^2), this must have been a typo.
Indeed. Thanks.
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:50:01 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Feeding with smaller spoons, but probably still too big for KW:
>>
>> t' = gamma*(1+xv/c^2)
>>
>
> This can't be, you surely meant:
>
> t' = gamma*(t+xv/c^2), this must have been a typo.
>
>> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
>
>
> This doesn't seem right either, since \gamma is a function of v, you did the derivative wrt t for (t+xv/c^2) but you forgot the derivative wrt t for
> \gamma.
> If you want to teach Koobler-Woobler (an impossible task, by definition), you need to have your equations straight.
>
See my other posting.
>> dt'/dt = gamma*(dt/dt + (x*dv/dt+v*dx/dt)/c^2)
>
>
> This doesn't seem right either, since \gamma is a function of v, you did the derivative wrt t for (t+xv/c^2) but you forgot the derivative wrt t for
> \gamma.
> If you want to teach Koobler-Woobler (an impossible task, by definition), you need to have your equations straight.
>
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Dono,
Jun 22, 2014, 9:37:08 AM6/22/14
to
1. You claim \gamma=1 because v=0. Then, you should have t'=t, so dt'/dt=1. End
2. You claim that dv/dt=a. This has two sub-issues:
2a. The Lorentz transforms are derived for v=const (actually, the condition is even stronger, \vec{v}=const)
2b. You just claimed that v=0 (to get \gamma=1) , therefore, dv/dt=0 and not "a"
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 22, 2014, 9:43:01 AM6/22/14
to
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Typo:
> (1+vx/c^2) should be (t+vx/c^2) everywhere
I disagree, you never do typos.
> Typo:
> (1+vx/c^2) should be (t+vx/c^2) everywhere
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 22, 2014, 9:48:19 AM6/22/14
to
Dono, wrote:
> It is still seriously wrong. On more than one account:
>
> 1. You claim \gamma=1 because v=0. Then, you should have t'=t, so
> dt'/dt=1. End 2. You claim that dv/dt=a. This has two sub-issues:
> 2a. The Lorentz transforms are derived for v=const (actually, the
> condition is even stronger, \vec{v}=const)
> 2b. You just claimed that v=0 (to get \gamma=1) , therefore, dv/dt=0 and
> not "a"
All typos, something he does not makes :)
> It is still seriously wrong. On more than one account:
>
> 1. You claim \gamma=1 because v=0. Then, you should have t'=t, so
> dt'/dt=1. End 2. You claim that dv/dt=a. This has two sub-issues:
> 2a. The Lorentz transforms are derived for v=const (actually, the
> condition is even stronger, \vec{v}=const)
> 2b. You just claimed that v=0 (to get \gamma=1) , therefore, dv/dt=0 and
> not "a"
Paul B. Andersen
Jun 22, 2014, 1:42:39 PM6/22/14
to
On 22.06.2014 15:37, Dono, wrote:
> 2b. You just claimed that v=0 (to get \gamma=1) , therefore, dv/dt=0 and not "a"
>
v(t) = at => v(0) = 0
> 2b. You just claimed that v=0 (to get \gamma=1) , therefore, dv/dt=0 and not "a"
>
v(0) = 0 => dv/dt = 0 ??? :-D
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Dono,
Jun 22, 2014, 2:01:06 PM6/22/14
to
1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable, so you cannot write
t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
2. Even if you TRIED to write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
the reality is that the "v" in "gamma" is the SAME "v" as in t+vx/c^2.
What you are trying is something completely unorthodox and unfounded, you are writing:
t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 22, 2014, 6:52:56 PM6/22/14
to
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
???! Of course there is. x can vary as in x = v2*t.
>
> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
> so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
you're claiming that.
> 2. Even if you TRIED to write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2) the reality is that
> the "v" in "gamma" is the SAME "v" as in t+vx/c^2.
> What you are trying is something completely unorthodox and unfounded, you
> are writing: t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
other must be, too.
> There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
acceleration:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
And you can handle boosts without recourse to a changing velocity with the
standard LT by realizing that an observer boosting into a different frame
will see the same thing that an observer that is already in that frame does.
