Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
bz
$7...@newsreader.com:
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
Both. You catch on fast.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
dlzc
On May 1, 9:44 am, Franklange...@earthlink.net(Frank Langella) wrote:
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in
> physics and I can immediately see that what these people
> are endlessly arguing about is absolute nonsense. They
> don't even have the mathematics to understand relativity
> (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like
> the Flat Earth people, or the ones (recently on TV) who
> don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
This newsgroup was created to attract those people away from other
newsgroups, to allow other discussions to occur in those places. You
can review historical archives for the earliest mentions of s.p.r.
The ones you complain about come here for "stroking", to get their fix
of attention on a topic close to their hearts (if not their heads).
Think of this place as a combination emergency room, insane asylum
(Asperger's syndrome spoken here), and for some serious discussion.
I would recommend either sci.physics.fundamentals or
sci.physics.research which are moderated newsgroups for less "fruity"
discussions.
I also highly recommend sci.astro, where some interesting newsbits get
posted by a couple of people, fresh off the press.
David A. Smith
... I guess it is time to post the Welcome message again ...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, to go to the moon, does not matter, but to handle the thought of
the creations along the earth, does really matter, as whether, do try to
figure, the mathematics, when it would makes you to step to the topological
algebra -geometry of the space-, how the step to the moon would look for
you, a definitely as a matter a fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!
"Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about
is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the
moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
> Frank
Dirk Van de moortel
"Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
>I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
Be careful with that statement.
If look a bit closer, you will notice that at about 40% of the
crackpots here are moderately good at mathematics and
almost invariably are engineers. There are a tiny few notable
exceptions.
They were never properly trained in physics, never got
relativity theory beyond time dilation and length contraction,
and therefore miserably failed to understand relativity, and
then sadly turned insane over it. The very best example is
Androcles.
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
De-facto, yes.
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
> Frank
You can learn a lot here. About relativity and about the
workings of the insane mind.
This group rocks. Don't go away. Enjoy it :-)
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense.
No, you don't.
> They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
Physics is *not* mathematics.
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
Explain what time is, according to you.
Uwe Hayek.
Hayek
>
> "Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
>> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics
>> and
>> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing
>> about is
>> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
>> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Be careful with that statement.
> If look a bit closer, you will notice that at about 40% of the
> crackpots here are moderately good at mathematics and
> almost invariably are engineers. There are a tiny few notable
> exceptions.
> They were never properly trained in physics,
By properly trained, Dork means house-trained,
indoctrinated, brain-washed.
> never got
> relativity theory beyond time dilation and length contraction,
Neither did you. You do not understand a thing about
GR.
> and therefore miserably failed to understand relativity, and
> then sadly turned insane over it. The very best example is
> Androcles.
And Dork. He honestly believes time dilates for An
as well as Betty, in the famous twin paradox.
>> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
>> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the
>> moon?
>
> De-facto, yes.
Dork resides here. Need not say more.
Wait till you meet Speicher.
>
>>
>> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
>>
>> Frank
>
> You can learn a lot here. About relativity and about the
> workings of the insane mind.
> This group rocks.
> Don't go away. Enjoy it :-)
Do not follow his advice, he is a sociopath and he
tries to lure victims here. The only reason he is
here is for compensating his inferiority complex, by
claiming he is better brainwashed in relativity than
you.
Uwe Hayek.
JanPB
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
Yes, this NG was in fact created (about 10 years ago) to divert crank
traffic from sci.physics. There are occasional good posts here and I
learned a lot from them - they typically come from a fixed set of
people. If you hang around a bit you'll quickly see who is who.
--
Jan Bielawski
Dirk Van de moortel
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:463789bd$0$325$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> "Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
>>> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics
>>> and
>>> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing
>>> about is
>>> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
>>> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>>
>> Be careful with that statement.
>> If look a bit closer, you will notice that at about 40% of the
>> crackpots here are moderately good at mathematics and
>> almost invariably are engineers. There are a tiny few notable
>> exceptions.
>
>> They were never properly trained in physics,
> By properly trained, Dork means house-trained,
> indoctrinated, brain-washed.
With this wheather, I recommend a very, very long walk
on the beach.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
Pretty much.
And yes, some of them _really are_ insane.
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
No, but it is pretty funny.
Check this out. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> Frank
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, the equations which it shows the way as the behaviors of an
electron, which does move inside atoms, it is along an atomic structure
constant, something which it would show as make the speed of light " c ",
along the equation, a just a conventional matter along the physics, all
along, a definitely as a matter a fact
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Y" <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178047220....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> * Of course, while I have to come to accept these things, I also have
> questions and thoughts. I don't think Einstein was a Hoax. I do
> believe the theory of relativity holds true for matter, but so far am
> not convinced that it is useful for understanding light. So therefore
> I conclude that GR, and SR are useful models for matter, and are thus
> expanded versions on the 'laws' of Newton.
>
>
> -y
>
>
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
> understood relativity, I have come to understand it in very basic form
> over the past week or so. So my gratitude goes to people like Jeckyl,
> Bz, John Kennaugh and others who have helped me understand that . . .
> (please correct if i make a mistake)
>
> 1. E=mc^2 works for matter (not light)
For matter moving at speed v:
E = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) c^2
p = m v / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for m=0 and v=c, these reduce to nonsense:
E = 0/0 and p = 0/0
For light (with m=0 and v=c):
E = h nu (nu = frequency)
p = h / lambda (lambda = wavelength)
For matter moving at speed v *and* for light:
m^2 c^4 = E^2 - (c p)^2
or equivalently
E^2 = (m c^2)^2 + (c p)^2
Can you verify these equations for matter and for light?
What does this tell you about the relationship between
nu and lambda for light?
>
> 2. Different FoR's and forumlas are required when understanding the
> behaviour of a photon.
To understand the behaviour of a photon, you need more than SR.
You need QED. See below.
>
> 3. Wavelength of a photon is proportional to energy and momentum.
Not really.
Energy is proportional to frequency, which is inversely proportional
to wavelength.
Momentum is proportional to wavelength, which is < ........ > ?
Can you complete the sentence?
>
> 4. GR is a theory of gravity that sits between SR and Newtons gravity
> laws.
SR corrects Newton where high velocities are involved.
GR corrects Newton where high velocities and gravity are involved.
GR without gravity = SR.
QM corrects Newton where short distances are involved.
QED corrects Newton where short distances and high velocities
are involved.
>
> 5. SR is an electrodynamic explanation of moving objects.
SR was originally developed to reconcile electromagnetism
with Newton, but SR 'explains' kinematics and dynamics of
neutrons just as well, without ever referring to electrodynamics.
>
>
> * Of course, while I have to come to accept these things, I also have
> questions and thoughts. I don't think Einstein was a Hoax. I do
> believe the theory of relativity holds true for matter, but so far am
> not convinced that it is useful for understanding light.
SR is useful for light when light is seen as signals and
pulses, consisting of *many* photons.
It not useful to describe 'single photons'.
> So therefore
> I conclude that GR, and SR are useful models for matter, and are thus
> expanded versions on the 'laws' of Newton.
>
> If someone here would like to tell me that these aren't models and
> that they are rather a fact of natural physical objects, state you
> claim.
N, SR, GR, QM, QED are theories that provide models
to describe, explain and predict what we call, by consensus,
the "facts of nature". Does that sound acceptable?
Dirk Vdm
> I think this is what Karandash is trying to convince me of, so
> one needs to assess 'What and who is a kook' ?
>
> -y
>
>
>
>
Androcles
"Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
Do *you* understand it?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Fault it if you can.
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
> Frank
Of course, and a serious question deserves a serious answer.
Yes, it is all an elaborate joke. Only homo neanderthalensis doesn't realise it,
homo sapiens sapiens does.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
Serious answer, and I have a master's degree in physics, bachelors degree
in mathematics, Ph. D. in psychology. Baaa....
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message news:4gOZh.118756$Zb2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF
> Serious answer, and I have a master's degree in physics, bachelors degree
> in mathematics, Ph. D. in psychology. Baaa....
And, incidentally, he is an "Electronic Engineer, Professionally":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
Dirk Vdm
karand...@yahoo.com
> Hey cool cheers for the exam Dirk. I like this shit. . .
> *Momentum is proportional to wavelength,
> Right ?
Wrong, of course. Still trying to play "physicist"?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[...]
> Serious answer, and I have a master's degree in physics, bachelors degree
> in mathematics, Ph. D. in psychology. Baaa....
Prove it.
Bill Hobba
"Frank Langella" <Frankl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:20070501124440.589$7...@newsreader.com...
>I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about
> is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the
> moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
Most of it is rubbish. However some actual physicists do post and you can
have serious discussions with them if you wish - it is up to you.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Frank
George Orwell
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
First, a question for YOU:
Is the composition of two boosts a boost?
-- Nth Complexity --
-- Have a Nice Day! --
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%%MZh.152038$Cz.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Y" <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1178047220....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Although I don't use practical physics and until recently never
>> understood relativity, I have come to understand it in very basic form
>> over the past week or so. So my gratitude goes to people like Jeckyl,
>> Bz, John Kennaugh and others who have helped me understand that . . .
