info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE EINSTEIN REVOLUTION
113 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jan 21, 2015, 7:31:33 PM1/21/15
to
In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow at all from the two postulates):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc.) enchanted the public... and so Einstein's "revolution" began:
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."
I have started the same discussion here (although someone seems to be trying to delete my comment):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ch7TyASivA
The Einstein Revolution
Pentcho Valev
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc.) enchanted the public... and so Einstein's "revolution" began:
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."
I have started the same discussion here (although someone seems to be trying to delete my comment):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ch7TyASivA
The Einstein Revolution
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jan 22, 2015, 8:08:42 AM1/22/15
to
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:31:33 PM UTC-7, Foolish Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is
> symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is
> what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical -
> the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow
> at all from the two postulates):
Prevaricating Pentcho keeps repeating his false claim over and over like an
>
> In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time dilation is
> symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running slow - this is
> what validly follows from the two postulates), it is still asymmetrical -
> the stationary clock runs faster than the moving one (this does not follow
> at all from the two postulates):
old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates this bull,
he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the "stationary" clock
"runs faster" and conveniently hides the fact that, although "time dilation"
is symmetrical, acceleration is NOT. The two parties cannot compare clocks
unless they are together, but they cannot be together twice without one of
them undergoing acceleration.
Pentcho has had this explained to him several times, but he willfully
persists in speading his lies. He has neither honor nor integrity, and he
is a fool.
> This is tantamount to saying that, although elephants are unable to fly,
> they can still do so by just flapping their ears. Yet the breathtaking
> impliciations of Einstein's blatant hoax (time travel into the future etc.)
> enchanted the public...
the future and did so even as he wrote this piece of offal. :-)))
> I have started the same discussion here (although someone seems to be trying
> to delete my comment):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ch7TyASivA
> The Einstein Revolution
>
> Pentcho Valev
saw him, he would kill him where he stood for his dishonorable existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU5zGmshIT8
Gary
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 22, 2015, 10:09:08 AM1/22/15
to
fart sniffer Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:31:33 PM UTC-7, Foolish Pentcho
> Valev wrote:
>>
>> In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time
>> dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running
>> slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is
>> still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving
>> one (this does not follow at all from the two postulates):
>
> Prevaricating Pentcho keeps repeating his false claim over and over like
> an old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates
> this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the
Who asked you about this totally irrelevant stuff, putted together into
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:31:33 PM UTC-7, Foolish Pentcho
> Valev wrote:
>>
>> In 1905 Einstein informed the gullible world that, although time
>> dilation is symmetrical (either observer sees the other's clock running
>> slow - this is what validly follows from the two postulates), it is
>> still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the moving
>> one (this does not follow at all from the two postulates):
>
> Prevaricating Pentcho keeps repeating his false claim over and over like
> an old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates
> this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the
such a nonsensical ungrammatical English-challenged sentence, Harnagel?
Is it how you inlet a discussion, Harnagel? (What the hell is this for a
stupid name, Harnagel??)
Prevaricating Harnagel keeps repeating his false claim over and over like
an old cow chewing its cud. No matter how many times he regurgitates
this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the
> "stationary" clock "runs faster" and conveniently hides the fact that,
> although "time dilation"
> is symmetrical, acceleration is NOT. The two parties cannot compare
> clocks unless they are together, but they cannot be together twice
> without one of them undergoing acceleration.
Has nothing to do with acceleration. Who told you that it has? Also, you
this bull, he is still wrong. He is LYING when he asserts that the
> "stationary" clock "runs faster" and conveniently hides the fact that,
> although "time dilation"
> is symmetrical, acceleration is NOT. The two parties cannot compare
> clocks unless they are together, but they cannot be together twice
> without one of them undergoing acceleration.
forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run faster, how it
registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
aHmmm, Harnagel? You already feel cornered? How sad, such a pretty
darling like you, Harnagel!