Gary
Lord Androcles
Jun 22, 2014, 7:13:48 PM6/22/14
to
Paul Draper aka diaper aka Gary Glitter aka shitlong
wrote in message
news:910f3105-160b-4e36...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
You don't know what that "trough" is supposed to represent, so you
0.5 = 2 * (1-3/4), not 1/2
====| Imbecile Dono 1, Imbecile Draper 0 |=====
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote in message
news:910f3105-160b-4e36...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
shitlong diaper wrote:
I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
you're claiming that.
I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
you're claiming that.
Yes, I haven't been trough the derivation, but equations exist for constant
acceleration:
=========================================================
acceleration:
You don't know what that "trough" is supposed to represent, so you
don't know why you're claiming that.
-- "(2) tau = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2), not t/gamma." -- Imbecile shitlong
0.5 = 2 * (1-3/4), not 1/2
====| Imbecile Dono 1, Imbecile Draper 0 |=====
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Dono,
Jun 22, 2014, 8:13:56 PM6/22/14
to
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:52:56 PM UTC-7, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
>
>
>
> ???! Of course there is. x can vary as in x = v2*t.
>
>
That was a typo, there is no Lorentz transformation for time varying VELOCITY. I already pointed that out in the previous post, should have been evident from the context.
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
>
>
>
> ???! Of course there is. x can vary as in x = v2*t.
>
>
>
> > so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
>
>
>
> I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
>
> you're claiming that.
>
>
>
> > 2. Even if you TRIED to write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2) the reality is that
>
> > the "v" in "gamma" is the SAME "v" as in t+vx/c^2.
>
>
>
> Yes, so?
>
>
>
> > What you are trying is something completely unorthodox and unfounded, you
>
> > are writing: t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
>
>
>
> A v(t) is a bit of a problem. For one thing, if one v is variable, the
>
> other must be, too.
>
>
>
> > There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
>
>
>
> Yes, I haven't been trough the derivation, but equations exist for constant
>
> acceleration:
>
>
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>
>
>
Dono,
Jun 22, 2014, 8:41:06 PM6/22/14
to
1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying VELOCITY
Koobee Wublee
Jun 22, 2014, 11:56:15 PM6/22/14
to
> > Paul's series of blunder where one blunder was an attempt to salvage
> > the previous one is very similar to case of the Twin paradox. The
> > contradiction of the Lorentz transform was identified more 100 years
> > ago, but the self-styled physicists chose to salvage it --- in doing
> > so with more blunders --- from the nonsense of Born's acceleration
> > breaking the symmetry to the equal nonsense of inertial versus non-
> > inertial frames. In the meantime, a pyramid of hypotheses was
> > already built on the garbage of SR. It is no wonder the self-styled
> > physicists are coming out in force to shut anyone down who thinks
> > the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction. <shrug>
>
> > The moral of the story is that science is not an exercise of
> > covering up the previous blunders. True scientists will admit
> > mistakes and back track. In fact, that is what science is all about.
> > However, the ones who call themselves scientists are just priests
> > defending their religion and their god Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar. They are nothing but fvcking buffoons.
> > <shrug>
> > the previous one is very similar to case of the Twin paradox. The
> > contradiction of the Lorentz transform was identified more 100 years
> > ago, but the self-styled physicists chose to salvage it --- in doing
> > so with more blunders --- from the nonsense of Born's acceleration
> > breaking the symmetry to the equal nonsense of inertial versus non-
> > inertial frames. In the meantime, a pyramid of hypotheses was
> > already built on the garbage of SR. It is no wonder the self-styled
> > physicists are coming out in force to shut anyone down who thinks
> > the Twin paradox is a fatal contradiction. <shrug>
>
> > The moral of the story is that science is not an exercise of
> > covering up the previous blunders. True scientists will admit
> > mistakes and back track. In fact, that is what science is all about.
> > However, the ones who call themselves scientists are just priests
> > defending their religion and their god Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar. They are nothing but fvcking buffoons.
> > <shrug>
> Let's try again:
>
> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable, so you
> [Paul Andersen] cannot write
>
> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable, so you
>
> t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
>
> 2. Even if you [Paul Andersen] TRIED to write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
> the reality is that the "v" in "gamma" is the SAME "v" as in t+vx/c^2.