>> (please correct if i make a mistake)
>>
>> 1. E=mc^2 works for matter (not light)
>
> For matter moving at speed v:
> E = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) c^2
> p = m v / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> for m=0 and v=c, these reduce to nonsense:
> E = 0/0 and p = 0/0
>
> For light (with m=0 and v=c):
> E = h nu (nu = frequency)
> p = h / lambda (lambda = wavelength)
[snip]
>> 3. Wavelength of a photon is proportional to energy and momentum.
>
> Not really.
> Energy is proportional to frequency, which is inversely proportional
> to wavelength.
> Momentum is proportional to wavelength, which is < ........ > ?
Oops!
Wavelength of a photon is inversely proportional to energy and
momentum.
Sorry.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Y" <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1178061535....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Hey cool cheers for the exam Dirk. I like this shit. . .
>
>
> to wavelength.
>
> *Momentum is proportional to wavelength, which is inversely
> proportional
> to frequency.
>
>
> Right ?
No, alas ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Anonymous
PD
Yes.
PD
Yes.
Eric Gisse
Why are you asking dumb shit that can be answered by yourself over the
course of maybe 10 minutes, tops, of matrix algebra?
Tom Roberts
No. The composition of two boosts is in general a boost and a rotation.
Only in 1+1 dimensions is the composition of two boosts a boost.
Tom Roberts
PD
Ah, thanks.
PD
I stand corrected. In the same direction, two boosts compose a boost.
If the two boosts are in different directions, the result will be
equivalent to a single boost composed with a rotation.
PD
Koobee Wublee
> > On May 2, 6:00 am, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> > Is the composition of two boosts a boost?
>
> No. The composition of two boosts is in general a boost and a rotation.
> Only in 1+1 dimensions is the composition of two boosts a boost.
Only with your matheMagic it is. This is exactly what the twin's
paradox addresses. The principle of Relativity which has served the
observation in physics for at least three hundred years needs to be
revised just like the Newtonian law of gravity. The principle of
Relativity does not work under high speed and quantum level. When are
you flat-earthers going to accept that the earth is indeed spherical?
<sigh>
Eric Gisse
Looks like we have both fallen victim to the usual problem of
generalizing something that is true only in a specific situation.
>
> PD
Eric Gisse
Why are you under the delusion that your misunderstandings have any
bearing on reality? The twin paradox does _not_ address the general
problem of additivity of boosts.
BTW - you had a few days. Do you have a proper response yet?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/908e0bfa38ebd70c?dmode=source
Tom Roberts
> On May 2, 9:54 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> The composition of two boosts is in general a boost and a rotation.
>> Only in 1+1 dimensions is the composition of two boosts a boost.
>
> Only with your matheMagic it is. This is exactly what the twin's
> paradox addresses.
Nonsense. This is a clear and well-known property of the Lorentz group.
The "twin paradox" has nothing whatsoever to do with this; it is usually
discussed in 1+1 dimensions.
> [... further silliness omitted]
Tom Roberts
karand...@yahoo.com
> On May 2, 9:54 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 6:00 am, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> > > Is the composition of two boosts a boost?
>
> > No. The composition of two boosts is in general a boost and a rotation.
> > Only in 1+1 dimensions is the composition of two boosts a boost.
>
> Only with your matheMagic it is. This is exactly what the twin's
> paradox addresses.
Really, towelhead? Can you write down the mathematical part you
disagree with? Not prose, just math.
> The principle of Relativity which has served the
> observation in physics for at least three hundred years needs to be
> revised just like the Newtonian law of gravity. The principle of
> Relativity does not work under high speed
Really? Can you put this in a mathematical form? What are your
objections? (seems that you are starting to "study" under Seto, some
of his ideas are showing in your posts)
Koobee Wublee
> Nonsense. This is a clear and well-known property of the Lorentz group.
> The "twin paradox" has nothing whatsoever to do with this; it is usually
> discussed in 1+1 dimensions.
The twin's paradox comes about because of the combination of the
following two properties of the Lorentz transform.
** Time dilation where observed time of a moving frame under
observation is slowed down
** Principle of Relativity where the laws of physics are the same
regardless what speed the experiment relative to some other observer
is carried out under
In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
life, at least one of the above two points must be wrong. If your
experiments did allow you to observe time dilation, then the principle
of Relativity must be wrong. That means the Lorentz transform must be
wrong as well. <shrug>
You are very irresponsible to talk about the twin's paradox not having
anything to do with the Lorentz transform with your educational
background.
JanPB
That after what he wrote here he has the front to pontificate on the
intricacies of the Schwarzschild solution kind of takes your breath
away, doesn't it.
--
Jan Bielawski
Tom Roberts
> In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
But it _DOES_ happen in real life. There are numerous experiments that
physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
"twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
It's just that in our everyday lives we don't notice the nanosecond
effects of an airplane flight to Disney World and back....
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
> > life, [...]
>
> But it _DOES_ happen in real life. There are numerous experiments that
> physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
> "twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
> It's just that in our everyday lives we don't notice the nanosecond
> effects of an airplane flight to Disney World and back....
The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
transform is valid.
If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
dictated by the principle of Relativity.
According to the Lorentz transform, each twin must age differently and
with the same amount of the difference when they meet. Since this is
logically impossible, the Lorentz transform manifests mathematically
the twin's paradox. You (plural) have matheMagically handwaved the
resolution of this paradox for more than 100 years.
The metric being an interpretation to the invariant geometry after
deciding what
coordinate system should be employed to do so has been interpreted as
the geometry itself for over 100 years. Erroneously interpretation of
the metric as the actual geometry has also caused an erroneous
interpretation to the mathematics of GR.
Both points cover the most basics of the mathematics. They are very
simple. They belong to the elementary school level of learning.
<shrug>
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:e78_h.42$LR5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
>> life, [...]
>
> But it _DOES_ happen in real life.
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
Eric Gisse
> On May 2, 3:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
> > > life, [...]
>
> > But it _DOES_ happen in real life. There are numerous experiments that
> > physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
> > "twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
>
> This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
Isn't this what people have been saying all along? The twins paradox
is not an actual paradox.
>
> > It's just that in our everyday lives we don't notice the nanosecond
> > effects of an airplane flight to Disney World and back....
>
> The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
> transform is valid.
Of course not. All it means is that there isn't a paradox.
>
> If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
> observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
> dictated by the principle of Relativity.
That would be true, except the twins are not symmetric. One has to
accelerate.
>
> According to the Lorentz transform, each twin must age differently and
> with the same amount of the difference when they meet. Since this is
> logically impossible, the Lorentz transform manifests mathematically
> the twin's paradox. You (plural) have matheMagically handwaved the
> resolution of this paradox for more than 100 years.
The resolution lies in the breaking of the twin's symmetry.
>
> The metric being an interpretation to the invariant geometry after
> deciding what
> coordinate system should be employed to do so has been interpreted as
> the geometry itself for over 100 years. Erroneously interpretation of
> the metric as the actual geometry has also caused an erroneous
> interpretation to the mathematics of GR.
I'm still waiting for you to supply two metrics that correspond to two
different geometries while both satisfying the conditions of
Birkhoff's theorem.
>
> Both points cover the most basics of the mathematics. They are very
> simple. They belong to the elementary school level of learning.
> <shrug>
Since they are so basic, do you think you can finally tell us where
you learned this stuff?
Tom Roberts
> On May 2, 3:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> There are numerous experiments that
>> physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
>> "twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
>
> This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
You sure use words funny. Your usage of "exists" is very strange here.
> The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
> transform is valid.
Hmmm. One agreement with observation does not a theory make. But the
literally hundreds of experiments that probe most aspects of SR, plus
the fact that there is no reproducible and generally accepted experiment
that falsifies SR within its domain of applicability, most definitely DO
mean that SR is valid (within that domain). This of course includes its
Lorentz transform between inertial frames.
> If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
> observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
> dictated by the principle of Relativity.
Hmmm. One can imagine scenarios in which that is true, but the twin
paradox is not one of them. <shrug>
Hint: to what types of coordinates does the PoR refer?
> According to the Lorentz transform, [...]
Utter nonsense. You must LEARN about SR and UNDERSTAND how to apply it.
Your claims here are just plain wrong, and an elementary calculation
displays that quite clearly. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
[...]
This seems topical whenever dealing with you:
karand...@yahoo.com
Note that every time I challenged him to a computation he
"disappeared" . Characteristic of crackpots.
karand...@yahoo.com
> Whats the 'right' answer ?
>
> -Y
"inversly" , shithead
Don Stockbauer
17. donstockba...@hotmail.com
View profile
More options Feb 26 2006, 7:28 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.skeptic,
sci.philosophy.tech, sci.chem
From: donstockba...@hotmail.com
Date: 26 Feb 2006 04:28:20 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 26 2006 7:28 am
Subject: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
And like NASA never makes a mistake, Scheistenmaster?