>
> Pentcho has had this explained to him several times, but he willfully
> persists in speading his lies. He has neither honor nor integrity, and
> he is a fool.
were talking to somebody else? Hmmm, Harnagel?
JanPB
Jan 22, 2015, 10:52:05 AM1/22/15
to
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:09:08 AM UTC-8, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> Also, you
> forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity. Amazing.
> Also, you
> forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
--
Jan
Gary Harnagel
Jan 22, 2015, 11:24:35 AM1/22/15
to
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-7, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>
> fart sniffer Gary Harnagel wrote:
Go pound sand you arrogant, willfully-ignorant, lame-brained. grammar-
>
> fart sniffer Gary Harnagel wrote:
challenged 'nym-shifting troll.
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 22, 2015, 11:37:39 AM1/22/15
to
with a nice lady.
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 22, 2015, 11:43:43 AM1/22/15
to
if you are smarter than Harnagel (which is pretty sweet). Neither you nor
Harnagel explained anything. You two are just crying wolf like old ladies.
If the local is not run faster, nor the travelling is running slower, why
are they accumulated different numbered clock-seconds (chronological
(ordered) arrived equal timing events, ticks)?
Assume a time-driven system (timing is crucial) driven by two separate
identical clocks, a one local and the other is travelling.
According to you too pretty boys, this system will FAIL to function.
Please explain.
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 22, 2015, 11:46:47 AM1/22/15
to
Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:09:08 AM UTC-8, Marjorie Delarosa
>> wrote:
>>> Also, you forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run
>>> faster, how it registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
>>
>> Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity.
>> Amazing.
>
> Why won't you better inlet the description of the process, on the
> double, if you are smarter than Harnagel (which is pretty sweet).
> Neither you nor Harnagel explained anything. You two are just crying
> wolf like old ladies.
>
> If the local is not run faster, nor the travelling is running slower,
read: If the local is not running faster
> JanPB wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:09:08 AM UTC-8, Marjorie Delarosa
>> wrote:
>>> Also, you forgot to explain, that if the local clock does not run
>>> faster, how it registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
>>
>> Hahahaha! And THESE are people who pontificate about relativity.
>> Amazing.
>
> Why won't you better inlet the description of the process, on the
> double, if you are smarter than Harnagel (which is pretty sweet).
> Neither you nor Harnagel explained anything. You two are just crying
> wolf like old ladies.
>
> If the local is not run faster, nor the travelling is running slower,
> why are they accumulated different numbered clock-seconds (chronological
(just in case Harnagel is unable to fill in the blanks (as challenged))
Tom Roberts
Jan 22, 2015, 12:37:13 PM1/22/15
to
On 1/22/15 1/22/15 - 9:09 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
> if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.
The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane.
But the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin
who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time
than the twin who traverses one.
Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.
[You display the same disastrous combination of arrogance,
ignorance, and insulting behavior that Valev does (+ others).
Unless you clean up your act, I probably won't respond any more.]
Tom Roberts
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 22, 2015, 1:18:20 PM1/22/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
> traverses one.
Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
> traverses one.
say 6h.
> Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
> regardless of how they might move, where they might be located, or what
> the geometry might be.
proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
> [You display the same disastrous combination of arrogance,
> ignorance, and insulting behavior that Valev does (+ others).
> Unless you clean up your act, I probably won't respond any more.]
by Harnagel towards the honest Pentcho Valev. Pentcho is not insulting
anybody, Harnagel does. Go reread. Then you are insulting me right now,
threatening nice ladies by not responding any more.
It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
is promulgating relativity.
Koobee Wublee
Jan 22, 2015, 1:42:09 PM1/22/15
to
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
> reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
> length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
> this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
> object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.
Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the relationship between distance and time. First, there should be no mystic meaning for the proper time. The proper time should and shall mean only the local time. Then, any measured velocity is still the distance divided by time. Finally, spacetime is a manmade symbolic construct which does not reflect anything reality can offer. Claiming one moves through spacetime is just so fvcking silly. The mathematics of SR only deals with time and space. When do these buffoons come up with all these bullshit? Just to make them look smart? They can only fool idiots. <shrug>
> Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
> how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.