>
> What you [Paul Andersen] are trying is something completely unorthodox
>
> and unfounded, you are writing:
>
> t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
>
> There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
That is very good for someone who don't know anything. Does Dono see anything in the Lorentz transform that does not support non-inertial frames of reference? If not, the Twin paradox is plainly wrong! <shrug>
>
> t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
>
> There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
Dono,
Jun 23, 2014, 9:40:02 AM6/23/14
to
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 8:56:15 PM UTC-7, MU-SLIME CRETIN Koobee Wublee wrote:
> snip imbecilities<
I see that you are still smelling ass fumes at your local mosque in Orange County, CA.
> snip imbecilities<
I see that you are still smelling ass fumes at your local mosque in Orange County, CA.
Odell G. Kreiger
Jun 23, 2014, 12:12:29 PM6/23/14
to
hitlong wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>>
>> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
>
> ???! Of course there is. x can vary as in x = v2*t.
>
>> so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
Can't you read, idiot.
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:01:06 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>>
>> 1. There is no Lorentz transform for time-varying variable,
>
> ???! Of course there is. x can vary as in x = v2*t.
>
>> so you cannot write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2)
> I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
> you're claiming that.
>> 2. Even if you TRIED to write t'=\gamma (t+vx/c^2) the reality is that
>> the "v" in "gamma" is the SAME "v" as in t+vx/c^2.
>
> Yes, so?
>
>> What you are trying is something completely unorthodox and unfounded,
>> you are writing: t'=(t+v(t)x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v(0)/c)^2)
>
> A v(t) is a bit of a problem. For one thing, if one v is variable, the
> other must be, too.
>
>> There is scientific basis for the above mishmash.
>
> Yes, I haven't been trough the derivation, but equations exist for
> constant acceleration:
constant.
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 23, 2014, 1:20:09 PM6/23/14
to
On Monday, June 23, 2014 10:12:29 AM UTC-6, Odell G. Kreiger wrote:
on this thread have not been very helpful.
> > I haven't been t[h]rough the derivation, but equations exist for constant
Gary
>
> hitlong wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
> > you're claiming that.
>
> It is so hard, it means what follows is a symbol, idiot.
Why, thank you very much, O.G., I have no reason to use La Tex and others
> hitlong wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what that "\" is supposed to represent, so I don't know why
> > you're claiming that.
>
> It is so hard, it means what follows is a symbol, idiot.
on this thread have not been very helpful.
> > I haven't been t[h]rough the derivation, but equations exist for constant
> > acceleration:
>
> That must be the easy part, since acceleration, except gravity, rarely is
> constant.
"Must be"? You mean, you haven't worked it out either?
>
> That must be the easy part, since acceleration, except gravity, rarely is
> constant.
Gary
Koobee Wublee
Jun 25, 2014, 4:01:13 AM6/25/14
to
Let's try again. The Twin paradox is not about how much ass fumes that Dono can intake. In the meantime, the relatively higher ranking Einstein Dingleberries have stayed away to allow the low minions of dingleberries to disrupt the discussion. We have seen this pattern occurring many times in the past. Koobee Wublee is wondering how much the professors in the academics are paying these metal eunuchs such Dono who don't know anything, Gary Shits along, Dirk van de moortel the sperm lover, and many others. <shrug>
Try not to volunteer about Dono's own adventure and experience in smelling ass fumes this time, ok? Nobody gives a fvck. <shrug>
al...@interia.pl
Jun 25, 2014, 7:50:58 AM6/25/14
to
W dniu czwartek, 19 czerwca 2014 19:36:56 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames
> > of reference.
>
> No, it doesn't. Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space
> station. Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
And the 'feeling of a force' is something quite different;
this is just a stress in the body, due to the --differences-- of acceleration
along the body - actually this is an energy gradient!
Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0 (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
> > The symmetry of the Lorentz transform also holds under non-inertial frames
> > of reference.
>
> station. Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
And the 'feeling of a force' is something quite different;
this is just a stress in the body, due to the --differences-- of acceleration
along the body - actually this is an energy gradient!
Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0 (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
Dono,
Jun 25, 2014, 9:05:30 AM6/25/14
to
hit...@yahoo.com
Jun 25, 2014, 9:07:56 AM6/25/14
to
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:50:58 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
> And the 'feeling of a force' is something quite different;
The LT is kinematics and force introduces dynamics, but both are part of SR.
> this is just a stress in the body, due to the --differences-- of acceleration
> along the body
But ... the whole body is moving together. There is no difference in accel.
in the steady state.
> - actually this is an energy gradient!
Well, yeah, since dE/dx = F
> Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
> because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0
> (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
This is irrelevant to SR which excludes cases where gravity is significant.
Gary
>
> hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space station.
> > Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
>
> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
> hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space station.
> > Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
>
> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
> And the 'feeling of a force' is something quite different;
> this is just a stress in the body, due to the --differences-- of acceleration
> along the body
in the steady state.
> - actually this is an energy gradient!
> Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
> because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0
> (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
Gary
Lord Androcles
Jun 25, 2014, 12:09:00 PM6/25/14
to
shitlong
wrote in message
news:c6f23261-e2b7-4d8a...@googlegroups.com...
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:50:58 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space station.
> > Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
>
> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
is occurring, there are MORE than two frames.
====================================================
You get more insane every day, shitlong.
If a ship is accelerating away from a station then the frame it accelerates
in is the x-axis (or y- or z- or some combination of all three) , where it
has position x,y,z at time t. The other frame is that of the ship, away from
which the station accelerates and the station has coordinates (x',y',z',t')
from the origin of the ship. Only total fuckwits like you can't count to
two.
-- "(2) tau = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2), not t/gamma." -- Imbecile shitlong
wrote in message
news:c6f23261-e2b7-4d8a...@googlegroups.com...
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:50:58 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Consider the case of a ship accelerating away from s space station.
> > Do observers in both frames feel a force? Of course not! Q.E.D.
>
> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
is occurring, there are MORE than two frames.
You get more insane every day, shitlong.
If a ship is accelerating away from a station then the frame it accelerates
in is the x-axis (or y- or z- or some combination of all three) , where it
has position x,y,z at time t. The other frame is that of the ship, away from
which the station accelerates and the station has coordinates (x',y',z',t')
from the origin of the ship. Only total fuckwits like you can't count to
two.
-- "(2) tau = gamma*(t - v*x/c^2), not t/gamma." -- Imbecile shitlong
al...@interia.pl
Jun 26, 2014, 6:35:17 AM6/26/14
to
W dniu środa, 25 czerwca 2014 15:07:56 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
> > The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
>
> Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
> is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
> is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
> > Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
> > because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0
> > (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
>
> This is irrelevant to SR which excludes cases where gravity is significant.
But SR doesn't exclude the equal acceleration of a whole body (thus without an internal stress), then you feel no force, and both frames are indistinguishable.
You notice just a mutual acceleration, ie. wrt the second body.
Or the case of a point-mass: no forces possible along the body, because the body is one point only.
> > The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
>
> Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
> is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
> is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
> > Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
> > because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0
> > (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
>
> This is irrelevant to SR which excludes cases where gravity is significant.
You notice just a mutual acceleration, ie. wrt the second body.
Or the case of a point-mass: no forces possible along the body, because the body is one point only.
Odd Bodkin
Jun 26, 2014, 10:47:54 AM6/26/14
to
On 6/26/2014 5:35 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 25 czerwca 2014 15:07:56 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
>
>>> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
>>
>> Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
>> is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
>> is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
>
> Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
Inertial reference frames are preferred vs. non-inertial reference
> W dniu środa, 25 czerwca 2014 15:07:56 UTC+2 użytkownik hit...@yahoo.com
>
>>> The acceleration is exactly the same in both frames.
>>
>> Right there you expose the false basis of your claim: If acceleration
>> is occurring, there are MORE than two frames. And the one CHANGING frames
>> is the one feeling the force, not the one in inertial motion.
>
> Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
frames yes. But among inertial reference frames, there is no preferred
frame.