Reply Reply to author Forward Rate this post: Text for clearing
space
18. Hexenmeister
View profile
More options Feb 26 2006, 9:00 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.skeptic,
sci.philosophy.tech, sci.chem
From: "Hexenmeister" <vanqu...@broom.Mickey>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:00:54 GMT
Local: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:00 am
Subject: Re: The Fundamental Absurdity of the Theory of Relativity
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
<donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140956900.7...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> And like NASA never makes a mistake, Scheistenmaster?
And like Einstein never made a mistake, Scheißekopf?
Stay in your cosy classroom, talk doesn't kill. NASA's mistakes do.
That's why they are more careful than you'll ever be, Bumsenesprit.
Androcles.
Tex said:
I'm no academic. I run a cattle ranch.
I did work at JSC for 17 years before I ran into Randy Tunstall/Hector
GarCIA.
I'm purdy doggone careful.
Have a nice day, Lion tamer.
PD
> On May 2, 3:18 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
> > > life, [...]
>
> > But it _DOES_ happen in real life. There are numerous experiments that
> > physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
> > "twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
>
> This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
>
> > It's just that in our everyday lives we don't notice the nanosecond
> > effects of an airplane flight to Disney World and back....
>
> The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
> transform is valid.
>
> If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
> observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
> dictated by the principle of Relativity.
No, the principle of Relativity does NOT dictate this. You are making
a brute-force application of a rubber mallet to try to drive a screw.
Fundamental misunderstanding of both the twin puzzle and the principle
of Relativity. If you're stuck on this, then this is where you need to
learn something basic.
>
> According to the Lorentz transform, each twin must age differently and
> with the same amount of the difference when they meet.
No again, sorry. Would you like to start again and see why not?
jcon
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
Anti-relativity nuts are a virus on just about every unmoderated
science
group, and they often even spread far afield, to computing groups,
religious groups, etc.
This group was created to draw them away from sci.physics, but
it never really worked, since most cross-post to both, and often
others as well. Some have developed elaborate
nym-shifting and cross-posting methodologies to
dodge SPAM filters and killfiles.
There are, however, some extremely good *non*-nuts here, and I've
even posted a few, IMHO, non-nutty posts myself. I
think we do it for several reason:
-For the benefit of lurkers (particularly young lurkers) who
might otherwise think these guys have a valid argument.
-For practice in constructing a scientific argument
for non- scientific people. You'll never convince the nuts,
but you have to pitch things in such a way that
the aforementioned lurkers will understand it.
-To learn things. Often in debunking even the most ridiculous
claim, you'll learn something about science and science
history. And you can learn a lot from some of the the people who
post here.
-(I gotta admit it) Ego! Nothing can make you feel smarter
than reading a post by someone like Pecho Valev :)
Personally, I don't hit this group very often anymore. It
was fun for a while, but pretty soon it started to repeat
itself. You can go away for months or even years and
come back to the *same* people saying the *same* things,
sort of like Howard Stern (the radio guy, not the one
who boned Anna Nicole). I have a theory that
H.E.Retic died several years ago, but left a post-bot
that will run until the motherboard dies.
-jc
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
>
> You sure use words funny. Your usage of "exists" is very strange here.
If you have trouble understanding the word 'exist', please consult
with your dictionary.
> > The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
> > transform is valid.
>
> Hmmm. One agreement with observation does not a theory make. But the
> literally hundreds of experiments that probe most aspects of SR,
This is because you have tossed out the principle of Relativity when
interpreting all these experiments. This principle is the foundation
that SR resides on.
> plus
> the fact that there is no reproducible and generally accepted experiment
> that falsifies SR within its domain of applicability, most definitely DO
> mean that SR is valid (within that domain).
The fact that the experiment did bring the twins back together (that
1970's aircraft experiment for example) with different aging falsifies
the principle of Relativity and thus the Lorentz transform and thus
SR.
> This of course includes its
> Lorentz transform between inertial frames.
Lorentz transform predicts the twin's paradox. Therefore, it is
absurd right off the start. <shrug>
> > If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
> > observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
> > dictated by the principle of Relativity.
>
> Hmmm. One can imagine scenarios in which that is true, but the twin
> paradox is not one of them. <shrug>
This is a fine example of turning your back on the principle of
Relativity. After refuting the principle of Relativity, you have no
right to claim validity in SR. <shrug>
> Hint: to what types of coordinates does the PoR refer?
>
> > According to the Lorentz transform, [...]
The principle of Relativity is independent of any coordinate systems.
<shrug>
> Utter nonsense. You must LEARN about SR and UNDERSTAND how to apply it.
> Your claims here are just plain wrong, and an elementary calculation
> displays that quite clearly. <shrug>
On the contrary, you really need to go back to Galileo's time and
understand the principle of Relativity. Then, compared to the modern
observations in which your own laboratory has provided, you will find
why the principle of Relativity becomes invalid at high speed. You
will find why you have turned your back on the principle of Relativity
to explain your observations but not realize that you have done so.
You will also find the absurdity in the Lorentz transform and thus the
silliness in SR. You should also follow your instinct that the
principle of Relativity is invalid in general. In the meantime, enjoy
living on that flat earth of yours. Mr. Hansen is going to have a
good laugh on this one.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178213450.6...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 5:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
>>
>> You sure use words funny. Your usage of "exists" is very strange here.
>
> If you have trouble understanding the word 'exist', please consult
> with your dictionary.
>
>> > The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
>> > transform is valid.
>>
>> Hmmm. One agreement with observation does not a theory make. But the
>> literally hundreds of experiments that probe most aspects of SR,
>
> This is because you have tossed out the principle of Relativity when
> interpreting all these experiments. This principle is the foundation
> that SR resides on.
>
>> plus
>> the fact that there is no reproducible and generally accepted experiment
>> that falsifies SR within its domain of applicability, most definitely DO
>> mean that SR is valid (within that domain).
>
> The fact that the experiment did bring the twins back together (that
> 1970's aircraft experiment for example) with different aging falsifies
> the principle of Relativity and thus the Lorentz transform and thus
> SR.
Is *this* how retired aerospace engineers spend their last years?
Dirk Vdm
PD
> On May 2, 5:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > This proves the twin's paradox does not exist in real life. <shrug>
>
> > You sure use words funny. Your usage of "exists" is very strange here.
>
> If you have trouble understanding the word 'exist', please consult
> with your dictionary.
>
> > > The twins can age differently. This does not mean the Lorentz
> > > transform is valid.
>
> > Hmmm. One agreement with observation does not a theory make. But the
> > literally hundreds of experiments that probe most aspects of SR,
>
> This is because you have tossed out the principle of Relativity when
> interpreting all these experiments. This principle is the foundation
> that SR resides on.
Well, that depends on whether you're talking about what the principle
of relativity really says or about what you *think* it says.
The principle of relativity does NOT say, "Everything will be the
same, regardless of inertial reference frame." It does NOT say "All
measurable quantities will be the same, regardless of inertial
reference frame". I don't know where you would have gotten the idea
that it does say that.
>
> > plus
> > the fact that there is no reproducible and generally accepted experiment
> > that falsifies SR within its domain of applicability, most definitely DO
> > mean that SR is valid (within that domain).
>
> The fact that the experiment did bring the twins back together (that
> 1970's aircraft experiment for example) with different aging falsifies
> the principle of Relativity
No, it doesn't. The principle of relativity says no such thing.
> and thus the Lorentz transform and thus
> SR.
>
> > This of course includes its
> > Lorentz transform between inertial frames.
>
> Lorentz transform predicts the twin's paradox. Therefore, it is
> absurd right off the start.
Not when that is verified experimentally. Now you may find the
experimental results hard to believe or hard to understand, but that
doesn't make nature absurd. It just means you don't understand it.
> <shrug>
>
> > > If each twin observes a time dilation of the other, the other must
> > > observe the same amount of time dilation of the other one. This is
> > > dictated by the principle of Relativity.
>
> > Hmmm. One can imagine scenarios in which that is true, but the twin
> > paradox is not one of them. <shrug>
>
> This is a fine example of turning your back on the principle of
> Relativity.
What principle of relativity are you referring to? The principle of
relativity that I know does not find a problem in the twin paradox.
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > In order to resolve the twin's paradox where it does not exist in real
> > life, [...]
>
> But it _DOES_ happen in real life. There are numerous experiments that
> physically implement the twin scenario, and it is _OBSERVED_ that the
> "twins" are not the same age when rejoined.
Roberts Roberts your "numerous experiments" argument is universal and
convincing but in the past you used to give an example - the muon
lifetime experiment. Now you don't give this example so I am your
assistant who will fill the gap:
Pentcho Valev
Koobee Wublee
> On May 3, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is because you have tossed out the principle of Relativity when
> > interpreting all these experiments. This principle is the foundation
> > that SR resides on.
>
> Well, that depends on whether you're talking about what the principle
> of relativity really says or about what you *think* it says.
Yes, I am talking about what the principle of relativity really says
and not what you think it says.
> The principle of relativity does NOT say, "Everything will be the
> same, regardless of inertial reference frame."
I never said that either.
> It does NOT say "All
> measurable quantities will be the same, regardless of inertial
> reference frame".
Yes, I implied that is the case which it is. Specifically, the laws
of physics must be the same regardless the speed, relative to other
observers, of the observer observing these laws. This means there is
no absolute motion under the principle of relativity.