This is just not true. No mathematics supports this nonsense that Tom is preaching. <shrug>
Of course, what follows is personal attacks which is snipped due to its irrelevant content. <shrug>
> On 1/22/15, 9:09 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> > if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> > registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
That is indeed a very great question. We thank the little sweet lady for raising that. In the meantime, we are going to be bombarded with bullshit from Einstein dingleberries. Let sort through the bullshit, shall we? <shrug>
> > if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> > registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
> The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
> reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
> length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
> this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
> object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.
> Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
> how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.
Of course, what follows is personal attacks which is snipped due to its irrelevant content. <shrug>
JanPB
Jan 22, 2015, 2:13:43 PM1/22/15
to
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:42:09 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 1/22/15, 9:09 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>
> > > if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> > > registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
>
> That is indeed a very great question. We thank the little sweet lady for raising that. In the meantime, we are going to be bombarded with bullshit from Einstein dingleberries. Let sort through the bullshit, shall we? <shrug>
As usual, Koobee can be counted on to post nonsense and non-sequiturs.
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 1/22/15, 9:09 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>
> > > if the local clock does not run faster, how it
> > > registers more ticks than a travelling clock??
>
> That is indeed a very great question. We thank the little sweet lady for raising that. In the meantime, we are going to be bombarded with bullshit from Einstein dingleberries. Let sort through the bullshit, shall we? <shrug>
Let's go through it, shall we?
> > The twin paradox's twins have different ages when they rejoin for the very same
> > reason that two sides of a triangle are longer than the third side: the path
> > length between two specified points depends on the path taken between them. Note
> > this is a DIFFERENT geometrical property than "time dilation". For a timelike
> > object/observer/twin, elapsed proper time is the same as path length.
>
> Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the relationship between distance and time.
on nothing. Check.
> First, there should be no mystic meaning for the proper time.
a strawman (e.g. "mystic meaning of proper time" and attack _it_ instead
of addressing the actual issue). Check.
> The proper time should and shall mean only the local time.
the actuall precisely defined notions like "proper time" (defined as the
integral of the arc length of timelike curves). This allows Koobee
replacing any serious discussion involving concepts he does not understand
with his own confabulations he can then proceed to spin any old way.
> Then, any measured velocity is still the distance divided by time.
undefined notions (see Rule 3). Also, see http://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/the-castle-of-the-pyrenees-1959 for a good representation.
> Finally, spacetime is a manmade symbolic construct which does not reflect anything reality can offer.
by math constructs is fundamentally different from that of all other
theories in physics (and therefore "deficient" by the unspoken
implication)
> Claiming one moves through spacetime is just so fvcking silly. The mathematics of SR only deals with time and space. When do these buffoons come up with all these bullshit? Just to make them look smart? They can only fool idiots. <shrug>
lies will eventually stick to weak brains.
> > Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate, regardless of
> > how they might move, where they might be located, or what the geometry might be.
>
> This is just not true. No mathematics supports this nonsense that Tom is preaching. <shrug>
aforementioned brains.
> Of course, what follows is personal attacks which is snipped due to its irrelevant content. <shrug>
--
Jan
Tom Roberts
Jan 22, 2015, 4:46:03 PM1/22/15
to
On 1/22/15 1/22/15 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>> traverses one.
>
> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
> say 6h.
For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is in a
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>> traverses one.
>
> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
> say 6h.
space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean.
>> Note that in SR and GR, clocks ALWAYS tick at their usual rate,
>> regardless of how they might move, where they might be located, or what
>> the geometry might be.
>
> You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
> proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates enter). Speaking loosely,
traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from the elapsed time. But not very
much for c<<c.
This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically -- learn how
by studying SR and the Lorentz group.