>
>>> Especially during the free fall in the gravity field you feel no force,
>>> because every part of the body accelerate equally - gradient = 0
>>> (excluding tidal forces, which are usually very tiny).
>>
>> This is irrelevant to SR which excludes cases where gravity is significant.
>
> But SR doesn't exclude the equal acceleration of a whole body (thus without an internal stress),
> then you feel no force, and both frames are indistinguishable.
> You notice just a mutual acceleration, ie. wrt the second body.
(thus without an internal stress)" might actually happen?
al...@interia.pl
Jun 27, 2014, 10:05:36 AM6/27/14
to
W dniu czwartek, 26 czerwca 2014 16:47:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
>
> Inertial reference frames are preferred vs. non-inertial reference
> frames yes. But among inertial reference frames, there is no preferred
> frame.
Empty improvisations, because you are not able to distinguish between these systems, without additional assumptions, for example, such as a feeling of external force, ie. the presence of the gradient of energy within yourself.
> > Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
>
> Inertial reference frames are preferred vs. non-inertial reference
> frames yes. But among inertial reference frames, there is no preferred
> frame.
> > But SR doesn't exclude the equal acceleration of a whole body (thus without an internal stress),
> > then you feel no force, and both frames are indistinguishable.
> > You notice just a mutual acceleration, ie. wrt the second body.
>
> Can you please illustrate how an "equal acceleration of a whole body
> (thus without an internal stress)" might actually happen?
which accumulates a collisional energy, instead of dissipating it in place:
by adequate absorption method of energy, you can reduce local stresses,
so you feel a reduced force (quite similarly as in the free fall).
Odd Bodkin
Jun 27, 2014, 10:17:56 AM6/27/14
to
On 6/27/2014 9:05 AM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 26 czerwca 2014 16:47:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>
>>> Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
>>
>> Inertial reference frames are preferred vs. non-inertial reference
>> frames yes. But among inertial reference frames, there is no preferred
>> frame.
>
> Empty improvisations, because you are not able to distinguish between these systems,
> without additional assumptions, for example, such as a feeling of external force, ie. the
> presence of the gradient of energy within yourself.
I think the presence of fictional forces is one of the hallmarks of
> W dniu czwartek, 26 czerwca 2014 16:47:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>
>>> Thus you finally discovered the preferred frame in the SR. :)
>>
>> Inertial reference frames are preferred vs. non-inertial reference
>> frames yes. But among inertial reference frames, there is no preferred
>> frame.
>
> Empty improvisations, because you are not able to distinguish between these systems,
> without additional assumptions, for example, such as a feeling of external force, ie. the
> presence of the gradient of energy within yourself.
distinguishing inertial reference frames from non-inertial reference
frames. You might want to look up the definition of inertial reference
frame.
>
>>> But SR doesn't exclude the equal acceleration of a whole body (thus without an internal stress),
>>> then you feel no force, and both frames are indistinguishable.
>>> You notice just a mutual acceleration, ie. wrt the second body.
>>
>> Can you please illustrate how an "equal acceleration of a whole body
>> (thus without an internal stress)" might actually happen?
>
> Such thing is patented already, as so-called safe bumper,
> which accumulates a collisional energy, instead of dissipating it in place:
> by adequate absorption method of energy, you can reduce local stresses,
> so you feel a reduced force (quite similarly as in the free fall).
>
It's the same as "giving" with the catch of a pitched fastball. There
isn't anything that applies that force uniformly over the human body.
It's still the seat belt and the friction with the seat that slows the
body and so is no different in terms of internal stresses, other than
the overall lowering of the acceleration.
We're not talking about REDUCING the acceleration here. You mentioned SR
doesn't exclude the EQUAL acceleration of a whole body, so that internal
stresses aren't felt. That's something completely different, and I was
asking about that.
al...@interia.pl
Jun 27, 2014, 2:08:43 PM6/27/14
to
W dniu piątek, 27 czerwca 2014 16:17:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> I think the presence of fictional forces is one of the hallmarks of
> distinguishing inertial reference frames from non-inertial reference
> frames. You might want to look up the definition of inertial reference
> frame.