> I don't know where you would have gotten the idea
> that it does say that.
I got it from the Galilean transform. I suggest you go back and study
the Galilean transform before coming back.
> > The fact that the experiment did bring the twins back together (that
> > 1970's aircraft experiment for example) with different aging falsifies
> > the principle of Relativity
>
> No, it doesn't. The principle of relativity says no such thing.
That is because the principle of relativity is invalid. It is only
valid for speeds relatively low compared to the speed of light and for
time elapse relatively low that you don't notice the nanoseconds and
microseconds as suggested by Dr. Roberts.
> > Lorentz transform predicts the twin's paradox. Therefore, it is
> > absurd right off the start.
>
> Not when that is verified experimentally.
That is correct. No experiment verifies the absurd predictions of the
Lorentz transform.
> Now you may find the
> experimental results hard to believe or hard to understand, but that
> doesn't make nature absurd. It just means you don't understand it.
This is because you have failed to understand the Lorentz transform.
<shrug>
> > This is a fine example of turning your back on the principle of
> > Relativity.
>
> What principle of relativity are you referring to? The principle of
> relativity that I know does not find a problem in the twin paradox.
As I wrote in an earlier post, the twin's paradox does not occur
because of the principle of relativity alone. Throw in the time
dilation part, and you have it.
PD
> On May 3, 10:37 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 12:30 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is because you have tossed out the principle of Relativity when
> > > interpreting all these experiments. This principle is the foundation
> > > that SR resides on.
>
> > Well, that depends on whether you're talking about what the principle
> > of relativity really says or about what you *think* it says.
>
> Yes, I am talking about what the principle of relativity really says
> and not what you think it says.
Well, let's find out....
>
> > The principle of relativity does NOT say, "Everything will be the
> > same, regardless of inertial reference frame."
>
> I never said that either.
OK, so far so good.
>
> > It does NOT say "All
> > measurable quantities will be the same, regardless of inertial
> > reference frame".
>
> Yes, I implied that is the case which it is. Specifically, the laws
> of physics must be the same regardless the speed,
But this does NOT mean that all measurable quantities will be the
same. Take Galilean relativity if you like, and look at the case of
two colliding billiard balls. The momenta of the balls before and
after the collision will be completely different in one inertial
reference frame, compared with the momenta as measured in a different
reference frame. Yet the law of conservation of momentum will still
hold in both cases, and in the same form, even though the numbers all
change.
So far it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
principle of relativity.
> relative to other
> observers, of the observer observing these laws. This means there is
> no absolute motion under the principle of relativity.
>
> > I don't know where you would have gotten the idea
> > that it does say that.
>
> I got it from the Galilean transform. I suggest you go back and study
> the Galilean transform before coming back.
OK, done that and I'm back. What was your issue again?
>
> > > The fact that the experiment did bring the twins back together (that
> > > 1970's aircraft experiment for example) with different aging falsifies
> > > the principle of Relativity
>
> > No, it doesn't. The principle of relativity says no such thing.
>
> That is because the principle of relativity is invalid.
Why no, no it's not.
And the principle of relativity wouldn't be judged invalid in this
case because the principle of relativity does NOT demand that the
twins should age the same.
> It is only
> valid for speeds relatively low compared to the speed of light and for
> time elapse relatively low that you don't notice the nanoseconds and
> microseconds as suggested by Dr. Roberts.
>
> > > Lorentz transform predicts the twin's paradox. Therefore, it is
> > > absurd right off the start.
>
> > Not when that is verified experimentally.
>
> That is correct. No experiment verifies the absurd predictions of the
> Lorentz transform.
Why yes, yes they do, numerously. Have these experiments not been
pointed out to you before?
>
> > Now you may find the
> > experimental results hard to believe or hard to understand, but that
> > doesn't make nature absurd. It just means you don't understand it.
>
> This is because you have failed to understand the Lorentz transform.
> <shrug>
>
> > > This is a fine example of turning your back on the principle of
> > > Relativity.
>
> > What principle of relativity are you referring to? The principle of
> > relativity that I know does not find a problem in the twin paradox.
>
> As I wrote in an earlier post, the twin's paradox does not occur
> because of the principle of relativity alone. Throw in the time
> dilation part, and you have it.
Where do you think the time dilation part comes from? Can you not
identify the principle of relativity among the postulates used to
*derive* the Lorentz transforms?
PD
Koobee Wublee
> On May 3, 3:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It does NOT say "All
> > > measurable quantities will be the same, regardless of inertial
> > > reference frame".
>
> > Yes, I implied that is the case which it is. Specifically, the laws
> > of physics must be the same regardless the speed,
>
> But this does NOT mean that all measurable quantities will be the
> same. Take Galilean relativity if you like, and look at the case of
> two colliding billiard balls. The momenta of the balls before and
> after the collision will be completely different in one inertial
> reference frame, compared with the momenta as measured in a different
> reference frame. Yet the law of conservation of momentum will still
> hold in both cases, and in the same form, even though the numbers all
> change.
An observer observing the collision event will observe the collision
before and after having the momentum conserved.
> So far it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> principle of relativity.
No, it is a case of your abuse in the application of the principle of
relativity. <shrug>
> > I got it from the Galilean transform. I suggest you go back and study
> > the Galilean transform before coming back.
>
> OK, done that and I'm back. What was your issue again?
If you really have done so, you would not have any issues. <shrug>
> And the principle of relativity wouldn't be judged invalid in this
> case because the principle of relativity does NOT demand that the
> twins should age the same.
You are very wrong here. The principle of relativity demands the
twins to physically age the same amount. In addition, the principle
demands the observed aging of the other twin to be the same by either
twin.
You are the one who does not understand the principle of relativity.
Thus, you have lied that you went back to study that.
> > That is correct. No experiment verifies the absurd predictions of the
> > Lorentz transform.
>
> Why yes, yes they do, numerously. Have these experiments not been
> pointed out to you before?
No.
> > As I wrote in an earlier post, the twin's paradox does not occur
> > because of the principle of relativity alone. Throw in the time
> > dilation part, and you have it.
>
> Where do you think the time dilation part comes from?
>From the gamma term of the Lorentz transform.
> Can you not
> identify the principle of relativity among the postulates used to
> *derive* the Lorentz transforms?
I don't understand your question here. However,
Time dilation + Principle of Relativity = Twin's Paradox
tail
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
in other words another unemployed
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
this is matter of bulive / not bulive, like ufo
in order ta be sciencific bulivable you need ta put here
your strongest proofs
proof 1
// insert your code here
proof 2
// insert your code here
proof 3,
// insert your code here
etc
Eric Gisse
[---]
*sigh*
One twin stays at home, and simply coasts through spacetime.
The other twin goes off at some velocity for some period of time, then
_stops_, then returns home. The stopping part is the important part -
remember acceleration = dv/dt. The acceleration breaks the symmetry of
the problem.
I told you this before. But since you didn't question me about it nor
did you appear to understand it, I am telling you again.
karand...@yahoo.com
<KW cretinisms snipped>
>
> > So far it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> > principle of relativity.
>
> No, it is a case of your abuse in the application of the principle of
> relativity. <shrug>
>
> > > I got it from the Galilean transform. I suggest you go back and study
> > > the Galilean transform before coming back.
>
> > OK, done that and I'm back. What was your issue again?
>
> If you really have done so, you would not have any issues. <shrug>
>
> > And the principle of relativity wouldn't be judged invalid in this
> > case because the principle of relativity does NOT demand that the
> > twins should age the same.
>
> You are very wrong here. The principle of relativity demands the
> twins to physically age the same amount. In addition, the principle
> demands the observed aging of the other twin to be the same by either
> twin.
>
No, towelhead.
The two twins are not symmetric if one of them turns around. So, you
cannot apply PoR. But you wouldn't know that.
<rest of KW cretinisms snipped>
Nick
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
>
> Frank
are you appealing to authority Frank?
Eric Gisse
reproductor
> Dear Franklangella:
> newsgroups,
yourself !?
> to allow other discussions to occur in those places. You
crap,
there are no any discussions over there, those newsgr are dead
> can review historical archives for the earliest mentions of s.p.r.
>
> The ones you complain about come here for "stroking", to get their fix
> of attention on a topic close to their hearts (if not their heads).
you again
flooding welcome crap and nonesense
> Think of this place as a combination emergency room, insane asylum
again the others but you
> (Asperger's syndrome spoken here), and for some serious discussion.
>
> I would recommend either sci.physics.fundamentals or
> sci.physics.research which are moderated newsgroups for less "fruity"
> discussions.
right, go there and stay alone
those groups were created to keep morons away from
sci.physics.relativity
>
> I also highly recommend sci.astro, where some interesting newsbits get
> posted by a couple of people, fresh off the press.
>
> David A. Smith
> ... I guess it is time to post the Welcome message again ...
Koobee Wublee
> On May 3, 2:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One twin stays at home, and simply coasts through spacetime.
Yeah, but the paradox is in time not in spacetime. <shrug>
> The other twin goes off at some velocity for some period of time, then
> _stops_, then returns home. The stopping part is the important part -
> remember acceleration = dv/dt. The acceleration breaks the symmetry of
> the problem.
That is total BS. Show me the math. Experiments have shown
gravitational centrifuge does not introduce time dilation. Please
consult with Dr. Roberts.
> I told you this before.
When? In your dream? I told you to stay off these hallucinogens for
quite sometime, and you won't listen. <sigh>
> But since you didn't question me about it nor
> did you appear to understand it, I am telling you again.
Question what? Are you schizophrenic?
karand...@yahoo.com
<imbecilities snipped>
> > The other twin goes off at some velocity for some period of time, then
> > _stops_, then returns home. The stopping part is the important part -
> > remember acceleration = dv/dt. The acceleration breaks the symmetry of
> > the problem.
>
> That is total BS. Show me the math.
Here is the math, towelhead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Accelerated_rocket_calculation
If you spent less time ass-smelling at your local mosque and more time
studying, you would have known the solution to this elementary
problem. And you PRETEND to discuss the finer points of GR when you
don't know the very basics of freshman physics :-)
Eric Gisse
> On May 3, 7:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 2:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One twin stays at home, and simply coasts through spacetime.
>
> Yeah, but the paradox is in time not in spacetime. <shrug>
>
> > The other twin goes off at some velocity for some period of time, then
> > _stops_, then returns home. The stopping part is the important part -
> > remember acceleration = dv/dt. The acceleration breaks the symmetry of
> > the problem.
>
> That is total BS. Show me the math. Experiments have shown
> gravitational centrifuge does not introduce time dilation. Please
> consult with Dr. Roberts.
_show you the math_ ?! This coming from the guy who utterly denies any
math that he does not understand?
Want to take a crack at showing me two distinct geometries that
satisfy the conditions of Birkhoff theorem, which you claim to exist?
Either that or rescind the statement. I have been waiting for awhile
now - why do you shit and run?
How come you never figured out that the entire argument about whether
the surface area of constant r, t slices in Schwarzschild geometry is
either 4pi*R^2 or 4pi*(R+k)^2 was based upon the fact you wrote down a
coordinate-transformed Schwarzschild that used the same labels for r,
but had different ranges?
How come you have never shown me how a coordinate transformation can
transform a manifold from having no curvature into one which has
curvature, which you claimed?
The "Gravitational centrifuge" does not exist. What you were most
likely meaning to say was that experiments with centrifuges do not
produce time dilation like one might expect. This has no bearing on
the topic at hand because the centrifuge has no place in SR - rotating
frames are non-inertial.
As far as the math is concerned...
ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 [simple (x,t) coordinates in God's own units]
dT^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 [T = proper time]
The proper time experienced by the stay at home twin is:
T = int( sqrt( 1 - [dx/dt]^2) dt)
T = int( sqrt( 1 - [v]^2) dt)
But the stay at home twin doesn't move - v = 0. Integrate from t = 0
to t=t.
T = t - this means proper time = coordinate time for stay at home
twin. No surprise there.
The moving twin needs a moment of explanation. I'm assuming that the
stay at home twin _does not move_ and that the moving twin moves a
distance L in the home twin's frame at constant velocity v, then does
a 180 and goes back.
The proper time experienced by the moving twin is:
T = int( sqrt( dt^2 - dx^2 ))
T = int( sqrt( [dt/dx]^2 - 1) dx) [I can pick whatever
parameterization I want. Math is fun.]
T = int( sqrt( 1/v^2 - 1 ) dx) [My mechanics prof bitches at me for
skipping trivial steps {and marks me down. rrrr} and hes a lot smarter
than you]
T = int( v*sqrt(1 - v^2) dx) [Do you understand the concept of
multiplication?]
The loop integral goes from x = 0, to x = L, then back to x = 0. But v
swaps signs on the return run, so the integral has to be split - you
do remember your one dimensional calculus, right? With a clueful
person, I wouldn't have to think about that but then again you have
never done one line of math that is anything other than restating
definitions.
T = int(x=0...L, v*sqrt(1 - v^2) dx) + int(x=L...0, [-v]*sqrt(1 - v^2)
dx)
T = 2*int(x=0...L, v*sqrt(1 - v^2) dx) [Do you see what I did there?]
T = 2*v*sqrt(1 - v^2)*int(x=0...L, dx) [v is constant, remember?]
T = 2*v*sqrt(1 - v^2)*L [Do you know how to integrate?]
Hum. Slightly different from the stay at home twin, yes? You can use
whatever function pleases you for v(t) but the answer will not change.
So...there is the math. I can't wait to see how you will deny it!
>
> > I told you this before.
>
> When? In your dream? I told you to stay off these hallucinogens for
> quite sometime, and you won't listen. <sigh>
*scratches head*
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d871e062e6ad0468?dmode=source
Does Koobe Wublee not know how to read for comprehension?
>
> > But since you didn't question me about it nor
> > did you appear to understand it, I am telling you again.
>
> Question what? Are you schizophrenic?
Of course. It never entered your mind that I might actually have said
something that you had not seen. It is _much_ simpler to assume I'm a
head case than actually read any of my replies to you.
Koobee Wublee
So, you are a freshman. OK.
Now, show me the other point of view, and prove that they agree.
If not, you need to go to lick up your own excrement.
Eric Gisse
> <imbecilities snipped>
>
> > > The other twin goes off at some velocity for some period of time, then
> > > _stops_, then returns home. The stopping part is the important part -
> > > remember acceleration = dv/dt. The acceleration breaks thesymmetryof
> > > the problem.
>
> > That is total BS. Show me the math.
>
> Here is the math, towelhead:
_NO_
[---]
Eric Gisse
> On May 3, 11:39 pm, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Here is the math, towelhead:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Accelerated_rocket_calculation
>
> > If you spent less time ass-smelling at your local mosque and more time
> > studying, you would have known the solution to this elementary
> > problem. And you PRETEND to discuss the finer points of GR when you
> > don't know the very basics of freshman physics :-)
>
> So, you are a freshman. OK.
>
> Now, show me the other point of view, and prove that they agree.
Are you braindead?
They _don't agree_, nor should they. Which was the entire goddamn
point.
gdew...@gmail.com
> I just started reading this group. I have a master's degree in physics and
> I can immediately see that what these people are endlessly arguing about is
> absolute nonsense. They don't even have the mathematics to understand
> relativity (they seem to be limited mostly to algebra.)
>
> Is this group some kind of dumping ground for kooks, like the Flat Earth
> people, or the ones (recently on TV) who don't believe we went to the moon?
>
> Or is this all an elaborate joke? Serious question.
>
Isn't that's like going to a nuthouse and pointing around you
screaming "your nuts! your nuts!!"?
Experiment 1:
We take a bucket of cold water and a bucket of hot water.
You already cant explain where the energy lives. Jet there is
potential and work may be accomplished relative to this most obvious
temperature difference.
Thus, it's a known fact that Kelvin was a dodo head.
Furthermore, after extracting all of the the caloricwork we now have 2
buckets of water of the same temperature.
Experiment 2:
Now we take a bucket of hot watter and a bucket of cold water. We mix
em in big bucket NR 3 And lo and behold Maxwell's daemon killed
Einsteins day dream. The potential was successfully eradicated.
Explaining this to the Einsteinian worshipers is like teaching a duck
how to sing IMO.
Eric Gisse
[...]
How's that eBay fraud going?
Did you build your perpetual motion machine yet?
How's your quest to smash all of known physics progressing?
Have you finished primary school yet?
gdew...@gmail.com
go Eric!! GO GO GO !!!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PD
> On May 3, 1:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 3:00 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It does NOT say "All
> > > > measurable quantities will be the same, regardless of inertial
> > > > reference frame".
>
> > > Yes, I implied that is the case which it is. Specifically, the laws
> > > of physics must be the same regardless the speed,
>
> > But this does NOT mean that all measurable quantities will be the
> > same. Take Galilean relativity if you like, and look at the case of
> > two colliding billiard balls. The momenta of the balls before and
> > after the collision will be completely different in one inertial
> > reference frame, compared with the momenta as measured in a different
> > reference frame. Yet the law of conservation of momentum will still
> > hold in both cases, and in the same form, even though the numbers all
> > change.
>
> An observer observing the collision event will observe the collision
> before and after having the momentum conserved.
That's what I said. This does not mean that the values of the momentum
will be the same in both frames. That's also what I said.
>
> > So far it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> > principle of relativity.
>
> No, it is a case of your abuse in the application of the principle of
> relativity. <shrug>
>
> > > I got it from the Galilean transform. I suggest you go back and study
> > > the Galilean transform before coming back.
>
> > OK, done that and I'm back. What was your issue again?
>
> If you really have done so, you would not have any issues. <shrug>
I don't have issues. I asked you what yours was. Please pay
attention.
>
> > And the principle of relativity wouldn't be judged invalid in this
> > case because the principle of relativity does NOT demand that the
> > twins should age the same.
>
> You are very wrong here. The principle of relativity demands the
> twins to physically age the same amount.
Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
inertial reference frames says they do? Remember what the principle of
relativity says.
> In addition, the principle
> demands the observed aging of the other twin to be the same by either
> twin.
Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
inertial reference frames says they do?
>
> You are the one who does not understand the principle of relativity.
> Thus, you have lied that you went back to study that.
In fact I also studied what you said about the principle of
relativity. The principle of relativity says the laws of physics must
remain the same and in the same form regardless of inertial reference
frame. Now, what law of physics says that the twins must age the same?
>
> > > That is correct. No experiment verifies the absurd predictions of the
> > > Lorentz transform.
>
> > Why yes, yes they do, numerously. Have these experiments not been
> > pointed out to you before?
>
> No.
Ah, well, that would explain a lot. You seem to be under the
impression this is all just "thinking stuff". It's not.
http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html
>
> > > As I wrote in an earlier post, the twin's paradox does not occur
> > > because of the principle of relativity alone. Throw in the time
> > > dilation part, and you have it.
>
> > Where do you think the time dilation part comes from?
> >From the gamma term of the Lorentz transform.
> > Can you not
> > identify the principle of relativity among the postulates used to
> > *derive* the Lorentz transforms?
>
> I don't understand your question here.
Apparently not. Do you not know how to start with the prniciple of
relativity and derive the Lorentz transforms from it? There are
actually a whole bunch of approaches to doing that, just as there is
always more than one way to derive a result using algebra. But here's
one:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
PD
> However,
>
> Time dilation + Principle of Relativity = Twin's Paradox- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jcon
>
> Explaining this to the Einsteinian worshipers is like teaching a duck
> how to sing IMO.
>
Typically, it's IMHO, and in your case, the "H" should be
in a font that's at least 40 points bigger than the other
three letters.
Or perhaps in your case it should be IMTIO, where the
TI is for "totally irrelevant".
-jc
> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
> my blog
gdew...@gmail.com
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Experiment 1:
>
> > We take a bucket of cold water and a bucket of hot water.
>
> > You already cant explain where the energy lives. Jet there is
> > potential and work may be accomplished relative to this most obvious
> > temperature difference.
>
> > Thus, it's a known fact that Kelvin was a dodo head.
>
> > Furthermore, after extracting all of the the caloricwork we now have 2
> > buckets of water of the same temperature.
>
> > Experiment 2:
> > Now we take a bucket of hot watter and a bucket of cold water. We mix
> > em in big bucket NR 3 And lo and behold Maxwell's daemon killed
> > Einsteins day dream. The potential was successfully eradicated.
>
> > Explaining this to the Einsteinian worshipers is like teaching a duck
> > how to sing IMO.
>
>
> Frank
Thank you for humbly accepting my authority.
The being of a kook obviously depends on your frame of reference. Like
beauty it's in the eye of the beholder. If you can only spew nonsense
insults in the 3rd person you are no longer in a position to complain
about the most obvious idiots in this group. (like Eric) The most
decent way is to agree with me but as you don't you should obviously
explain what happens.
The hot and the cold water go into one and the same bucket and the
potential disappears. The bucket doesn't start shaking or anything.
It's just gone!
If the potential is not gone YOU get to explain where it is now. I
seem to have misplaced it.
Lets not do any math today and see you accept this divine facts for
what they are. (divine fact) You call it "Absolute gibberish", I think
it cant be to hard for you to understand. I think you are not capable
of entertaining the thought.
I think there is only one bucket with piss warm water left be it big
bucker NR 3, and there is no potential. non whaaat so evah! The energy
fairy is not coming back either.
If you don't answer we will have to assume Maxwell was right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey, what are this people here doing?
Are they.... using the heat from electomotors to create free energy?
Free energy as in Freemason, freewilly, freethough? What do you think
should we call it virtual heat? An absolute gibberish engine?
oh? another one?
http://www.perendev-power.com/
and another one? I hear you think But but but it's impossbieble!! My
skool book says this and my teacher says that etc etc
Now lets have no more childish name calling, explain where the
potential goes little kiddie. Insert your slow typing 1 line reply
and address the obviously groundbreaking revelation I've just send
you.
If you don't answer we will have to assume Maxwell was right and that
guy Frank Langella is a kook talker of absolute gibberish. HEAR
HEAR!!!
regards,
-gaby de wilde
Eric Gisse
[...]
> T = int( v*sqrt(1 - v^2) dx) [Do you understand the concept of
> multiplication?]
Minor algebra error here. It should be 1/v rather than v. It changes
the form, but not the nature, of the result.
I am true to form - 1 algebra error/page.
[..]
grr. "An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again
later." x 30
Koobee Wublee
> On May 3, 4:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > An observer observing the collision event will observe the collision
> > before and after having the momentum conserved.
>
> That's what I said. This does not mean that the values of the momentum
> will be the same in both frames. That's also what I said.
This is taken care in the Galilean transform. That is a case of three
parties. We have been discussion a case of two parties. Your
application is faulty which reflects what your understanding of the
principle of Relativity. <Shrug>
> > If you really have done so, you would not have any issues. <shrug>
>
> I don't have issues. I asked you what yours was. Please pay
> attention.
I don't have any issues. Since you raise issues, they must be yours.
> > You are very wrong here. The principle of relativity demands the
> > twins to physically age the same amount.
>
> Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
> inertial reference frames says they do? Remember what the principle of
> relativity says.
Yes, I do remember what the principle of relativity says, and the
answer to your question is the principle of relativity itself.
> > In addition, the principle
> > demands the observed aging of the other twin to be the same by either
> > twin.
>
> Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
> inertial reference frames says they do?
Is this an echo? Are you a computer program?
> > You are the one who does not understand the principle of relativity.
> > Thus, you have lied that you went back to study that.
>
> In fact I also studied what you said about the principle of
> relativity. The principle of relativity says the laws of physics must
> remain the same and in the same form regardless of inertial reference
> frame. Now, what law of physics says that the twins must age the same?
Aging is a physical law, under the principle of relativity, no one can
age differently from the others just because his speed is different
from the others.
> Ah, well, that would explain a lot. You seem to be under the
> impression this is all just "thinking stuff". It's not.
> http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html
Thus, experiments do not agree with the results of the Lorentz
transform. <shrug>
> Apparently not. Do you not know how to start with the prniciple of
> relativity and derive the Lorentz transforms from it?
Why would I even assume the principle of Relativity is valid to
explain the null result of the MMX? That would be too much of a flat-
earth thinker.
> There are
> actually a whole bunch of approaches to doing that, just as there is
> always more than one way to derive a result using algebra.
Yes, once if you know what you have to fudge your results to anything
can be done through creative usage of matheMagic tricks. The analogy
is like a pile of foul dung seems to attract all the flies.
> But here's
> one:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
That one is a total BS. It is a fine example of the above analogy.
In his only book, Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two
identical equations equating zero with zero. That is some matheMagic
trick, but unfortunately it is an old one.
In the meantime, the following is still true.
PD
> On May 4, 4:45 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 4:26 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > An observer observing the collision event will observe the collision
> > > before and after having the momentum conserved.
>
> > That's what I said. This does not mean that the values of the momentum
> > will be the same in both frames. That's also what I said.
>
> This is taken care in the Galilean transform. That is a case of three
> parties. We have been discussion a case of two parties. Your
> application is faulty which reflects what your understanding of the
> principle of Relativity. <Shrug>
What three parties? There is a single system being observed in two
different reference frames.
>
> > > If you really have done so, you would not have any issues. <shrug>
>
> > I don't have issues. I asked you what yours was. Please pay
> > attention.
>
> I don't have any issues. Since you raise issues, they must be yours.
>
> > > You are very wrong here. The principle of relativity demands the
> > > twins to physically age the same amount.
>
> > Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
> > inertial reference frames says they do? Remember what the principle of
> > relativity says.
>
> Yes, I do remember what the principle of relativity says, and the
> answer to your question is the principle of relativity itself.
OK, let's recap. The principle of relativity says that the laws of
physics must be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of
inertial reference frame.
You are taking this to also be a law a physics, which means that the
principle of relativity (which talks about the laws of physics) must
be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of inertial
reference frame.
I'm sorry. Where in there is there a physical law that dictates the
the twins must age the same?
>
> > > In addition, the principle
> > > demands the observed aging of the other twin to be the same by either
> > > twin.
>
> > Why, no, no it doesn't. What physical law being the same in two
> > inertial reference frames says they do?
>
> Is this an echo? Are you a computer program?
You haven't answered it yet.
>
> > > You are the one who does not understand the principle of relativity.
> > > Thus, you have lied that you went back to study that.
>
> > In fact I also studied what you said about the principle of
> > relativity. The principle of relativity says the laws of physics must
> > remain the same and in the same form regardless of inertial reference
> > frame. Now, what law of physics says that the twins must age the same?
>
> Aging is a physical law, under the principle of relativity,
No, it's not! What on earth gave you that idea? What physical law
governs this?
> no one can
> age differently from the others just because his speed is different
> from the others.
>
> > Ah, well, that would explain a lot. You seem to be under the
> > impression this is all just "thinking stuff". It's not.
> >http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html
>
> Thus, experiments do not agree with the results of the Lorentz
> transform. <shrug>
Actually, if you'd read them, you find that they do.
>
> > Apparently not. Do you not know how to start with the prniciple of
> > relativity and derive the Lorentz transforms from it?
>
> Why would I even assume the principle of Relativity is valid to
> explain the null result of the MMX? That would be too much of a flat-
> earth thinker.
So the answer is, I take it, no.
>
> > There are
> > actually a whole bunch of approaches to doing that, just as there is
> > always more than one way to derive a result using algebra.
>
> Yes, once if you know what you have to fudge your results to anything
> can be done through creative usage of matheMagic tricks.
Actually, no that isn't true. You cannot prove two opposite
conclusions from the same premise using two different paths of sound
algebra. Sorry, but no.
> The analogy
> is like a pile of foul dung seems to attract all the flies.
>
> > But here's
> > one:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> That one is a total BS. It is a fine example of the above analogy.
Ah, so apparently you haven't seen that one before, either.
>
> In his only book, Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two
> identical equations equating zero with zero.
Then you should be able to point out where Einstein did the same in
the above article, which is where it was originally done. :>)
> That is some matheMagic
> trick, but unfortunately it is an old one.
>
> In the meantime, the following is still true.
>
>
>
Eric Gisse
[...]
I'm wondering if you have ever seen KW give a literature reference for
his decidedly non-standard terminology and ideas.
Koobee Wublee
> On May 4, 1:01 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is taken care in the Galilean transform. That is a case of three
> > parties. We have been discussion a case of two parties. Your
> > application is faulty which reflects what your understanding of the
> > principle of Relativity. <Shrug>
>
> What three parties?
When you finally understand the Galilean transformation, you will find
out.
> There is a single system being observed in two
> different reference frames.
Who is being observed? Hopefully, you will get it someday.
> OK, let's recap. The principle of relativity says that the laws of
> physics must be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of
> inertial reference frame.
> You are taking this to also be a law a physics, which means that the
> principle of relativity (which talks about the laws of physics) must
> be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of inertial
> reference frame.
The principle of Relativity is more than a law of physics. It is a
law to describe how one law of physics associated with one frame that
describes an event is related to another law of physics associated
with another frame that describes another similar event.
> I'm sorry. Where in there is there a physical law that dictates the
> the twins must age the same?
In this case, these two similar events are the agings of the twins.
> You haven't answered it yet.
Yes, I did.
> > Aging is a physical law, under the principle of relativity,
>
> No, it's not! What on earth gave you that idea? What physical law
> governs this?
How on earth do you not agree with that?
> > no one can
> > age differently from the others just because his speed is different
> > from the others.
> > Thus, experiments do not agree with the results of the Lorentz
> > transform. <shrug>
>
> Actually, if you'd read them, you find that they do.
You don't read the Lorentz transform. You apply them. <shrug>
> > Why would I even assume the principle of Relativity is valid to
> > explain the null result of the MMX? That would be too much of a flat-
> > earth thinker.
>
> So the answer is, I take it, no.
The question is so irrelevant.
> > Yes, once if you know what you have to fudge your results to anything
> > can be done through creative usage of matheMagic tricks.
>
> Actually, no that isn't true. You cannot prove two opposite
> conclusions from the same premise using two different paths of sound
> algebra. Sorry, but no.
In another words, you have run out of arguments. Now, you are just
throwing BS.
> > The analogy
> > is like a pile of foul dung seems to attract all the flies.
>
> > > But here's
> > > one:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> > That one is a total BS. It is a fine example of the above analogy.
>
> Ah, so apparently you haven't seen that one before, either.
You are wrong on that. <shrug>
> > In his only book, Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two
> > identical equations equating zero with zero.
>
> Then you should be able to point out where Einstein did the same in
> the above article, which is where it was originally done. :>)
I did. In the meantime, the following is still true.
karand...@yahoo.com
Can't you calculate , towelhead? Of course you can't, you never
calculate anything, you just PRETEND, all you can do is to eat shit.
It's a simple calculation, even freshmen can do it.
But you only PRETEND to know physics, you can't calculate anything for
yourself, motherfucker.
If you spent less time smelling ass at your local mosque and more
time studying, you would have known the solution to this elementary
exercise. It is too late for you, old fart........Alzheimer has set
in.
Eric Gisse
Stop that.
Insulting him based on his religion and ethnicity is _not cool_.
karand...@yahoo.com
>
> Now, show me the other point of view, and prove that they agree.
>
They don't, shithead, that the whole point of the elementary exercise.
Now, go ahead and eat up your own excrement, towelhead. Go ahead and
eat mine as well.
Koobee Wublee
> On May 4, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now, show me the other point of view, and prove that they agree.
>
> They don't,
If they don't, the principle of relativity would fall apart. The
Lorentz transform would collapse with it. SR would crumble without
the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> shithead, that the whole point of the elementary
> exercise.
It is an impossible task to prove the reciprocal result of an event.
Yes, reality hurts. You don't have to throw your own crap around in
anger. Just accept the reality. <shrug>
> Now, you need to go to lick up your own excrement, towelhead.
No, I don't have any. You have thrown your waste around for quite
sometime. It is time to act like a grown-up and pick up your pieces
of sh*t.
karand...@yahoo.com
> On May 4, 10:42 pm, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 12:04 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now, show me the other point of view, and prove that they agree.
>
> > They don't,
>
> If they don't, the principle of relativity would fall apart. The
> Lorentz transform would collapse with it. SR would crumble without
> the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
No Lorentz transforms in this simple exercise, mr Dingle(berry)
Persistent cretin, I showed you, you just need to able to calculate
the simple integral of sqrt(1-v(t)^2/c^2) where you understand that
the profiles for the speed v(t) for the twins are NOT identical. All
the ass fumes you inhale at your local mosque combined with the early
onset of Alzheimer are impairing your ability to understand a freshman
exercise.
> > shithead, that the whole point of the elementary
> > exercise.
>
> It is an impossible task to prove the reciprocal result of an event.
>
Because it is not reciprocal? Try checking on the speed profiles of
the twins. Hint: one accelerates, turns around, etc, etc. You know, 9-
th grade physics. Have you been home schooled in Gaza?
>
> > Now, you need to go to lick up your own excrement, towelhead.
>
> No, I don't have any.
Then eat it. You deserve it.
PD
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On May 4, 11:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 4, 1:01 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is taken care in the Galilean transform. That is a case of three
> > > parties. We have been discussion a case of two parties. Your
> > > application is faulty which reflects what your understanding of the
> > > principle of Relativity. <Shrug>
> >
> > What three parties?
>
> When you finally understand the Galilean transformation, you will find
> out.
You mean you can't answer the question?
>
> > There is a single system being observed in two
> > different reference frames.
>
> Who is being observed? Hopefully, you will get it someday.
The single system. Why? What do you think it is?
>
> > OK, let's recap. The principle of relativity says that the laws of
> > physics must be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of
> > inertial reference frame.
> > You are taking this to also be a law a physics, which means that the
> > principle of relativity (which talks about the laws of physics) must
> > be the same and of the same form regardless of choice of inertial
> > reference frame.
>
> The principle of Relativity is more than a law of physics. It is a
> law to describe how one law of physics associated with one frame that
> describes an event is related to another law of physics associated
> with another frame that describes another similar event.
No, it isn't. It simply says that the laws of physics are the same.
Let me give you an example.
Let's take a collision of a car with a shopping cart, and look at it
from two reference frames.
We'll choose one of those reference frames to be the one where the
shopping cart is at rest initially, and the car is initially moving.
We'll choose one of those reference frames to be the one where the car
is at rest initially, and the shopping cart is initially moving.
Keep in mind we're looking at the *same* collision, not two different
collisions.
In both those reference frames, momentum conservation will be upheld,
though of course in one reference frame it is one object that has
initial momentum zero, and in the other reference frame it is the
other object that has initial momentum zero.
It is NOT a conclusion of the principle of relativity that, regardless
of the inertial reference frame, it is always the shopping cart that
has initial momentum zero.
It is NOT a conclusion of the principle of relativity that, regardless
of the inertial reference frame, the description of the collision will
always be "a moving car ran into a stationary shopping cart."
In fact, it is NOT a conclusion of the principle of relativity that,
regardless of inertial reference frame, there is always an object with
initial momentum zero at all.
In the same way, it is NOT a conclusion of the principle of relativity
that the "moving twin will always be found to be younger", regardless
of inertial reference frame, because "the moving twin will always
found to be younger" is not a law of physics. "The moving twin will
always found to be younger" is in fact an INCORRECT statement of what
SR really says, so it is not only not a physical law, it isn't even
right.
>
> > I'm sorry. Where in there is there a physical law that dictates the
> > the twins must age the same?
>
> In this case, these two similar events are the agings of the twins.
>
> > You haven't answered it yet.
>
> Yes, I did.
>
> > > Aging is a physical law, under the principle of relativity,
> >
> > No, it's not! What on earth gave you that idea? What physical law
> > governs this?
>
> How on earth do you not agree with that?
Because it is not a physical law, it is not what SR says, and the
principle of relativity in no way says this must be true.
>
> > > no one can
> > > age differently from the others just because his speed is different
> > > from the others.
>
> > > Thus, experiments do not agree with the results of the Lorentz
> > > transform. <shrug>
> >
> > Actually, if you'd read them, you find that they do.
>
> You don't read the Lorentz transform. You apply them. <shrug>
I meant the papers describing the experiments. Reading comprehension
difficulty, apparently.
>
> > > Why would I even assume the principle of Relativity is valid to
> > > explain the null result of the MMX? That would be too much of a flat-
> > > earth thinker.
> >
> > So the answer is, I take it, no.
>
> The question is so irrelevant.
>
> > > Yes, once if you know what you have to fudge your results to anything
> > > can be done through creative usage of matheMagic tricks.
> >
> > Actually, no that isn't true. You cannot prove two opposite
> > conclusions from the same premise using two different paths of sound
> > algebra. Sorry, but no.
>
> In another words, you have run out of arguments. Now, you are just
> throwing BS.
No, I am pointing out to you that your statement that "your results to
anything can be done through creative use of matheMagic tricks" is
simply incorrect.
If you think it is correct, please provide an example of starting with
the same premise, using two different paths of sound algebra, and
arriving at opposite or contradicting conclusions.
>
> > > The analogy
> > > is like a pile of foul dung seems to attract all the flies.
> >
> > > > But here's
> > > > one:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> >
> > > That one is a total BS. It is a fine example of the above analogy.
> >
> > Ah, so apparently you haven't seen that one before, either.
>
> You are wrong on that. <shrug>
>
> > > In his only book, Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two
> > > identical equations equating zero with zero.
> >
> > Then you should be able to point out where Einstein did the same in
> > the above article, which is where it was originally done. :>)
>
> I did. In the meantime, the following is still true.
Where did you point out that in the article I linked to above,
Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two identical equations
equating zero with zero? Cite the referent post, please.
Eric Gisse
[...]
I will assist you in understanding Koobe Wublee...
When he says...
"spacetime" he *really means* proper time, unless he's really talking
about spacetime. In which case you are an idiot for not telling the
difference.
"curvature" he *really means* the metric, unless he's actually talking
about the quantities _we_ know as curvature. You are an idiot for not
knowing this and getting confused.
"line element" he *really means* the metric. He doesn't know or care
that there is a difference.
"the metric" he *really means* the matrix of g_ij elements projected
down onto a specified coordinate basis.
"geometry" he *really means* what we call the metric.
To the surprise of nobody but Koobe Wublee, this makes communication
very fucking difficult. Then when I say that the metric is a
coordinate independent quantity [Metric being a tensor...], he gets
indignant and refuses to fix his broken vocabulary. All the while
insisting we are the idiots.
All your references will be wrong. Everything you have learned is
wrong. Don't bother asking him to support his arguments with
mathematics or a literature reference, because he has neither. That
will not, however, stop him from asking for both of them from you.
Don't worry - even if he reads them, he will not understand them
because otherwise he might learn something and become less of an
idiot.
If you ask him to provide support for his arguments in terms of
examples, he will say the quantities which you desire are in his 'past
posts'. Note that it is up to you to search for them - if you can't
find them, that does not mean they do not exist. It just means you are
an idiot.
If you go back to his previous postings, and show him saying the
_exact same thing_ he is currently denying, you are obviously an idiot
for misinterpreting what he said. It does not matter if he then says
it again, you are still an idiot.
I could write more but it is clear I know way too fucking much about
this guy as it is.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178402391.3...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I will assist you in understanding Koobe Wublee...
>
> When he says...
>
> "spacetime" he *really means* proper time, unless he's really talking
> about spacetime. In which case you are an idiot for not telling the
> difference.
> "curvature" he *really means* the metric, unless he's actually talking
> about the quantities _we_ know as curvature. You are an idiot for not
> knowing this and getting confused.
> "line element" he *really means* the metric. He doesn't know or care
> that there is a difference.
> "the metric" he *really means* the matrix of g_ij elements projected
> down onto a specified coordinate basis.
> "geometry" he *really means* what we call the metric.
Yes, *excellent* characterisation.
>
> To the surprise of nobody but Koobe Wublee, this makes communication
> very fucking difficult.
That's what trolls are here for :-)
> Then when I say that the metric is a
> coordinate independent quantity [Metric being a tensor...], he gets
> indignant and refuses to fix his broken vocabulary. All the while
> insisting we are the idiots.
>
> All your references will be wrong. Everything you have learned is
> wrong. Don't bother asking him to support his arguments with
> mathematics or a literature reference, because he has neither. That
> will not, however, stop him from asking for both of them from you.
> Don't worry - even if he reads them, he will not understand them
> because otherwise he might learn something and become less of an
> idiot.
>
> If you ask him to provide support for his arguments in terms of
> examples, he will say the quantities which you desire are in his 'past
> posts'. Note that it is up to you to search for them - if you can't
> find them, that does not mean they do not exist. It just means you are
> an idiot.
>
> If you go back to his previous postings, and show him saying the
> _exact same thing_ he is currently denying, you are obviously an idiot
> for misinterpreting what he said. It does not matter if he then says
> it again, you are still an idiot.
>
> I could write more but it is clear I know way too fucking much about
> this guy as it is.
Indeed.
Do you also know that he is a retired aerospace engineer and that
he used to be aka Australopithecus Afarensis, Scholarly Fungi,
Time Traveler, Lordly Amoeba, Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo, and
who knows what more?
Dirk Vdm
JanPB
You might also add that he stated many times, and with a perfectly
straight face, that he is the only person who understands Riemann
curvature.
--
Jan Bielawski
JanPB
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Do you also know that he is a retired aerospace engineer and that [...]
OK, so what IS it about retired engineers and relativity? There is
obviously an odd connection of some sort. This pattern has been
persistent for many engineer-years around here.
--
Jan Bielawski
karand...@yahoo.com
> On May 5, 3:10 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Do you also know that he is a retired aerospace engineer and that [...]
>
> OK, so what IS it about retired engineers and relativity? There is
> obviously an odd connection of some sort. This pattern has been
> persistent for many engineer-years around here.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
All the above flaws notwithstanding nothing stops the towelhead from
PRETENDING to do physics and PRETENDING to discuss imagined flaws in
GR when the Australpithecus has been exposed to being unable to
understand something as simple as the calculations in the twins
paradox.
To shut up this shitforbrains ask him to put his "musings" in a
mathematical form . This will make him "disappear" for a while. He
will "reappear" when he thinks that people have forgotten about the
request. Then you hit him again with tha same request and you see him
scurrying like a rat. He is unable to perform ANY calculations. Hit
him where it hurts.
Eric Gisse
The fun thing is that every time I ask him to _demonstrate_ that
understanding he tends to ignore the question, answer a question that
was not asked, or simply run off for a week or two.
>
> --
> Jan Bielawski
karand...@yahoo.com
Yep, the standard scumbag_PRETEND_that_IT_does_physics behavior. KW is
not a "he" , it's an "it". We shouldn't engage in any more verbal
sparring with IT , we should ask IT to use math to prove ITS points.
Then, sit back, relax and watch IT scurry away.
Eric Gisse
> On May 5, 3:35 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:10 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Do you also know that he is a retired aerospace engineer and that [...]
>
> > OK, so what IS it about retired engineers and relativity? There is
> > obviously an odd connection of some sort. This pattern has been
> > persistent for many engineer-years around here.
>
> > --
> > Jan Bielawski
>
> All the above flaws notwithstanding nothing stops the towelhead from
> PRETENDING to do physics and PRETENDING to discuss imagined flaws in
> GR when the Australpithecus has been exposed to being unable to
> understand something as simple as the calculations in the twins
> paradox.
Knock that "towelhead" shit off.
Koobee Wublee
> > When you finally understand the Galilean transformation, you will find
> > out.
>
> You mean you can't answer the question?
No.
> > > There is a single system being observed in two
> > > different reference frames.
>
> > Who is being observed? Hopefully, you will get it someday.
>
> The single system. Why? What do you think it is?
The Galilean transformation involves the following 3 characters.
** Observer 1
** Observer 2
** Observed
This transform describes how the observed is gong to be observed by
observer 1 in relation to how the same observed is going to be
observed by observer 2, and vice versa. It is a tale of 3 points.
<shrug>
> [...]
>
> it is NOT a conclusion of the principle of relativity
> that the "moving twin will always be found to be younger", regardless
> of inertial reference frame, because "the moving twin will always
> found to be younger" is not a law of physics.
This correct.
> "The moving twin will
> always found to be younger" is in fact an INCORRECT statement of what
> SR really says, so it is not only not a physical law, it isn't even
> right.
This is correct as well.
> Because it is not a physical law, it is not what SR says, and the
> principle of relativity in no way says this must be true.
You are wrong here. Aging is a law of physics. The principle of
relativity says this law (and others) cannot be observed to be
differently based on speed difference.
> > You don't read the Lorentz transform. You apply them. <shrug>
>
> I meant the papers describing the experiments. Reading comprehension
> difficulty, apparently.
No, writing deficiency.
> Where did you point out that in the article I linked to above,
> Einstein pulled out the Lorentz transform from two identical equations
> equating zero with zero? Cite the referent post, please.
In his book. How many books did he write?
In the meantime, we still have the following.