> It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
> is promulgating relativity.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
Jan 23, 2015, 1:19:32 AM1/23/15
to
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:46:03 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> > You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
> > proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
>
> The geometry is not Euclidean.
Any geometry is a geometry. Labeling geometry with magical properties is not doing science. <shrug>
> The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign (relative to
> the way spatial coordinates enter).
The metric is just a connection/interpreation between an observation (coordinate system) and the reality (invariant geometry) as described by the following. <shrug>
** REALITY = INTERPRETATION * OBSERVATION
Where
** REALITY = THE INVARIANT GEOMETRY
** INTERPRETATION = THE METRIC
** OBSERVATION = THE CHOICE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM
In order to avoid the silly mathematical presentation of a negative geometry, the signature of the metric must be (+, -, - , -) not (-, +, +, +) as Tom has ignorantly claimed. <shrug>
> Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from the elapsed
> time.
Even with SR equations, Tom still cannot escape the Newtonian outcome that the [physical] time is the [physical] distance divided by the [physical] speed. <shrug>
> This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically - learn
> > It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
> > is promulgating relativity.
>
> I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.
When Koobee Wublee disclosed the history of <shrug> where Koobee Wublee learnt the art of <shrug> from Tom the master of <shrug>, at first Tom had to confess to Koobee Wublee, as if Koobee Wublee was a priest, about the crime of <shrug> to intimidate others. Then, Tom began to give excuses as if Tom was on trial. Well, sooner or later, preaching bullshit would land Tom in that trial. <shrug>
> On 1/22/15, 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> > Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
> > say 6h.
>
> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is in a
> space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean.
Rather than bullshitting which is cheap, why doesn't Tom show mathematically how this this mythical path can happen? <shrug>
> > Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
> > say 6h.
>
> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is in a
> space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean.
> > You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
> > proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
>
> The geometry is not Euclidean.
> The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign (relative to
> the way spatial coordinates enter).
** REALITY = INTERPRETATION * OBSERVATION
Where
** REALITY = THE INVARIANT GEOMETRY
** INTERPRETATION = THE METRIC
** OBSERVATION = THE CHOICE OF COORDINATE SYSTEM
In order to avoid the silly mathematical presentation of a negative geometry, the signature of the metric must be (+, -, - , -) not (-, +, +, +) as Tom has ignorantly claimed. <shrug>
> Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from the elapsed
> time.
> This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically - learn
> how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.
Where is this math again? <shrug>
> > It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the insulter
> > is promulgating relativity.
>
> I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.
Pentcho Valev
Jan 23, 2015, 4:41:10 PM1/23/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHGxszX9WVc
Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something that was absolute."
How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence supporting the constancy of the speed of light (rather, any reliable evidence supported the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light). Einstein derived the false constancy from the Lorentz transforms, then called it "postulate" and finally, in his 1905 paper, derived the Lorentz transforms from the postulate (the gullible world was enraptured):
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/EDU_Einstein_ENGLISH.pdf
Albert Einstein, What Is The Theory Of Relativity? (November 28, 1919): "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz."
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-James-Smith/dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."
The speed of light is not absolute - rather, both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the observer, as the following videos clearly show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."
Pentcho Valev
Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something that was absolute."
How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence supporting the constancy of the speed of light (rather, any reliable evidence supported the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light). Einstein derived the false constancy from the Lorentz transforms, then called it "postulate" and finally, in his 1905 paper, derived the Lorentz transforms from the postulate (the gullible world was enraptured):
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/EDU_Einstein_ENGLISH.pdf
Albert Einstein, What Is The Theory Of Relativity? (November 28, 1919): "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests, is the "principle of the constant velocity of light in vacuo." This principle asserts that light in vacuo always has a definite velocity of propagation (independent of the state of motion of the observer or of the source of the light). The confidence which physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achieved by the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz."
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-James-Smith/dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."
The speed of light is not absolute - rather, both the frequency and the speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the observer, as the following videos clearly show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."
Pentcho Valev
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 23, 2015, 5:57:43 PM1/23/15
to
JanPB wrote:
>> Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the
>> relationship between distance and time.
>
> Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
> based on nothing. Check.
You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of time
>> Tom needs to understand Newtonian mechanics first --- especially the
>> relationship between distance and time.
>
> Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
> based on nothing. Check.
dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not even
today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time dilation
never is been detected by a direct measurement.
JanPB
Jan 23, 2015, 6:02:52 PM1/23/15
to
--
Jan
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 23, 2015, 6:05:47 PM1/23/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/22/15 1/22/15 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>>> traverses one.
>>
>> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
>> say 6h.
>
> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
> in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
> Euclidean.
So just by changing some rules in the middle of the game one can prove
> On 1/22/15 1/22/15 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>>> traverses one.
>>
>> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
>> say 6h.
>
> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
> in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
> Euclidean.
anything.
>> You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
>> proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
>
> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from
> the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
Before that, let's stick consistent, which is (i) Distances cannot become
negative; (ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).
> This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
> learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.
(I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)
>> It looks like for you the insulting is not an issue, as far the
>> insulter is promulgating relativity.
>
> I just responded to the way you wrote in earlier messages.
at.
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 23, 2015, 6:18:51 PM1/23/15
to
JanPB wrote:
>> > Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
>> > based on nothing. Check.
>>
>> You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of
>> time dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not
>> even today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time
>> dilation never is been detected by a direct measurement.
>
> That's not how science works.
Why it does then?
>> > Rule 1: Begin with an empty, totally inappropriate, bit of posturing
>> > based on nothing. Check.
>>
>> You just do that. At the time Relativity was born, no measurements of
>> time dilation and length contraction were available nor possible. Not
>> even today. A length contraction is still illusory, then the time
>> dilation never is been detected by a direct measurement.
>
> That's not how science works.
Gary Harnagel
Jan 23, 2015, 7:17:00 PM1/23/15
to
On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 2:41:10 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHGxszX9WVc
> Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something
> that was absolute."
>
> How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence
> supporting the constancy of the speed of light
More crap from Pentcho's lying butt.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHGxszX9WVc
> Peter Galison: "He [Einstein] knew that the speed of light was something
> that was absolute."
>
> How did Einstein know that? Actually he didn't - there was no evidence
> supporting the constancy of the speed of light
> (rather, any reliable evidence supported the variable speed of light
> predicted by Newton's emission theory of light).
in ponderable media, by the Fizeau experiments, by starlight aberration and
by Maxwell's equations. This is why everyone at that time was claiming
light was a wave phenomenon. Pentcho is a very bad historian.
> Einstein derived the false constancy from the Lorentz transforms,
constant.
> then called it "postulate" and finally, in his 1905 paper, derived the
> Lorentz transforms from the postulate (the gullible world was enraptured):
> The speed of light is not absolute - rather, both the frequency and the
> speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the
> observer, as the following videos clearly show:
Completely and clearly contrary to the experimental evidence.
> speed of light (relative to the observer) VARY with the speed of the
> observer, as the following videos clearly show:
"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He
created historians." -- Anonymous
Tom Roberts
Jan 24, 2015, 1:12:36 AM1/24/15
to
On 1/23/15 1/23/15 5:05 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 1/22/15 1/22/15 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>>>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>>>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>>>> traverses one.
>>> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
>>> say 6h.
>> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
>> in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
>> Euclidean.
>
> So just by changing some rules in the middle of the game one can prove
> anything.
Not at all! No rules "changed" -- this is SR and the geometry has always been
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 1/22/15 1/22/15 12:18 PM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> The twin paradox _IS_ a triangle in the space-time plane. But the
>>>> geometry is hyperbolic, not Euclidean, and the twin who traverses
>>>> two sides has a smaller elapsed proper time than the twin who
>>>> traverses one.
>>> Hmm, shouldn't more distance take more time? NY to NJ say 1h, NY to CA
>>> say 6h.
>> For distance, yes. But that distance is in a space-space plane. This is
>> in a space-time plane, and as I said, the geometry is hyperbolic, not
>> Euclidean.
>
> So just by changing some rules in the middle of the game one can prove
> anything.
Minkowski; in a space-time plane that is hyperbolic.
Yes, this is different from Euclidean geometry. The "change" is from your naive
expectation of Euclidean geometry to the Minkowski geometry of SR. That's YOUR
problem, not mine.
>>> You just said "the twin who traverses two sides has a smaller elapsed
>>> proper time than the twin who traverses one". What is going on exactly?
>>
>> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
>> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
>> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts" from
>> the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
>
> Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
> exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
By "The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign" I meant that
the time-time component of the metric, g_tt, is negative. But you probably don't
know what that means, which is why I phrased it the way I did.
> Before that, let's stick consistent,
Minkowski geometry, and that MISAPPLICATION is inconsistent.
> which is (i) Distances cannot become
> negative;
interval can indeed be negative. It is the closest analogy there is to distance
in Euclidean space, but it is not so very close.
> (ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).
timelike object can evolve to increasingly negative values.
>> This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
>> learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.
>
> You first. Then save me the trouble, come back and show me what you did.
type in a book on SR. You need a textbook, such as:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
> (I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)
can't get that from code.
You cannot hope to play a Beethoven piano sonata without a
serious study of both the piano and music in general. You
cannot hope to understand modern physics without a serious
study of both mathematics and physics.
Tom Roberts
Marjorie Delarosa
Jan 24, 2015, 11:26:27 AM1/24/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
>>> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
>>> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
>>> from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
>>
>> Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
>> exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
>>> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
>>> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
>>> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
>>> from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
>>
>> Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
>> exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say.
enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.
> By "The time coordinate enters into the metric with a minus sign" I
> meant that the time-time component of the metric, g_tt, is negative. But
> you probably don't know what that means, which is why I phrased it the
> way I did.
>
>> Before that, let's stick consistent,
>
> _I_ have been consistent, but YOU keep attempting to apply Euclidean
> notions to Minkowski geometry, and that MISAPPLICATION is inconsistent.
Harnagel shitlong does "promoting" relativity. It is painful seeing idiots
defending a theory they admittedly never will understand.
>> which is (i) Distances cannot become negative;
>
> You are fixated on Euclidean geometry. In Minkowski geometry, the
> invariant interval can indeed be negative. It is the closest analogy
> there is to distance in Euclidean space, but it is not so very close.
>
>> (ii) Time cannot become negative either (arrow).
>
> Hmmm. A time coordinate can of course have negative values, it's just
> that no timelike object can evolve to increasingly negative values.
>
>
>>> This handwaving can be made rigorous and described mathematically --
>>> learn how by studying SR and the Lorentz group.
>>
>> You first. Then save me the trouble, come back and show me what you
>> did.
>
> Hopeless. You clearly don't understand the nomenclature, and I'm not
> about to type in a book on SR. You need a textbook, such as:
>
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
contaminated.
>> (I need the source code, disregard languages and platform dependency)
>
> This is not software at all. This is physics. And you need understanding
> -- you can't get that from code.
>
> You cannot hope to play a Beethoven piano sonata without a serious
> study of both the piano and music in general. You cannot hope to
> understand modern physics without a serious study of both
mathematics
> and physics.
nodes of a playing piano.
Tom Roberts
Jan 24, 2015, 9:07:49 PM1/24/15
to
On 1/24/15 1/24/15 10:26 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
>>>> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
>>>> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
>>>> from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
>>>
>>> Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
>>> exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>
> You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
> enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
> circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.
Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the MATHEMATICAL
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> The geometry is not Euclidean. The time coordinate enters into the
>>>> metric with a minus sign (relative to the way spatial coordinates
>>>> enter). Speaking loosely, traveling a distance in space "subtracts"
>>>> from the elapsed time. But not very much for c<<c.
>>>
>>> Enters! However, can be an artefact and something completely else may
>>> exteriorize in the above ANOMALY.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>
> You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
> enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
> circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.
sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the metric.
> Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
> be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
> seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
> bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
> inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
> contaminated.
doesn't know.
You OUGHT to be able to recognize that when you claim that everybody else
doesn't understand some complex technical subject, including recognized experts,
that more likely it is you who is at fault. Here it CLEARLY is.
If you really want to learn about modern physics, you must STUDY. It requires a
certain level of mathematical maturity, which you also lack. There is A LOT for
you to learn....
And a lot of arrogance to unlearn. Until you do, goodbye.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
Jan 25, 2015, 1:00:50 AM1/25/15
to
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 6:07:49 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
Please allow Koobee Wublee ask Tom a more pertinent science related question. Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate and not the accumulated time itself? Does Tom understand what Tom chooses to bet its career on? Tom does not have to reply because Koobee Wublee knows Tom does not have a fvcking answer for that. That is OK. Since Koobee Wublee has given up on hopes of fvcking Einstein dingleberries able to understand the Twin paradox is about the issue of accumulated time and not fvcking clock ticking fvcking rate. <shrug>
> On 1/24/15, 10:26 AM, Marjorie Delarosa wrote:
> > You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
> > enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
> > circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.
>
> Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the MATHEMATICAL
> sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the metric.
>
> > Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
> > be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
> > seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
> > bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
> > inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
> > contaminated.
>
> Such claims are worthless as they come from a fool who doesn't know what "she"
> doesn't know.
>
> You OUGHT to be able to recognize that when you claim that everybody else
> doesn't understand some complex technical subject, including recognized experts,
> that more likely it is you who is at fault. Here it CLEARLY is.
>
> If you really want to learn about modern physics, you must STUDY. It requires a
> certain level of mathematical maturity, which you also lack. There is A LOT for
> you to learn....
>
> And a lot of arrogance to unlearn. Until you do, goodbye.
What did Tom just said? More bullshit. Does anyone fvcking care about more bullshit? <shrug>
> > You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
> > enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
> > circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even absent.
>
> Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the MATHEMATICAL
> sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the metric.
>
> > Nevertheless, it reveals that you do not understand Relativity, which may
> > be the guilt of the books you read, here "Tylor" and "Wheeler". They
> > seemingly didn't understood Relativity at the time they wrote the book you
> > bought. This explain the reason you are contaminated. The errors propagate
> > inside through a system and contaminate. You probably are already
> > contaminated.
>
> Such claims are worthless as they come from a fool who doesn't know what "she"
> doesn't know.
>
> You OUGHT to be able to recognize that when you claim that everybody else
> doesn't understand some complex technical subject, including recognized experts,
> that more likely it is you who is at fault. Here it CLEARLY is.
>
> If you really want to learn about modern physics, you must STUDY. It requires a
> certain level of mathematical maturity, which you also lack. There is A LOT for
> you to learn....
>
> And a lot of arrogance to unlearn. Until you do, goodbye.
Please allow Koobee Wublee ask Tom a more pertinent science related question. Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate and not the accumulated time itself? Does Tom understand what Tom chooses to bet its career on? Tom does not have to reply because Koobee Wublee knows Tom does not have a fvcking answer for that. That is OK. Since Koobee Wublee has given up on hopes of fvcking Einstein dingleberries able to understand the Twin paradox is about the issue of accumulated time and not fvcking clock ticking fvcking rate. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Jan 25, 2015, 10:04:36 AM1/25/15
to
On 1/25/15 1/25/15 12:00 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
> and not the accumulated time itself?
Koobee Wublee is CLEARLY unable to read accurately.
> Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
> and not the accumulated time itself?
I have REPEATEDLY stated around here that the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate
"time dilation" (observed clock ticking rate), but rather another geometrical
property: different paths between a given pair of points can have different path
lengths. Of course for timelike objects (such as twins), path length is
synonymous with accumulated proper time.
Indeed I stated this earlier in this thread. Perhaps his inability to read is
why Koobee Wublee is so stupid, and can only PRETEND to understand math and physics.
> [... arrogance and misapplied insults omitted]
Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this 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 mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
Cornelius Sheehan
Jan 25, 2015, 12:36:29 PM1/25/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>> You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
>> enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
>> circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even
>> absent.
>
> Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the
> MATHEMATICAL sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the
> metric.
Zowie what, you back-pedal. I don't believe a word in your plethora.
>> You said "enters" not me. Can't you see, nothing forces anything to
>> enters, YOU choose to force that entering. Under completely different
>> circumstances, the entering would be completely different and even
>> absent.
>
> Zowie. You REALLY don't understand this. I used "enters" in the
> MATHEMATICAL sense of contributing as a parameter and index of the
> metric.
You've been registered saying that General Relativity is about "Fields",
as "Fields" erroneously stays in the name of that equation: ie "GR field
equation".
You made a beginner error, there are no fields present in Relativity, in
spite of using a wrong name, just to increase the level of sophistication.
Moreover, you've been asked to pinpoint the inputs to those tensors
present in that tensors equation. You chose to ignore and divert talking
about something else.
Koobee Wublee
Jan 25, 2015, 5:11:31 PM1/25/15
to
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 7:04:36 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
First, Tom creates a straw man through the imaginary path that cannot be modeled by any mathematics or verified by experiments. <shrug>
Secondly, Tom divert attentions away from physical reality of time and distance that one can model and measure. <shrug>
Then, Tom invents lots of bullshit properties associated with this straw man again none of which can be mathematically modeled and experimentally verified. Of course, it helps to make Tom look like Tom knows what Tom is talking about by repeating the same bullshit over and over again. <shrug>
Lastly, Tom will attack anyone Tom disagrees with to protect Tom's straw man. <shrug>
Tom cannot even produce the mathematics to support its mythical paths of geodesics. Tom is truly a fake. <shrug>
> On 1/25/15, 12:00 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
> > and not the accumulated time itself?
>
> > Where did Tom learn the Twin paradox is about the issue of clock ticking rate
> > and not the accumulated time itself?
>
> I have REPEATEDLY stated around here that the twin paradox does NOT demonstrate
> "time dilation" (observed clock ticking rate), but rather another geometrical
> property: different paths between a given pair of points can have different path
> lengths. Of course for timelike objects (such as twins), path length is
> synonymous with accumulated proper time.
Tom is following Jan Bielaski's rules of preaching a religion down to the tee. <shrug>
> "time dilation" (observed clock ticking rate), but rather another geometrical
> property: different paths between a given pair of points can have different path
> lengths. Of course for timelike objects (such as twins), path length is
> synonymous with accumulated proper time.
First, Tom creates a straw man through the imaginary path that cannot be modeled by any mathematics or verified by experiments. <shrug>
Secondly, Tom divert attentions away from physical reality of time and distance that one can model and measure. <shrug>
Then, Tom invents lots of bullshit properties associated with this straw man again none of which can be mathematically modeled and experimentally verified. Of course, it helps to make Tom look like Tom knows what Tom is talking about by repeating the same bullshit over and over again. <shrug>
Lastly, Tom will attack anyone Tom disagrees with to protect Tom's straw man. <shrug>
Tom cannot even produce the mathematics to support its mythical paths of geodesics. Tom is truly a fake. <shrug>
Paul B. Andersen
Jan 26, 2015, 7:59:34 AM1/26/15
to
On 25.01.2015 18:36, Cornelius Sheehan wrote:
> [..]
Changing your name and gender doesn't help,
the trolling idiot is recognised anyway.
plonk
--
Paul
https://PaulBA.no/
> [..]
Changing your name and gender doesn't help,
the trolling idiot is recognised anyway.
plonk
--
Paul
https://PaulBA.no/
0 new messages