This is the great assumption on which the whole GR is based -
> I think the presence of fictional forces is one of the hallmarks of
> distinguishing inertial reference frames from non-inertial reference
> frames. You might want to look up the definition of inertial reference
> frame.
free fall equivalence to the inertial motion;
and simultaneously this concept lands on the famous equivalence of acceleration with the gravitation!
This is just a typical example of the circular reasoning fallacy.
Gravity is a force, which just impacts equally on every element of any continuous body, thus we can't detect the local stresses:
the energy gradient = 0, so gravity is nothing special,
just equal forces along a whole body!
> Safe bumpers REDUCE acceleration by extending the stopping distance.
I told about completely new invention/discovery;
you can say: a revolutionary one!
As far as I know, actually these invention is utilised in the automobiles of F1 only, but also in quite different way - to improve, optimise the acceleration of a car, instead of protect during collision, ie. to braking.
> We're not talking about REDUCING the acceleration here. You mentioned SR
> doesn't exclude the EQUAL acceleration of a whole body, so that internal
> stresses aren't felt. That's something completely different, and I was
> asking about that.
then you belive you are inertial.
There is a very bad, wrong assumption hidden: the observed acceleration
wrt the other body is applied to the other body...
typical supposition based on ignorance, so, this is just
the definition or/and genesis of the superstitions.
al...@interia.pl
Jun 27, 2014, 2:37:59 PM6/27/14
to
W dniu piątek, 27 czerwca 2014 16:17:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> Safe bumpers REDUCE acceleration by extending the stopping distance.
> It's the same as "giving" with the catch of a pitched fastball. There
> isn't anything that applies that force uniformly over the human body.
> It's still the seat belt and the friction with the seat that slows the
> body and so is no different in terms of internal stresses, other than
> the overall lowering of the acceleration.
Here is something about the reduction of the 'feeling of a force' during acceleration, thus reduce the stresses, and in this way avoid the damages, or destruction, by special methods of energy absorption:
> Safe bumpers REDUCE acceleration by extending the stopping distance.
> It's the same as "giving" with the catch of a pitched fastball. There
> isn't anything that applies that force uniformly over the human body.
> It's still the seat belt and the friction with the seat that slows the
> body and so is no different in terms of internal stresses, other than
> the overall lowering of the acceleration.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/understanding-the-j-damper/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerter_%28mechanical_networks%29
Tom Roberts
Jun 28, 2014, 11:54:46 PM6/28/14
to
On 6/27/14 6/27/14 1:08 PM, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> This is the great assumption on which the whole GR is based -
> free fall equivalence to the inertial motion;
> and simultaneously this concept lands on the famous equivalence of acceleration with the gravitation!
> This is just a typical example of the circular reasoning fallacy.
The ACTUAL argument is not circular. But when you just make things up you can
> This is the great assumption on which the whole GR is based -
> free fall equivalence to the inertial motion;
> and simultaneously this concept lands on the famous equivalence of acceleration with the gravitation!
> This is just a typical example of the circular reasoning fallacy.
easily make up a circular argument. You need to learn what the basis of GR
actually is -- your GUESSES are wrong.
> Gravity is a force,
What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
In our best theory of gravity, GR, gravity is not a force, it is merely an
aspect of the geometry of the spacetime manifold.
Tom Roberts
Ward Finley
Jun 29, 2014, 4:42:16 AM6/29/14
to
Ward Finley
Jun 29, 2014, 5:28:58 AM6/29/14
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Gravity is a force,
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
>
> In our best theory of gravity, GR, gravity is not a force, it is merely
> an aspect of the geometry of the spacetime manifold.
LOL, by telling it you admit you've been wrong denying a SR contribution
>> Gravity is a force,
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
>
> In our best theory of gravity, GR, gravity is not a force, it is merely
> an aspect of the geometry of the spacetime manifold.
for a moving target wrt the GEOMETRY of spacetime in that region.
This statement constitutes a contradiction to a former one.
Tom Roberts
Jun 29, 2014, 7:20:59 AM6/29/14
to
"God-given" but are created by humans. Unlike religious edicts, physical
theories like GR are validated by EXPERIMENTS.
Unlike the original poster, I qualified my statement -- you should read more
carefully.
Tom Roberts
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages